What Will the Bible Tell the Court?

Number 2 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* Series:

by Farrell Till

[Editor's Note: This article in the Twilight-Zone series was based on a murder committed by Michael Griffin, a born-again "Christian," who has since been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.]

Back in the days of black-and-white television, the Twilight Zone was a fictional place where reality was so distorted that anything was possible. In discussions with Christian fundamentalists, I sometimes characterize their belief in biblical inerrancy as a journey into the Twilight Zone, because, like characters in the old TV series, Bible-believers often find themselves in situations where they cannot distinguish the real from the unreal, the possible from the impossible, or the rational from the irrational.

A case in point would be the born-again Christian who assassinated a doctor at an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. After attending an Assembly of God Church on Sunday and asking the congregation to pray with him for Dr. David Gunn, Michael Griffin "allegedly" shot the doctor three times the next day at point-blank range. During his arraignment, Griffin asked the court's permission to serve as his own attorney and to keep his Bible with him "as one of [his] legal documents." One can only wonder what kind of journey into the Twilight Zone this twisted mind will make as Griffin looks for biblical justification of his actions, but, unless the prosecutor is completely ignorant of the Bible, the defense just may find itself in serious trouble.

For one thing, Griffin will have to explain why he flagrantly violated a clear injunction of his own legal document. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten big ones (Ex. 20:13), the very commandment that abortion protesters so often display on their picket signs. If it does not prohibit one from walking up to an unarmed man and shooting him down with a gun, then what kind of killing would it forbid? The Apostle Paul specifically cited this commandment as one of many that are summed up in "this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Rom. 13:9). When Griffin opens his Bible in the courtroom, will he argue that he was loving his neighbor as himself when he fired those three bullets into Dr. Gunn? We can only wait and see.

On the other hand, since Bible-land is also the Twilight Zone where anything can happen, Griffin should have no difficulty finding biblical precedents that appear to make murder a virtuous act. The Mosaic law commanded the killing of one's own mother, son, daughter, or friend if they worshiped the wrong god (Dt. 13:6-10). It demanded death for those who picked up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36) or for kindling a fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2-3). Death was decreed for male children who had not been circumcised (Gen. 17:14) and for children who were disobedient to their parents (Dt. 21:18-21). Cursing (Lev. 24:10-16,23), unchasity (Dt. 22:13-21), and even sexual relations during a woman's menstrual period (Lev. 20:18) were all death-penalty offenses under the Mosaic law. Admittedly, a mind that could see justice in laws like these shouldn't have too much difficulty rationalizing the killing of a doctor thought to be violating "God's word."

If Griffin should appeal to such biblical ordinances as these, he will encounter a serious problem in certain New Testament passages that clearly take a dispensational view toward the harsh death-penalty commandments in the Mosaic law. The Apostle Paul said that those ordinances had been "taken out of the way" and "nail[ed] to the cross" (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15). Under the new dispensation, the "children of God" were ordered to "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21), to "do good unto all men" (Gal. 6:10), to "eschew evil and do good," and to "seek peace and ensue it" (1 Pet. 3:10). A primary duty of Christians is to do good works (1 Tim. 6:18; Titus 2:14; 3:8; 1 Pet. 2:12). On the subject of killing, the new covenant is very specific: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer (1 Pet. 4:15), and those who violate this injunction are threatened with hellfire (Rev. 21:8). Furthermore, the new covenant very plainly forbids taking personal vengeance on wrongdoers: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:19-20). One cannot imagine how pumping bullets into the body of one's enemy could possibly constitute "heap[ing] coals of fire on his head," but maybe in the Twilight Zone Griffin will find a way to explain it.

Griffin's greatest problem, however, is that he will not be able to find any scripture at all that addresses the subject of abortion. The Bible, in its entirety, is simply silent on the subject. Certainly, this silence was not due to the nonexistence of abortion in biblical times. It was definitely known and practiced. Apocryphal literature, in fact, did specifically condemn abortion. The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas say, respectively, "Practise no magic, sorcery, abortion, or infanticide," and, "Never do away with an unborn child."  The writer of the Apocalypse of Peter claimed to see in a vision of hell "women... who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions," but, alas, Griffin cannot appeal to what was said in these books. Christianity long ago rejected them as inspired works.

If Griffin should indeed try to base his defense on Twilight-Zone principles taught in the Bible, he will have to hope that the court is ignorant of  what is taught in Exodus 21:22-23. This scripture stipulated that a man who inflicted an injury that caused a pregnant woman to miscarry was only to be fined, provided that "no harm" was done to the woman. If, however, "harm" were done to the woman, then the man had to pay an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. "God's inspired word," then, appears to teach that the legal rights of the unborn are not equal to the rights of those who have already been  born. In his jaunt through the Twilight Zone, Griffin may have to deal with this problem.

I won't attempt to debate the merits of the legal axiom that says, "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer," but in Griffin's case the axiom certainly seems relevant.  Who but a fool would murder a person in public and then attempt to defend himself with a book that not only threatens eternal punishment in hell for murder but also contradicts the very belief that motivated the murder?