The Biblical distinction between Manslaughter and Murder...

This week we are addressing the issue of capital punishment. Specifically, we are asking and answering the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of capital punishment? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take?"

Yesterday, we looked at the current conversation in our culture when it comes to the issue of Capital Punishment. At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of capital punishment are politicians and others who advocate for capital punishment. Those who advocate for capital punishment use several arguments to support their position. At the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of capital punishment would be politicians and others who oppose capital punishment. Those who oppose capital punishment use several arguments to support their position.

We then began to look at what the letters that make up the Bible reveal about capital punishment by looking at an event from history that has been preserved and recorded for us in a section of a letter that is found in the Old Testament of the Bible called the book of Joshua. The book of Joshua records the efforts of the Jewish nation to restart their lives after forty years of wandering in a literal desert of hurt, pain, and failure.

After forty years, after an entire generation of Jewish people died in the desert as a result of their selfishness and rebellion, a man named Joshua led the next generation of the Jewish people into the land that the Lord had promised them. After taking control of the land that the Lord had promised them, the Lord, through Joshua, began to establish how the Jewish people were to live in the land that the Lord had promised them.

In Joshua 20:1-3, we see the Lord command Joshua to designate cities of refuge. These cities of refuge were designed to be a place where a person could seek asylum while awaiting trial for their actions that resulted in the death of another person. We talked about the reality that the letters that make up the Bible makes a clear distinction between killing and murder. From a biblical perspective, there is a significant difference between a person whose actions accidentally cause the death of another, which is defined as killing, and a person who plots and plans to take the life of another, which is defined as murder.

In addition, the letters that make up the Bible is also very clear about the consequences that should occur when one human being acts on a thought out plan to murder another human being. In the first book of the Bible, called the book of Genesis, we see God provide clear instructions as to the consequences that the person who had committed murder was to face. We see these consequences revealed for us in Genesis 9:6:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

God’s consequence for willingly and thoughtfully taking another’s life was death. Murder, was to receive a punishment that matched the crime. Today, we call this capital punishment. As we talked about earlier in this series, notice who is responsible for carrying out capital punishment? Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

You see, the Lord was not going to carry out the consequence of capital punishment. Instead, other men, as His representatives, were to carry out the consequence of capital punishment. And it is this verse that we see the foundational principles for the establishment of government. Here we see the Lord delegate to human beings throughout history the responsibility to carry out the punishment of evil and to protect the common good of society.

Did you also notice the reason why God calls for the death of the person who willingly and thoughtfully took another person’s life by committing murder: “for in the image of God He made man”. The Lord here is echoing back to something that He had said earlier and that we have looked at repeatedly throughout this series, which is found in Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ²⁷ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

As we discussed throughout this series, every human being bears the thumbprint of God. We were created in God’s relational image to experience a relationship with God vertically and relationships with one another horizontally. In addition, as a result of being created in the image of God, we are created to rule over the earth as God's representative here on earth.

And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation. Humanity has been divinely designed by God in His image and is of greater value than any other animal. Every human being on the planet has been woven together with a personality and a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature from the moment of conception.

And throughout the pages of the letters that make up the Bible, we repeatedly see reinforced that humanity has been divinely designed with a dignity of life and humanity has been divinely designed with sanctity of life. And because of that reality, the Lord forbids that any human being willingly and thoughtfully take another’s life. We see this reality in Exodus 20:13:

You shall not murder.

You see, the Lord established capital punishment to demonstrate how much He values life. God cares and values life so much that He demands the life of those who would willingly take another’s life. Let me say that again. Because mankind is created in the image of God; because mankind was designed to represent and reflect the nature and character of God on earth; and because God values all human life; He demands the life of those who would willingly take another’s life by the act of murder.

In the book of Joshua, at this time in history, how the Lord demanded the life of those who took the life of another through the act of murder in the Old Testament was through the avenger of blood. The avenger of blood usually was the closest male relative of the one who had been slain. The avenger of blood was responsible to seek retribution, or justice, and not vengeance, for the death of a member of the Jewish people.

