In a comment on my second post on the death penalty last week it was pointed out – quite correctly – that the first mention of taking a life for murder appears not in Moses but in Genesis. While the commentator suggested that we could forgo the Mosaic law he said we could not ignore Genesis 9:6. I’m glad we can agree on the detail of Moses so in this post let me deal with the earlier passage.

Myth
To begin with I would point out that many would say that Genesis chapters 1-11 have a mythic quality to them and should not be taken literally. Whilst they contain truth and God can and does speak through them, they are not to be taken as literal, historic or scientific truth. Some passages (including this verse) have been written in poetry which in itself suggests that something far deeper than literal truth is at work here. Applying them to today’s world, therefore, needs extreme caution.

Life for life in every situation
But even if they are to be taken literally, this verse still poses a huge problem. Its terseness and lack of nuance in the original Hebrew makes it very difficult to apply to today. For example, murder of every kind would have to be followed by the death penalty. The verse leaves no other option. So a wife who kills her abusive husband would have to be executed. A child killing his/her abuser would have to face the same fate. And while those states around the world that have the death penalty – and those people in this country who call for it now – all support the taking of a life for murder, all of them allow a subtlety in the law so that only the most heinous of murders face the death penalty. This verse taken literally does not allow such subtlety. Also one cannot insist on taking v 6 as a literal command without also taking v 4 in the same way. Only kosher meat from now on then!

Conclusion
Far better to read this verse, I would suggest, as providing an essential principle – the sanctity of human life. It does not seek to legislate or stipulate a specific pattern of law for nation states today and, therefore, I would conclude that it should not be applied in its detail in our time.