I’m not so sure you have your moral compass straight when it comes to this question: what makes a particular killing wrong?
If ending the earthly life is always the summum malum (greatest evil), then I would have to agree that we should be morally troubled by God’s command to kill people. God would have commanded the worst possible act, and that is not the act of a God who is Good. In fact, since God takes all earthly life at some point we should be just as troubled by that alone, without the need for the OT.
But is ending someone’s earthly life really the summum malum?
Well for us it may very well be, but that’s only because we have taken that to which we do not have “rights”. In fact, we have taken all from another and have deprived him of same without the Natural Law ability to do so.
An analogous example might be stealing someone’s car - we do not have rights to it, and therefore it is morally wrong. This would be different, however, if we were reclaiming our car from someone who stole it from us – we have a legitimate claim of right to it, and are now exercising that right. The act is the same – you’ve taken a car from someone – but one act is morally justifiable an the other is not. If you see what makes the difference, you’ll start to get a hint of what follows.
Here, it would likewise seem that unless we have a Natural Law ability to kill and take all from another, it is “murder” – *with *a Natural Law ability to do so, the killing is a morally justifiable – which is the case in self-defense or defense of another (which perhaps even justifies a “Just War”). It is morally different than cold-blooded killing, and every society of which I’m aware acknowledges this. But is this all? No it is not.
What about stoning to death as a punishment for crime X? The ability to kill for violations of a particular law, like the Levitical Law, is at least justifiable as long as there is no lesser means of accomplishing the same end – like having a serial rapist/murder loose in a tribal village in C4th B.C…no federal penitentiaries around and no other means available which can assure safety of the tribe. Crimes against God (who is Holy and the source of all Fatherhood) are more morally significant than crimes against people or property, so you might now see the reason why crime A is punished more severely than crime B in the Old Testament whereas you may not have seen the logic before.
So there’s not really a moral problem there, as long as you’re actually thinking about things. I can give you much more on this point if you so desire, but I am hopeful you already get the point of the preceding paragraph – it’s not *always *wrong to kill for violations of the law. Good. Now we’re getting somewhere, as we now know that at the very least killing is not the summum malum.
So it seems that the ability to kill morally is based on the rights which we possess, as derived from Natural Law or perhaps rights as given by God (which are the same in effect, though not in principle – one is anthropocentric while the other is theocentric). So then the question becomes whether or not *God *has a “right” to each individual’s life? It would seem so, as our lives (each and every moment) are a gift from God – we have no claim of “right” to our lives against Him. He made us, he sustains us, we are His. He make give or take life as He desires, since He is the source of all life.
When we “murder” we deprive God of this right to give and take life, which is a right inherent in Himself by His nature as the author of life. This is why “murder” is a sin. If God chooses to use us as instruments to give and take life, we have not deprived God of His rights and therefore this is not sinful. To state it bluntly, if God commands it, there’s no problem.
You might also keep in mind that God is just, and will not deprive without either (1) just reason or (2) more-than-just recompense. If this is the case, again there’s no moral problem – just moral short-sightedness.
Does that make sense?
God Bless,
RyanL