The avenger, however, was not expected to make the distinction between murder and an accidental killing; he was simply the instrument to execute justice and punishment upon the murderer by killing the murderer. So because of the distinction that exists between killing and murder, there needed to be these cities of refuge that would provide the opportunity to be able to determine the motivation behind the actions of the accused in the death of another human being.

Friday, we will discover the process of how this distinction was to be made and the role that the cities of refuge played in making that distinction...

The current conversation in our culture surrounding the issue of Capital Punishment...

At the church where I serve, we just came to the conclusion of a sermon series entitled “Vote for Jesus”. During this series, our hope and our prayer was to accomplish three specific goals. First, our hope and our prayer was to demonstrate that Jesus is not a republican and Jesus is not a democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God Jesus is the one that we are to place our hope in, not a political party.

Second, our hope and our prayer was to equip and empower us to think critically and Biblically when it comes to the issues that our culture is faced with that often find themselves expressed in the political process. And third, our hope and prayer was to provide a framework from the message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how we as followers of Jesus are to engage in the government and in the political process in way that reveals and reflects Jesus to those around us.

This week, as we come to the conclusion of this series, I would like for us to spend our time together addressing the issue of capital punishment. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of capital punishment? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take?"

Now, at one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of capital punishment are politicians and others who advocate for capital punishment. Those who advocate for capital punishment use several arguments to support their position. First, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that capital punishment gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Second, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that capital punishment creates another form of crime deterrent.

Third, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that capital punishment results is justice being better served. Fourth, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. Fifth, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. And sixth, those who advocate for capital punishment argue that capital punishment gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

At the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of capital punishment would be politicians and others who oppose capital punishment. Those who oppose capital punishment use several arguments to support their position. First, opponents of capital punishment argue that the financial cost to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Second, opponents of capital punishment argue that capital punishment is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.

Third, opponents of capital punishment argue that the endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. In addition, some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.  Fourth, opponents of capital punishment argue that as a society we have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. Fifth, opponents of capital punishment argue that life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent than capital punishment.

Sixth, opponents of capital punishment argue that the prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. Seventh, opponents of capital punishment argue that the possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. And finally, opponents of capital punishment argue that capital punishment is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

Now, with all that background in mind, let’s take a look at what the message and teachings of Jesus have to say when it comes to the issue of capital punishment. Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible reveal about capital punishment? We find the answer to this question in an event from history that has been preserved and recorded for us in a section of a letter that is found in the Old Testament of the Bible called the book of Joshua.

The book of Joshua records the efforts of the Jewish nation to restart their lives after forty years of wandering in a literal desert of hurt, pain, and failure. You see, the Jewish nation spent forty years wandering in the desert after repeatedly demonstrating their lack trust in the Lord’s promises. After being delivered from slavery at the hands of the nation of Egypt by the Lord, the Lord, through a man named Moses, began to lead the Jewish nation toward the land that He had promised them.

However, as the Jewish people moved from Egypt and towards the Promised Land, however, problems began to arise. Instead of looking forward to the new start that God was delivering them to, the Jewish people instead chose to spend their time looking back. As a result of the selfishness and rebellion of the Jewish nation, the Jewish people spent forty years wandering in the desert as a consequence of their selfishness and rebellion.

After forty years, after an entire generation of Jewish people died in the desert as a result of their selfishness and rebellion, a man named Joshua led the next generation of the Jewish people into the land that the Lord had promised them. After taking control of the land that the Lord had promised them, the Lord, through Joshua, began to establish how the Jewish people were to live in the land that the Lord had promised them. And it is in this context that we jump into this event from history, beginning in Joshua 20:1-3:

Then the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying, "Speak to the sons

of Israel, saying, 'Designate the cities of refuge, of which I

spoke to you through Moses, that the manslayer who kills

any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee

there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of

blood.

