The Nature of Human Life
A biblical ethic for questions related to the end of life must be built on the biblical definition of human life. In the first chapter of the Bible God decrees the creation of human life thus,
And God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. God created humanity in his own image, in the image of God he created it; male and female he created them’ (Gen 1:26-27).
The significance of this passage for a definition of human life consists in the following. First, in distinction to earlier forms of life that are made “according to their own kind,” human life is made in God’s image. Animal life develops according to a principle inherent in itself, but human life derives from a principle extrinsic to itself, from God, and the divine image defines and characterizes human life in a way that it does not define and characterize animal life.
Second, human life comes in two sexes, male and female, both of which are created by God and both of which equally bear his image.
Third, human life owes its origin and purpose to God. The Hebrew word for “image” (Heb. selem) carries connotations of concrete likeness (i.e., statue, idol, shape, form), whereas the word for “likeness” (Heb. demuth) is slightly more figurative (i.e., likeness, representation). These words cover a fairly wide spectrum of meaning in the Hebrew Old Testament, but their repetition in Genesis 5:3 with reference to Seth “whom Adam bore in his likeness (demuth) and according to his image (selem),” indicates that the relationship of parent and child is understood by the author of Genesis to be analogous to the relationship of God and humanity. In the very substantial discussion of “the image of God” in the history of theology the expression is most frequently understood to mean the capacity of sentience and spirituality. I do not wish to contest this meaning, for the subsequent story of Scripture attests to its essential correctness. I wish to submit, however, that in the context where “the image of God” is introduced it is defined not by sentience or spirituality but by the command to rule over creation (Genesis 1:29-30). According to Genesis 1, therefore, humans are created with the capacity of being deputies of God. The first consequence of being made in the image of God in Genesis is to be entrusted with responsibility for stewardship over God’s created order.
Genesis 1 thus teaches that God created humanity as both male and female, and endowed both with his image. Humanity is established and empowered not to be Lord over life but stewards of life, according to God’s purposes.
Stewardship for Life
What does stewardship over creation imply for the willful taking of human life? In both versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) the commandment not to kill is given in the Hebrew word ratsach. The semantic field of this word, which is also represented by phoneuein in the Greek translation (Septuagint) of the Old Testament, denotes illegal, violent, and culpable killing of an individual within the community of Israel, hence “to slay or murder.” The command not to kill intends to guarantee protection of life to those within the community of Israel, including foreigners, aliens, widows, and orphans. The moral guilt incurred when this commandment is violated is so serious that the normal penalty is the forfeiture of the perpetrator’s life. The Hebrew word ratsach in the Ten Commandments does not include capital punishment, killing in self-defense or war, or suicide, however.
The Old Testament thus differentiates between unjustifiable and justifiable forms of killing. On the one hand, Israel regarded with horror the killing without cause of those within the covenant. Not even the king is above the moral law, as evinced by Elijah’s condemnation of Ahab, who ordered the death of Naboth, “‘Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ ‘This is what the Lord says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood’” (I Kings 21:19). Again, David consistently refused to kill King Saul, despite the latter’s repeated attempts on David’s life, because Saul was the Lord’s anointed (I Samuel 24:6). For the same reason Saul’s personal armor-bearer refused to kill the mortally wounded king (1 Samuel 31:4); and the hapless Amalekite who killed the king in mercy on Mount Gilboa was remorselessly slain by David (2 Samuel 1:10, 14). Israel’s aversion to taking life unjustifiably is reflected in King Joram’s response to Naaman, “‘Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life’” (2 Kings 5:7). In the Old Testament innocent life belongs to God and cannot be violated without penalty in kind to those who take it.
On the other hand, not all killing in Israel was forbidden. Israel’s legitimation and engagement in some forms of killing, including killing in self-defense, capital punishment, and war are well known. With regard to our specific topic, the Israelite attitude toward suicide is worthy of mention. It may be slightly overstated to say that suicide was judged a case of permissible killing in Israel, but it is instructive to note that the Old Testament does not list suicide among forbidden acts, nor is any of the six suicides recorded in the Old Testament expressly condemned (Judges 9:54; 16:29-30; 1 Samuel 31:4-5; 1 Chronicles 10:4-5; 2 Samuel 17:23;1 Kings 16:18).
You Are Not Your Own
When we come to the New Testament we do not discover a further development of Old Testament legal and moral codes. Rather, we encounter another principle that forms a concluding corollary to the principle of the image of God in Genesis 1. The New Testament principle is expressed in the cross of Jesus Christ that reveals both the love of God and the inestimable value of every human creature, and indeed of the world itself. With respect to an understanding of human life, the New Testament thus adds the principle of redemption to the principle of creation. For the purposes of human ethics, the principle of redemption is best expressed by the Apostle Paul’s concept of belonging to the Lord. “You are not your own. You have been purchased with a price; therefore, glorify God in your bodies” (I Corinthians 6:19-20). Likewise, “None of us lives to himself and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord” (Romans 14:7-8).
The principle of redemption is of fundamental importance for human ethics. It means that my self-interest as a human being is not the deciding value in determining the rightness or wrongness of a given act. Nor even is the interest of my neighbor the deciding value of morality. Rather, because of the cross of Christ I now belong irrevocably to God; his will gives meaning to my life, and his will is the measure of right and wrong. I am not simply made according to the image of God, but I am redeemed by the costly sacrifice of the One who is the very image of God. In other words, my “right” as an individual is subordinate to God’s will as revealed in Jesus Christ.
The Christian acceptance of the atoning significance of the cross means that the claim over one’s life belongs actually and ultimately to God rather than to oneself. This has radical implications for ethics, especially for personal ethics. Since our topic is end-of-life issues, I shall restrict my comments to relevant aspects of the latter. With regard to suicide, it means that taking my own life is no longer a matter of moral ambiguity, or even indifference, as it appears to be in the Old Testament. If my body is the object of the costly redemption of the cross of Jesus Christ, then my willful destruction of it apart from the fulfillment of a higher commandment of God cannot be morally justified. With regard to the prolongation of life, it means that I am free to relinquish my life to God as creator and redeemer when all further medical and technical support have no effect other than postponing the inevitability of death. Indeed, the needless prolongation of life by increasingly sophisticated and successful technological apparatuses in an attempt to prevent the inevitability of death exhibits neither respect for life nor faith in God.
With regard to euthanasia, it means that the application of procedures or withholding of procedures whose intent is either to end life or assist death is a moral evil, and, by playing the role of lord over life rather than performing the service of being a steward of life, a presumption against the sovereignty of God.
A final word is in order with regard to the claim that pain or meaninglessness or the apparent certainty of death justify the intentional ending of human life. Particularly with regard to pain, Christians do not wish to be indifferent to pain, much less appear to promote it. Nevertheless, with modern medicine most pain can be more or less successfully managed. Moreover, one of the distinguishing traits of being human is the ability to transcend adversity, including many forms of pain, and find meaning in life through it and in spite of it. We do not see in Scripture a justification for ending life on the grounds of adversities, including the adversities of pain and meaninglessness. The fact that we belong to God through the redemption of Jesus Christ means that God has purposes for our lives beyond those of which we are aware and personally enabled to achieve. Although Christians are called to alleviate suffering by acts of compassion, Christians also affirm that the redemption by which we belong to the Lord was achieved at the cost of the suffering of the Son of God, and that our acceptance of unavoidable suffering is an important means by which God molds us into greater Christ-likeness according to the image of his Son.
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 2001).
