WHAT CONSTITUTES
MURDER?
“I
expect a great reward in heaven.” No,
this optimistic statement was not made by the apostle Paul but rather by Paul
Hill, who killed “an abortion doctor and clinic escort” in
Although these statements clearly reek
with egotism, nevertheless Hill, a former Presbyterian minister, should not be
dismissed with a wave of the hand. In
order to examine the subject properly, we ought to begin with a definition of murder. Only one source can provide an accurate
understanding of this complex subject—the Word of God.
From the pages of the Bible we glean the
following information: murder is the taking of innocent (or
even guilty) human life without God’s authorization for doing so. Let us consider the different elements of
this definition. First, the life under
discussion must be human. It is not
murder to pick fruit and eat it, nor is it wrong to kill animals for food; they
are not made in the image of God.
In Genesis
The
one stipulation was: “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood” (Gen. 9:4). Under the Law of
Moses, certain animals were considered unclean, but in the Christian system,
all are once again fair game (sorry about the pun). In demonstrating to the apostle Peter that
the Gospel is for Gentiles as well as Jews, God used animals as an illustration
that all things are clean (Acts 10:10-28).
All animals are clean for eating; all men are clean to receive the
Gospel.
Although some animal rights advocates view
the killing of animals as murder, such cannot be the case. Certain actions toward animals may be cru-el,
thoughtless, senseless, and irresponsible, but animals are not human beings.
Babies, however, are. The physical evidence is overwhelming; one must
be irrational to deny personhood to that which is in the womb. By the time a woman knows for certain that
she is pregnant, the child has most of its systems in place and probably also
has a heartbeat. How incongruous for
doctors to expend great efforts to save premature infants of five or six
months, while at nearby abortion clinics “health professionals” are terminating
the lives of human beings that same age and stage of development. Does one need a degree in medicine to sort
this dilemma out? Even a Supreme Court
Justice ought to be able to comprehend it.
Neither does a person need to be a theologian
to understand that the Bible refers to the babe in the womb by the same term as
one already born (see Luke
The
fact that a baby is a human life is only one factor,
however. The other consideration (God’s
authorization) must also be applied. But
first we ask, “Is the child in the womb innocent?” A Calvinist would have to answer, “No, he is
already tainted with ‘original sin.’” In
that case, why would a Presbyterian, such as Paul Hill, become so incensed over
abortion?
In his book, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Michael
Horton writes the following:
When we are born, then, we are born at odds with a
God for whose pleasure we were created. There are no “innocent little babies,”
and the Bible knows no age of accountability (60).
What awful theology! No wonder they fail to preach this doctrine
publicly and that frequently members of Calvinistic denominations do not even
know they hold to such a doctrine.
Babies are pure and innocent; they enter
the world free of sin—they are not worthy of death either before or after
birth. Furthermore, God does not
authorize their termination. In the
ungodly Pharaoh’s
On occasion, God has authorized putting to
death innocent children—because He knew what they would do if they lived. Samuel commanded King Saul: “Now go and
attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep,
camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3). While
this commandment is severe, we must keep in mind some important considerations.
First, God knows the possibilities of the
future. David, for instance, inquired of
God about the men of Keilah. Would they defend him or give him up to Saul
if he remained in their city? God told
him they would deliver him up; so he departed (1 Sam.
Second, being killed in a state of
innocence was actually to their advantage, as tragic as it seems. A son of Jeroboam was spared by death from a
life of probable corruption and sin: “…he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall
come to the grave, be-cause in him there is found something good toward the Lord
God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam” (1 Kings 14:13). We must realize, however, that God does not
authorize the killing of the unborn today.
Did Hill Kill or Murder?
In order to determine if Paul Hill was
guilty of murder, we must apply the definition presented earlier. Was the abortion doctor (his victim) an
innocent human being? He was human but
not innocent. It would be hard to
imagine anyone more worthy of death than a man who uses his medical abilities
on behalf of the destruction of unborn children. He, more than most people, knows precisely
what he is aborting. While pro-abortion
advocates may continue to chant worn-out, illogical slogans about the “right”
of a woman “to control her own body,” a doctor knows he is removing a human
being from the mother’s womb.
But does the New Testament authorize individuals
to personally execute evildoers?
No. That task is left to the
civil government (
Why did he do it? Catherine Fairbanks, the stepdaughter of the
slain physician, concluded: “With no remorse, he must have a personality
disorder indicative of a sociopath” (A5).
Although Hill was grievously wrong in what he did, this assessment seems
inaccurate. His fault lies in his
conviction being so deep that it drove out every other consideration (such as
his lack of authority from God to kill).