Upon finishing the task of dividing the Promised Land amongst the twelve tribes that formed the Jewish people, the Lord God commanded Joshua to designate cities of refuge. Now, in order to fully understand what the Lord commanded Joshua to do in these verses, we first need to understand what cities of refuge were and their significance to the Jewish people.

In another letter that is recorded for us in our Bibles, called the Book of Numbers (35:9-34), the Lord commanded Moses, who was the previous leader of the Jewish people, that upon entering into and settling the Promised Land, the Jewish people were to set aside six cities that were to be called cities of refuge. These cities of refuge were designed to be a place where a person could seek asylum while awaiting trial for their actions that resulted in the death of another person.

You see, the letters that make up the Bible makes a clear distinction between killing and murder. From a biblical perspective, there is a significant difference between a person whose actions accidentally cause the death of another, which is defined as killing, and a person who plots and plans to take the life of another, which is defined as murder. The words unintentionally and without premeditation here literally mean something that occurs accidentally or without previous thought or knowledge.

And just like today, there were tragic times when death occurs as a result of the accidental and unplanned actions of others. Unfortunately and tragically, there are occasions that people are killed as a result of the accidental and unplanned behavior of others.  And just like today, there were occasions where people act by willingly and thoughtfully taking the life of another human being as a result of a plot and plan that flowed from selfish rebellion and sin. The letters that make up the Bible refer to that act as murder.

In addition, the letters that make up the Bible is also very clear about the consequences that should occur when one human being acts on a thought out plan to murder another human being. In the first book of the Bible, called the book of Genesis, we see God provide clear instructions as to the consequences that the person who had committed murder was to face.

Tomorrow, we will see these consequences revealed for us…

To vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that that recognize and protect the sanctity of life by prohibiting euthanasia...

This week, we have been addressing the issue of euthanasia. Specifically, we have been asking and answering the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to euthanasia? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take? How would Jesus engage in the conversation regarding euthanasia?”

We defined euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, doctor-assisted dying, and more loosely termed mercy killing, as taking deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent and unstoppable suffering. There are two main classifications of euthanasia. The first, which is referred to as voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted with the consent of the patient. The second, referred to as involuntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted without consent.

We looked at various arguments used by advocates and opponents of euthanasia. We then began to look at what the letters that make up the Bible reveal about euthanasia. We were reminded that every human being bears the thumbprint of God. We were created in God’s relational image. We were created for a relationship with God vertically and for relationships with one another horizontally and to represent Him on earth.

 

And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation. Every human being on the planet has been woven together with a personality and a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature from the moment of conception. Throughout the pages of the letters that make up the Bible, humanity has been divinely designed with a dignity of life and humanity has been divinely designed with sanctity of life.

And because of that reality, the Lord forbids that any human being willingly and thoughtfully take another’s life. We saw this reality in Exodus 20:13. Yet, while Jesus and the authors of the letters that make up the Bible repeatedly reinforce the dignity and sanctity of life, the letters that make up the Bible also reveal the reality of the mortality of man. We then asked “how are we to navigate the tension between the sanctity and dignity of life and the mortality of man when it comes to the issue of euthanasia? And does the message and teachings of Jesus and the Bible give us any specifics when it comes to the issue of euthanasia?”

 We discover the answer to these questions in an event from history that is recorded for us in the opening sections of a letter in the Old Testament of the Bible called the book of 2 Samuel. At this time in history a man named Saul was the king of the Jewish nation. Saul, however, was a king who selfishly rebelled against the Lord by refusing to obey the commands of the Lord.  As a result of his selfishness and rebellion, Saul found himself engaged in a military battle against the Philistines, who were the hated enemy of the Jewish people. As a result of this battle, Saul and his sons died.

