Objections Answered | 6
6. The Shedding Of Blood Is a Universal Law
Objection.
It appears to be a universal law of God that “whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” If one man, or one nation, attacks another and sheds his blood, his own must be shed in return.
Hence this precept not only authorizes taking away the life of a murderer, but also authorizes nations to repel by war nations that wage war against them.
Answer.
Whether this was a precept given to man as a rule of duty or not is very questionable,
though it has generally been so construed, at least since the dark ages of the church, and it is still more questionable whether it is a universal and perpetual law.
If we attend to the phraseology of this decree of God, we shall find it to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to Moses:
God did not say to Noah, as he often did to Moses, “Thou shalt do this or that,” but he said, “I will require the life of man,” etc.
If God had designed to delegate executive authority to Noah and his descendants to execute retributive judgment on the manslayer, the connection of the whole language must have been altered, for God declared what he would do himself.
It appears, therefore, to have been God’s decree, and the promulgation of his law by which he would inflict righteous judgment on the guilty. The penalty was intended as a warning to deter mankind from violence, the sin for which the old world was swept away.
And I see no reason why this threatening should not be considered parallel with the decrees of Christ – that
“all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” and
“he that leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword; here is the faith and the patience of the saints.”
Why the former should be considered as a rule of obedience for man, and these latter passages not so, I am unable to say: “He that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword” is as positive as “whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”
It may be observed that the faith and patience of the saints is here spoken of in such a way as to imply that they exercised and manifested their faith and patience when they were put to death by violence or carried into captivity.
And, indeed, how could their faith and patience appear if they, like the wicked world, returned evil for evil, carried others into captivity, and killed with the sword?
The original threatening has been fulfilled by the providence, and sometimes by the express command, of God. As Noah was the head of the new world and the father of nations, it seems to have had reference to nations rather than to individuals.
All nations that have shed blood in war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed, so that all those who take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the threatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.
But, if we were to admit that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a rule of duty for man, then it does not appear that it was designed to be universal and perpetual.
Before the flood, no authority appears in any sense to have been delegated to man to shed the blood of man.
So far from executing the penalty of death or causing it to be executed upon Cain, who was of the wicked one and slew his brother, notwithstanding his guilty forebodings, God threatened a sevenfold vengeance on him who should presume to do it.
Under the Mosaic dispensation, many crimes were punishable with death according to positive precept; but God, for wise reasons, did not always have the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both capital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.
All kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation appear to be absolutely forbidden:
By vindictive I mean that which is intended to vindicate the law (as executing strict justice) and only prevent offenses (as taking away life), but which is not designed to promote the individual good of the person punished.
That punishment which is designed and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished, as well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or corrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel.
An apostle said,
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ saith the Lord.”
“For the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God.”
It has been said that this only forbids a revengeful temper, but this evasion will not do; for Christians are here forbidden to do the very thing which God declares he will do himself, and he does nothing but what is holy.
“Render to no man evil for evil,” is a positive precept without any limitation, and which admits of no evasion; and it must plainly rescind the law of shedding man’s blood because he had shed the blood of man.
But the exclamation is often made, “What, not punish a murderer with death!”
Little do those who make this exclamation think that they themselves also are sinners and that every sin deserves not only temporal death, but also God’s wrath and curse forever, and that they are in like condemnation unless redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
For such, it might be well to inquire if they know “what manner of spirit they are of.”
The most prominent characteristic of the Messiah’s reign over men in this world is mercy, since he has secured the rights and honour of the divine government by the sacrifice of himself so that the guilty may live.
He has given his life as a ransom and has taken the world into his hands as the ruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers mercy to the chief of sinners. The merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin against man as well as against God.
And who can help being astonished at the amazing difference between his laws and his dealings with men, and those sanguinary laws of men according to which under the light of the gospel they punish with death.
The professed principle and design of these laws is strict justice; but, were men dealt with according to strict justice by him who rules above, who would be able to stand?
These laws of men accept no atonement for capital offenses:
No mercy is offered, for none is provided for those who incur their penalty; but the gospel offers mercy to the chief of sinners while it condemns those who reject the offers.
Capital offenders will never be condemned by civil governments for the rejection of offered mercy, for no mercy is provided for them. How unlike the divine government!
But Christians are commanded to be merciful, as their Father in heaven is merciful, who showers down blessings on the evil and unthankful.
Our Master has told us that we shall be judged with the same judgment we dispense; that it shall be measured to us with the measure we use;
that we shall be forgiven if we forgive; that we shall not be forgiven if we do not forgive; and that we shall have judgment without mercy if we show no mercy.
Christians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the consistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy.
Let them learn the meaning of, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.”