Articles
Critical Thinking Skills - 2
When it comes to understanding the Bible, one of the rampant displays of the lack of critical thinking is the inability to distinguish between the Old and New Testaments. This is a fairly easy concept that has been hopelessly confused by those with an agenda. The Old Testament is commonly referenced to condemn belief in God, embrace carnal worship practices, assert false contradictions between the two testaments, etc.
To illustrate this, consider the statement by Brad Sigmon who was executed in South Carolina earlier this month by firing squad. Sigmon had murdered his ex-girlfriend’s parents and tried to kill her as well. I will quote portions of Sigmon’s final words and offer my response.
Sigmon: “I want my closing statement to be one of love and a calling to my fellow Christians to help us end the death penalty. An eye for an eye was used as justification to the jury for seeking the death penalty. At that time, I was too ignorant to know how wrong that was. Why? Because we no longer live under the Old Testament law but now live under the New Testament. Matthew 5:38-39 says, “You have heard that it has been said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say unto you that you do not resist an evil person. Whosoever shall smite me on the right cheek, turn to him the other one as well.”
Response: First, a legal note: Sigmon is wrong to say that “an eye for an eye” was the justification for his death sentence. Actually, the laws of the U.S. and South Carolina recognize that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in adjudication of the most heinous crimes. The Law of Moses is not the prevailing legal standard of the United States in sentencing vicious criminals to death.
But that aside, Sigmon tries to argue that under the New Testament the State “should not resist an evil person” but “turn the other cheek.” Is he seriously arguing that the nation should have no enforcement of laws, no jails, courts, fines, incarceration – that we should just let criminals run amok and do as they please without recrimination? Probably not, but this merely shows his lack of critical thinking skills. People often make “rebound arguments” that go so far the other way that they create absurdities.
Further, in the context of Mt 5:38-39 Jesus isn’t talking about actions of the civil state; rather, He is talking about how citizens of a spiritual kingdom should comport themselves. Kingdom citizens should be willing to absorb mistreatment rather than retaliate in kind.
And this leads to a final point: People often quote “an eye for an eye” as if that principle from the Law of Moses justifies vengeance. However, Lev 19:18 clearly states: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” But that same Lord commanded the death penalty for a variety of crimes committed by the Israelites, including murder which Mr. Sigmon inflicted upon innocent victims (cf. Lev 20:2, 10-16, 27; etc.). The “eye for an eye” limitation in Mosaic Law was to ensure that the punishment did not exceed the crime, that it was equitable to the offense. It was not license to vigilantism. The Law of Moses differentiated between acts of the State and acts of the individual.
Sigmon: “Romans 6:14, ‘For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are no longer under the law but under grace.’ Nowhere does God in the New Testament give man the authority to kill another man. That is why the Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Remember the words of Jesus, John 7:19, ‘Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keep with the law.’ We are now under God's grace and mercy.”
Response: This is such a garbled mess that it is hard to know where to begin. First, his reference to Rom 6:14 is completely nonsensical. In this context Paul is answering the objection that the gospel encourages sin so that more grace can be received (6:1ff). This Paul denies, explaining that deliberate sin is inconsistent with those who “walk in newness of life” (6:4). Romans 6:14 is attitudinal: “Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts … for sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (6:11-12, 14). If Sigmon is implying that taking life under any circumstances is a sin, he is citing the wrong verse to prove it. Again, this manifests a complete lack of critical thinking.
As to his assertion that the NT doesn’t authorize killing anyone, I’ll quote from the same book he did: “Therefore whoever resists the authority (the civil state, Rom 13:1) resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil … he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rom 13:2-4). Judgment … terror … sword … avenger … wrath. The NT absolutely approves the very sentence passed upon Sigmon.
Further, capital punishment is not the reason “the Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament.” This is a textbook twisting of Scripture to justify one’s position. It doesn’t take a theologian to understand that the Law of Moses was given only to the Israelites in order to preserve them as a distinct nation in fulfillment of the promises made to their ancestor, Abraham. The law was limited in application (to Israel); it had a carnal purpose (national preservation); it was temporary (until Christ came to fulfill it); it did not provide ultimate redemption from sin nor was it intended to do so. Thus the Law of Moses was anticipatory, preparatory and introductory, destined to be replaced by what it foreshadowed.
Finally, the fact that we are now “under God’s grace and mercy” does not mitigate against capital punishment. The true application of this to Sigmon’s case is that, though a murderer, he can be granted pardon by the atonement of Jesus’ blood – just as the apostle Paul was (cf. 1 Tim 1:15-16). There is no sin so depraved that it cannot be forgiven upon repentance, but Sigmon must also accept that there are consequences to sin that might be unalterable. This was true in his case, and he has paid the ultimate price for the evil he perpetrated. Appealing to the New Testament does not change this one iota.