An Amalekite, who discovered Saul and his armor bearer’s body on the battle field, decided to tell David that he had done what King Saul’s armor bearer refused to do, which was to kill King Saul, so that he would not suffer. The reason why the Amalekite lied about what actually happened to King Saul is because the Amalekite believed that he would receive recognition and a reward from David for killing King Saul. After all, King Saul had been trying to kill David for years. After all, after Saul was dead, David would be King.

So, if he took credit for killing King Saul, David would hook him up for helping him become king. Or so the Amalekite thought. What happened, however, was not what the Amalekite expected, as we see in verse 11-16:

 ¹¹Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so also did all the men who were with him. ¹² They mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan and for the people of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. ¹³ David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." ¹⁴ Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?" ¹⁵ And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. ¹⁶ David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD'S anointed.'"?

David responded to the news of King Saul’s death by killing the person who had claimed to put the king to death. You see, David believed the Amalekites story. David believed that the Amalekite put King Saul to death in order that King Saul would no longer experience pain and suffering.  The Amalekite took deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent and unstoppable suffering, didn’t he? The Amalekite’s actions were the textbook definition of euthanasia, by the way.

The Amalekite claimed that he had killed the king out of mercy for the king. However, while David believed the Amalekite’s story, David did not respond to the story by giving the Amalekite reward and recognition for his actions. Instead, David ordered that the Amalekite be killed. Did you notice the reason why he ordered the Amalekite to be killed?  "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD'S anointed.'” You see, David viewed what is the textbook definition of euthanasia as murder. And because he viewed what the Amalekite did as murder, David ordered that the consequence of capital punishment be imposed on the Amalekite.

And it is here, in the event from history, that we discover the answer to the questions “What should the policy would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of euthanasia? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take?” in that to vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that that recognize and protect the sanctity of life by prohibiting euthanasia.

You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that humanity has been created in the image of God, and created for relationships and to represent Him on earth. And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that for Jesus, the issue is not quality of life; the issue is sanctity of life. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that all of humanity has an appointment with death and that the Lord is sovereign over life and death. And to vote for Jesus is to promote policies that advocate for the sanctity of all life and provide opportunities for people to finish life with dignity and with comfort as they approach their appointment with death.

Now a natural question that arises here is “Well Dave, that sounds great, but what does this practically look like in the life of someone who is suffering as a result of a terminal illness? To answer this question, I would like for us to spend some time providing some guiding principles when it comes to medical care at the end of one’s life.

First, there is a difference between withholding food and water and withholding medical care and treatment. When food and water is withheld, the guaranteed result is death. However, when medical care or treatment is withheld, such as removing someone from life support systems, there is no guarantee that the result will be immediate death.

Second, there is a difference between prescribing medication to ease pain that might kill and intentionally prescribing medication that you know will kill. If a patient is prescribed pain medication that turns out to be too great a dose and that results in death, there is no intent to kill; the only intent is to alleviate pain and suffering. To prescribe medication that you know will kill is to have intent to kill. A Biblical response to end of life care that follows the message and teachings of Jesus incorporates the principles of pain management, proper nutrition, and a focus on the dignity and sanctity of life that considers that the Lord is the sovereign giver and taker of life.

Third, concerning medical care toward the end of one’s life, a living will is extremely important for two reasons. First, a living will removes much of the stress and pressure that family members could experience when it comes to making major medical decisions, because in a living will, those intentions are already clearly spelled out.  Second, a living will provides necessary direction to health care professionals that you might not be able to give if you suffer a serious medical condition.

Now you might be thinking to yourself “I am so glad I read this today! What an uplifting message!” If those thoughts are running through your mind, I want to remind us what the message and teachings of Jesus teach us about death. You see, whenever you see the word death in the Bible, think of the concept of separation.

When we physically die, our soul is separated from our body. As a result of selfishness and rebellion, we experience spiritual death, which is separation from God and the relationship with Him that we were created for. Now if we physically die, where our soul is separated from our bodies, while we are spiritually dead, separated from God, the letters that make us the Bible tell us that we experience eternal death, which is eternal separation from God.