The apostle Paul had no remorse when he persecuted Christians. He believed he was taking God’s part. He cast his vote against our brethren so that
they might be put to death; by his own admission he was “exceedingly enraged
against them” (Acts 26:10-11). Yet he
did so with a clear conscience (Acts 23:1).
Hill believed that killing abortion
doctors is “justifiable homicide” (A5).
It is not difficult to reach that conclusion. Innocent lives are being lost daily! And those entrusted with coming to their
defense are the very ones who have made them vulnerable. Laws are supposed to protect the innocent
from the greedy, the callous, the opportunist, the
destructive. In this case society has
failed. Our legal sys-tem approves of
murdering the helpless and makes laws against rescuers! The Supreme Court twisted the Constitution to
eradicate laws against abortion in 46 states.
Their guilt will be made manifest to all on the Day of Judgment when One
Who is truly just shall judge them. Regardless of the frustration Hill felt,
however, God did not authorize him to kill any-one. He will receive no reward for murdering, let
alone a great one. It is unfortunate that
in nine years he could not bring himself to repent.
Hill’s Death
Was it right for the state of
Suppose that a person knew of a
certainty that someone was guilty of murder, but that fortunate
individual was tried and found not guilty. How horrible would such a situation
be—particularly for the husband, wife, son, daughter, or parent of the victim. To make
matters worse, a strong likelihood existed that the one who had escaped
conviction would murder again—perhaps another family member. How frustrating would it be to live with a
just-ice system that failed and the assurance that the crime would be
repeated! This is somewhat com-parable
to what it is like to hold the pro-life position. Justice has deserted us, and the killing
continues.
But our laws do not grant us the right to
murder murderers. And we certainly pray
that Hill will not inspire others to follow in his footsteps; we do not need
imitators—for a number of reasons.
First, for every abortion provider that is
removed from the land of the living, we lose ground. The media delights in portraying pro-lifers
as a bunch of nuts who are out of touch with the
times. They love to portray us as
fanatics. We should not give them any
cause for doing so. We are unlikely to
obtain any positive news coverage; so if homicides are associated with our
position, we repel people. In fact, some
who occupied the middle ground between the two positions may feel compelled to
take the pro-abortion position.
Vigilante justice also precludes the
victim from repenting. If all of these
doctors had been killed from the beginning of Roe v. Wade, none would have been
around to have a change of heart.
Bernard Nathanson, for example, who performed
hundreds of abortions and helped found NARAL, has been a marvelous opponent of
what he once upheld. He wrote the book, Aborting America, and told the story as
an insider. He went on to narrate The Silent Scream, a riveting appeal to
“stop the killing.” Carol Everett once
operated abortion clinics in the
And what of Roe herself? Probably many
who profess Christ felt hostility toward this woman who helped make abortion
legal. Norma McCorvey,
however, a few years ago, renounced her part in that 1973 decision. Recently, she filed a motion to vacate that
ruling. According to Kathleen Parker’s
article, which appeared in the Orlando
Sentinel on August 31st, her “case, which included some 5,400
pages of evidence, was thrown out by the district court within 48 hours…”;
Parker comments that the “judge must have been a fast reader” (G3).
Sandra Cano (aka
Mary Doe, from Doe v.
The gist of Cano’s current motion is that, 30 years
ago, the Supreme Court didn’t consider the physical and emotional effects of
abortion on women, primarily because there was no information available at the
time. Now, plaintiffs contend, we have 30 years of evidence that abortion harms
women. (http:// www.operationoutcry.org)
(G3).
Both Cano and McCorvey, “neither of whom ever had an abortion, claim they
were used by lawyers on fraudulent grounds” (G3). It is no less than incredible that two of the
women who were instrumental in helping abortion to become legal have completely
reversed themselves. It would be even
more amazing if the news media gave these facts more than a passing
glance. Imagine what coverage would have
been given to Paul Hill if he had renounced his pro-life position and written a
volume upholding abortion and condemning protestors. Likely, NOW would have sought a presidential
pardon for him, and it would have made the covers of Time and Newsweek.
According to Thursday’s Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 4th),
however, Hill’s last words were: “If you believe abortion is a lethal force,
you should oppose the force and do what you have to do to stop it. May God help
you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected” (A1). If the words, within the law, were added, we would agree wholeheartedly.
We ought to pray that more abortion
providers would find their consciences and leave of their own accord. Doctors who come to a clinic one day a week
to do abortions should be identified and shunned as takers of life. Christians who have been apathetic should
speak up. After all, if this nation
falls because it has allowed unwarranted bloodshed (Pr. 14:34), we will suffer
with it. We should do everything legally
possible to end this shameful, heathen practice and restore respect for human
life.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer
to this article as: "Whatever the article name from above is (
Return
To Article Index