You see, the question is not whether or not we live forever; everyone lives forever. We were created as eternal beings. The question is where are we going to live for all eternity. So when we experience physical death our souls are separated from our bodies as we move to where we will spend all eternity.

And because of the reality, we are to vote for Jesus by promoting policies that protect that sanctity and dignity of life, during our time here on earth in our physical bodies, until the Lord brings us to where we will spend all eternity.

Navigating the tension between the sanctity and dignity of life and the mortality of man...

This week, we are addressing the issue of euthanasia. Specifically, we are asking and answering the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to euthanasia? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take? How would Jesus engage in the conversation regarding euthanasia?”

Yesterday, we defined euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, doctor-assisted dying, and more loosely termed mercy killing, as taking a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent and unstoppable suffering. There are two main classifications of euthanasia. The first, which is referred to as voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted with the consent of the patient. The second, referred to as involuntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself. We then looked at both ends of the conversation that is currently occurring in our culture when it comes to euthanasia.

Today, with all that background in mind, let’s take a look at what the message and teachings of Jesus have to say when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible reveal about euthanasia? So let’s begin where the Bible begins, which is a passage that we looked at last week that is recorded in the very first letter of the Bible called the book of Genesis, in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ²⁷ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

As we discussed and discovered last week, in these verses we see the Triune God’s design and desire for the creation of humanity: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”. To be created in the image of God means that every human being bears the thumbprint of God. We were created in God’s relational image. We were created for a relationship with God vertically and for relationships with one another horizontally.

But not only were we divinely designed for relationships. In addition, as a result of being created in the image of God, we are created for relationships and to represent Him on earth. And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation. As we talked about last week, your dog, your cat, a horse or any other animal does not wonder why they are here. Your dog, your cat, a horse or any other animal does not wonder what happens when they die: Your dog, your cat, a horse or any other animal are trying to find God.

Humanity has been divinely designed by God in His image and is of greater value than any other animal. Every human being on the planet has been woven together with a personality and a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature from the moment of conception. Throughout the pages of the letters that make up the Bible, humanity has been divinely designed with a dignity of life and humanity has been divinely designed with sanctity of life. And because of that reality, the Lord forbids that any human being willingly and thoughtfully take another’s life. We see this reality in Exodus 20:13:

You shall not murder.

Yet, while Jesus and the authors of the letters that make up the Bible repeatedly reinforce the dignity and sanctity of life, the letters that make up the Bible also reveal the reality of the mortality of man. The timeless reality is that all humanity has an appointment with death. For example, we see the Psalmist proclaim this reality in Psalm 89:48:

What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?

We see Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, also reinforce the reality of the mortality of man in Ecclesiastes 8:8:

No man has authority to restrain the wind with the wind, or authority over the day of death;

But how are we to navigate the tension between the sanctity and dignity of life and the mortality of man when it comes to the issue of euthanasia? And does the message and teachings of Jesus and the Bible give us any specifics when it comes to the issue of euthanasia? We discover the answer to these questions in an event from history that is recorded for us in the opening sections of a letter in the Old Testament of the Bible called the book of 2 Samuel.

At this time in history a man named Saul was the king of the Jewish nation. Saul, however, was a king who selfishly rebelled against the Lord by refusing to obey the commands of the Lord.  As a result of his selfishness and rebellion, Saul found himself engaged in a military battle against the Philistines, who were the hated enemy of the Jewish people.

As a result of this battle, Saul and his sons died. And it is in this context, as word travels about the defeat of Saul and the Jewish army in battle, that we jump into this event from history beginning in 2 Samuel 1:1-10:

Now it came about after the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, that David remained two days in Ziklag. ² On the third day, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul, with his clothes torn and dust on his head. And it came about when he came to David that he fell to the ground and prostrated himself. ³ Then David said to him, "From where do you come?" And he said to him, "I have escaped from the camp of Israel." ⁴ David said to him, "How did things go? Please tell me." And he said, "The people have fled from the battle, and also many of the people have fallen and are dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also."

⁵ So David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" ⁶ The young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely. ⁷ "When he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, 'Here I am.' ⁸ "He said to me, 'Who are you?' And I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' ⁹ "Then he said to me, 'Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me.' ¹⁰ "So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."

Now to fully understand what happened during this battle, we need some additional information that is found in the very last chapter of the previous letter, which ironically enough is called 1 Samuel. In 1 Samuel 31, we discover that Saul was wounded in battle by archers who were able to hit him with arrows. 

Badly wounded, believing that his condition was terminal and untreatable, Saul called for his armor bearer to kill him. Saul explained that the reason why he wanted his armor bearer to kill him was because he did not want the Philistines “to make sport of him.”  In other words, Saul was afraid that he would be captured by the Philistines and that the Philistines would cause him to suffer before he died. So Saul wanted his armor bearer to kill him so that he could avoid the pain and suffering that would occur by being captured.

The armor bearer, however, refused to kill Saul. Saul responded by the armor bearer’s refusal to kill him by killing himself so that he would avoid and further pain and suffering. An Amalekite, who discovered Saul and his armor bearer’s body on the battle field, decided to tell David that he had done what the armor bearer refused to do, which was to kill King Saul, so that he would not suffer.

Now here is a question to consider: If the Amalekite was able to leave the battlefield alive and make it to David to tell him what happened, why couldn’t King Saul and his armor bearer make it to David? You see, capture by the Philistines was not a certainty here. In addition, we see that King Saul was badly wounded. What we do not see is how badly he was wounded. We do not see that death from his wounds was a guarantee.

What we do see, is that Saul was suffering and believed that he was near death. What we do see is that Saul did not want to experience protracted pain and suffering. And because of that reality King Saul chose to end his life in order to avoid pain and suffering.  Now a natural question that arises here is “Why would the Amalekite say that he killed King Saul if King Saul killed himself?”

That is a great question.  The reason why the Amalekite lied about what actually happened to King Saul is because the Amalekite believed that he would receive recognition and a reward from David for killing King Saul. After all, King Saul had been trying to kill David for years. After all, after Saul was dead, David would be King.

So, if he took credit for killing King Saul, David would hook him up for helping him become king. Or so the Amalekite thought. What happened, however, was not what the Amalekite expected. Friday, we will discover what happened next...

The current conversation in our culture surrounding the issue of euthanasia...

At the church where I serve, we have been spending our time together in a sermon series entitled “Vote for Jesus”. During this series, our hope and our prayer is to accomplish three specific goals. First, our hope and our prayer is to demonstrate that Jesus is not a republican and Jesus is not a democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God Jesus is the one that we are to place our hope in, not a political party.

Second, our hope and our prayer is to equip and empower us to think critically and Biblically when it comes to the issues that our culture is faced with that often find themselves expressed in the political process. And third, our hope and prayer is to provide a framework from the message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how we as followers of Jesus are to engage in the government and in the political process in way that reveals and reflects Jesus to those around us.

This week, I would like for us to spend our time together addressing the issue of euthanasia. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to euthanasia? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take? How would Jesus engage in the conversation regarding euthanasia?”

First, let’s make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to what we are talking about when we use the term euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, doctor-assisted dying, and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent and unstoppable suffering.

There are two main classifications of euthanasia. The first, which is referred to as voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted with the consent of the patient. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in the countries of Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Switzerland. Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California have legalized assisted suicide. The second, referred to as involuntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.

While this issue does not garner near the emotion as the issue of abortion, those engaged in the conversation and debate surrounding euthanasia use many of the same arguments to support their positions. At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of euthanasia would be politicians and others who advocate for the right to practice euthanasia. Those who advocate for euthanasia use three main arguments to support their position.

The first argument could be described with the phrase “We need it” or 'the compassion argument'”.  Supporters of euthanasia believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is kinder than forcing them to continue their lives with suffering. The second argument could be described with the phrase “We want it or 'the autonomy argument'”.  Advocates for euthanasia believe that every patient has a right to choose when to die and that everyone deserves to determine their quality of life.

The third argument could be described with the phrase “We can control it” or 'the public policy argument'.  Proponents of euthanasia believe that euthanasia can be safely regulated by government legislation. And many who advocate for euthanasia, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the left”, often paint those who are against euthanasia as limiting the freedom of people’s rights over their bodies and the medical decisions that they make with their bodies to help ensure that everyone experiences the best quality of life.

On the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of euthanasia would be politicians and others who oppose euthanasia. Those who oppose euthanasia point to several arguments to support their position. First, those who oppose euthanasia argue that alternative treatments, such as palliative care and hospices, provide the ability to control and relieve nearly all the pain and symptoms that a terminally ill patient experiences. Second, those who oppose euthanasia argue that there is no ‘right’ to be killed and there are real dangers of ‘slippery slopes’. Opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving doctors the power to decide when a patient’s life is not worth living.  For example, in the Netherlands in 1990 around 1,000 patients were killed without their request.

Third, those who oppose euthanasia argue that we could never truly control it. Reports from the Netherlands, where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal, reveal that doctors do not always report cases of euthanasia. Fourth, those who oppose euthanasia argue that the assumption that patients should have a right to die would impose on doctors a duty to kill, thus restricting the autonomy of the doctor.  Also, a ‘right to die’ for some people might well become a ‘duty to die’ by others, particularly those who are vulnerable or dependent upon others.

And fifth, those who oppose euthanasia argue that depression in terminal cases can cloud perception and lead to faulty decisions concerning euthanasia by a terminally ill patient. And many who advocate for the prohibition of euthanasia, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the right”, often paint those who advocate for euthanasia as being immoral people who are murdering innocent lives and deny the fundamental sanctity of human life.

 Now, with all that background in mind, what policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of euthanasia? Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible reveal about euthanasia?

Tomorrow, we will begin to answer those questions…

To vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that recognize and protect the sanctity of life by prohibiting abortion...

This week, we have been addressing the issue of abortion. Specifically, I we have been asking and answering the questions “What should the policy would Jesus promote when it comes to abortion? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take? How would Jesus engage in the conversation surrounding the issue of abortion?”

So far this week, we have examined the arguments that are used by people on both ends of the conversation surrounding the issue of abortion. Then, on Wednesday, we drilled down into the “why” behind what the Bible says about the issue of abortion. We talked about the reality that, as a result of being created in the image of God, we are created for relationships and to represent Him on earth. And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation.

We ended Wednesday with t he reality that every human being on the planet has been woven together with a personality and a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature from the moment of conception. Now as soon as I just made that last statement, an objection may have formed in your mind. And if we were to have a conversation that objection would sound like this: Well Dave, how can you say that life begins at conception? Just because the Bible may claim that life begins at conception that does not mean science claims that life begins at conception.” 

If we were able to have that conversation, here would be my response: That is an interesting objection, because the Bible and science are not at odds with when life begins.

What science has demonstrated is that at moment of conception the fertilized egg has 46 chromosomes that are uniquely different from those of its mom and dad. At the moment of conception the fertilized egg scientifically is a unique person. In addition, science has demonstrated that at eight weeks the baby is sucking their thumb. At eight weeks a baby in the womb recoils from pricking. At eight weeks a baby in the womb responds to pain. At eight weeks all organs present. At eight weeks a baby in the womb has a functioning brain, heart, and kidneys, and even has fingerprints.  And this is significant because virtually all abortions occur after this point.

Now another objection that is often raised by those who advocate for abortion is “Well Dave, what about rape, incest, and the life of the mother?” This objection is a straw man argument. Now a straw man argument is when someone puts forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support.

You put forth a straw man argument because you know it will be easy argument for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position that your opponent was not arguing for. The reason that this argument is a straw man argument is because less that 1% of abortions that have ever been performed involve such cases. In addition, the advances in medical technology involving Cesarean Sections and neonatal care virtually eliminate the life of the mother argument.

As a matter of fact, the technological advances in medicine since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case are overwhelming the arguments of those who advocate for abortion. And because of the advances in science, combined with what the message and teachings of Jesus have to say about when life begins and when personhood begins, those who support abortion, along with our current culture, find themselves making arguments that are hypocritical in nature.

For example, in our culture, there is nothing worse than harming a child. In our culture, there is a soft spot when it comes to hurting a child. Just think of the outrage that occurred in our community just a few years ago when a young child was brutally killed. Child molesters cannot be placed in general population of prisons because in our culture, hurting a child is especially heinous. The shock of the violence that occurred in shootings like Newtown Connecticut was not over the death of the adults; it was over the shooting of children. However, it seems to be hypocritical to view those who do harm and violence to children with such rage and not feel the same way about the harm and violence done to the most vulnerable of all children during abortion.

Another example of the hypocrisy in our culture surrounding the issue of abortion surrounds the pro-abortion argument that the baby is not a baby. Instead of calling what is in a woman’s womb a baby, it is called a product of conception, it is called tissue. Yet secular feminists in Europe were in an outcry over selective abortions that were being performed over the sex of the baby, where female babies were being aborted while male babies were being brought to term. But, this morning, why is there outcry over such abortions if it what is being aborted is only a product of conception or a clump of tissue?

In addition, under federal law, if you molest, break, or steal a sea turtle egg, you are subject to 10 years imprisonment and 100,000 fine. Yet the same federal law says that it is legal to dismember and destroy a baby that is living in a mother's womb? Finally, if a woman makes a decision to have an abortion and is driving to an abortion clinic to have an abortion and is struck by a drunk driver and the baby dies, the drunk driver is charged with killing the baby. Yet if that same woman makes it to the clinic and has an abortion, the doctor is not charged with killing the baby?  

The reality is that when it comes to the issue of abortion, there is rank hypocrisy when it comes to reconciling what the message and teachings of Jesus and science say with what those who advocate for abortions argue. So, with all that in mind, it is here that we discover another timeless truth when it comes to voting for Jesus in that to vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that recognize and protect the sanctity of life by prohibiting abortion.

You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that humanity has been created in the image of God, and created for relationships and to represent Him on earth. And as part of that representation, humanity possesses a moral, spiritual, and ethical nature that does not exist among the rest of the creation. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that humanity has been divinely designed by God in His image and is of greater value than any other animal. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that for Jesus, the issue is not quality of life; the issue is sanctity of life.

To vote for Jesus is to recognize the reality that the Bible and science are not at odds with when life begins. Instead, both the Bible and science clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. And to vote for Jesus is to promote policies that advocate for the sanctity of all life and provide opportunities for adoption by eliminating much of the expense and red tape that surrounds many adoptions.

You see, so often, when people are faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, they falsely believe that there are only two choices: to keep the baby or to kill the baby. However, there is a third option, and that option is adoption. And to vote for Jesus is to seek ways by which one can either adopt or support those who would want to adopt. I am a product of adoption and there is no more powerful of a word picture to what God has done for us through Jesus to adopt us into His family then we adopt.

However, more importantly than all of that, is that to vote for Jesus is to deal with those who have been involved and impacted by abortion in a way that is full of grace and truth. Unfortunately, far too often Christians have been full of truth and empty of grace when it comes to the issue of abortion. As we talked about, however, all of us have made a train wreck of their lives at some point in their lives. And for many of us, we encountered Jesus in the midst of that train wreck and experienced grace, mercy, and forgiveness. So if this is personal, I would encourage you to do what so many of us have done, which is to run to the forgiveness that Jesus offers. I would encourage you to recognize the hurt and pain that you have caused and that you are experiencing and seek the forgiveness that Jesus offers.