The missing element in most suicide is malice. Most suicides are depressed people who cannot face the future. I suppose I must concede the possibility of someone who is not in the former category and is in all respects well-balanced but simply harbors malice against himself. That might theoretically occur, but the difficulty is separating remorse (such as Judas below) from actual malice. I can't think of an example of such malice in a suicide.
"Malice aforethought" is a legal term. It "is comprised of any one of the following three elements: (1) an intent to kill; (2) an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury; or (3) an intent to act in a manner that creates a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm will follow. Of these three prongs of malice, the first two prongs require a specific intent on the part of the defendant, measured subjectively, while the third prong only requires a general intent, measured both subjectively and objectively. Accordingly, malice aforethought may exist without an actual intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, if there is proof of the "third prong" of malice. This simply means that the perpetrator knew of circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood of death or grievous bodily harm resulting from the perpetrator's act. The law can infer malice from circumstantial evidence, such as from the intentional use of a deadly weapon."
Suicide, as we are discussing it would certainly seem to meet the elements described in the definition above.
On the "God's property" argument, that simply doesn't wash. Yes, we are the creations of God, but that doesn't equate to exclusive ownership. First, God told Adam (and us) that the earth (his creation) was for our use and exploitation. Second, such a doctrine would undermine all kinds of personal responsibility. ["God made me this way and I can't fool with His property."]
Yet the Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 6 condemns sexual immorality on precisely that basis of ownership: "but the immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.". Interestingly, it says, "the immoral person sins against his own body." What does that mean? Since it is possible to sin against one's own body by sexual immorality, it would also seem not only possible, but likely to sin against one's body by killing it. The obligation to not sin against one's body is based explicitly on the principle of God's ownership, sexual immorality being the example given. Likewise, the principle of God's ownership is explicit in the context of I Corinthians 3, there in a corporate application of the principle, which shows that the principle is applicable not only to sexual immorality, but to other sins as well.
There are other passages that teach of God's ownership of all creation, including us.
"Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die."
Ephesians 2:10 says,For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Show me in the Bible where it says that suicide is a "good work".) Obviously, if you kill yourself you will not be around to do any good works. You were created in Christ Jesus and you are God's workmanship. That God owns you does not lead to fatalism as you assert; it simply means that there are relatively limited parameters of personal autonomy with respect to issues of your life. Your life is not yours to do with as you please. As Isaiah told Hezekiah, "What have you to do with the plans of the All-Merciful? You should do what you are commanded to do and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do that which is pleasing to Him."
Here the clear context shows that God is restoring social order after the carnage of the flood. He is saying He will punish every man (and even animals) who kills another man.
It is not limited to simply another man. Like the proscription against murder which has no direct object, the individual as well as the social component is inherent in the statement "Surely I will require your lifeblood.
Judas is recorded here as committing suicide in remorse over his betrayal of Christ. [Although Acts 1:18 records his accidental death due to a trip and fall on his land.] But in any event, nothing in Matthew's account condemns him for having done so. It is merely recorded that he did so. It may well have been the right thing for him to do.
I never thought I would see Judas held up as a possibly positive role model. I always thought he was "the son of perdition." And the other Old Testament role models that I referred to are not particularly notable for their righteousness accomplishments either. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a righteous man in the Bible committing suicide.
Cordially,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It deserves a careful reply. It is late tonight; I will give it attention tomorrow.
Diamond, don't bother paying attention to wc's dissembling any more. It makes about as much sense as being fascinated with the devil, waiting for him to wave the white flag. It won't happen and he will only mess with your mind. By all means rebuke him, then go on.
One general comment. As with your earlier list (which I critiqued in #307 above), your source appears to be someone who believes in "proof-texting" in the King James Version. Both aspects of this are problematical.
The KJV is an archaic translation which is hard for the modern user to understand and relies on inferior Biblical texts in both the Hebrew (OT) and the Greek (NT). You should consult a variety of modern translations (never rely on a single one) almost all of which use the better texts.
Secondly, the whole concept of prying single verses from their historical and literary context is, as I said before, hugely dangerous. The chapter divisions in the Bible were not added until 1227 and the verse divisions until 1551. The Biblical materials were written, as anything else, as passages of thought. While the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it was still written by human authors with thought patterns, arguments, etc. Thus, we pry single verses from their context at our peril.
______________
Let me turn to your collected verses. As to your response on the 1Cor 6 and 1Cor 3 passages, you concede that the passages have application to individual sexual immorality and corporate divisions within the Corinthian church respectively, but argue that they could apply to "other sins" as well. While that may be true, you would have to assume that suicide was a sin in order for either passage to have application. Since our purpose here is to find a specific teaching on suicide (not assume one), neither passage is helpful to us.
Ezek 18:4 "All lives are mine—the life of the father and the life of the son. The one who sins will die." Your citation of this verse reflects the context problem. It has nothing to do with suicide or even God's 'ownership' of individual lives. The context is lengthy (18:1 to 18:24) and reflects a major change in prior teaching in Israel given by God to Ezekiel.
Prior to this revelation to Ezekiel, the Israelites used a proverb (v 2) which implied that the sins of the father were visited upon the son. God tells them not to use this proverb any longer because "All lives are mine—the life of the father and the life of the son." meaning that each has a personal relationship with God independent of the other. To make His point clear, God gives a lengthy series of hypothetical examples: a righteous father (vv 3-9) who will live; a violent son (vv 10-13) who will not; followed by a righteous grandson (vv 14-18) who will live. Then God draws the conclusion of v 4 again in v 20: "The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer his father’s punishment, and a father will not suffer his son’s punishment; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness." This is indeed the point of God's revelation to Ezekiel; it has nothing whatever to do with suicide.
Ephes 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them." Here you attempt a two-pronged theological argument that (i) suicide is not itself a 'good work' and (ii) 'Obviously, if you kill yourself you will not be around to do any good works'. The former argument again begs the question by assuming that in suicide is 'bad' in all situations. It is not, but in any event you must assume whether it is or not; this verse does not give instruction on suicide. The latter argument is no more than a statement of the finiteness of physical life. The most this verse can be read to say is that "...been created in Christ Jesus for good works ... so we may do them [while we are still alive], it says nothing of the nature of our death. It simply says nothing about suicide whatever.
Gen 9:4-6 Here you respond to the critique in #307 by arguing that "... the individual as well as the social component is inherent in the statement 'Surely I will require your lifeblood.'" But that cannot be.
Try to make sense of the proscription assuming your gloss. Here it is mutatis mutandis
From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual [who was killed] since the man [who was killed] was his [the killer's] relative. Whoever sheds human blood [of a person], by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made mankind.”
The first sentence expressly refers to the killer as another person, who is "his relative," not himself. The second sentence becomes nonsensical if one assumes suicide: "Whoever sheds [his own] human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed [again?]" How could that be?
God doesn't make nonsensical statements. This statement cannot refer to suicide and still make sense. It has to do with murder, not suicide.
Matt 27:5 You return again to Judas with a humorous comment about Judas being "a possibly positive role model." Of course, I did not say that. I merely said that all Matthew says is that "Then he went out and hanged himself." He doesn't say, "[sinfully] hanged himself" or "hanged himself [which was wrong]". He simply is recording what happened. [Although Luke reported that Judas died in a fall on his ill-purchased land (Acts 1:18)]
And does anyone doubt that Judas deserved the death penalty for his acts of betrayal? Matthew was not about to try and expound about Judas' suicide being undeserved or wrong. It was not.
____________
I'll be happy to deal with any other passages you might cite, but I think it is clear that the Bible simply does not proscribe suicide. Our cultural intuitions that 'suicide is a sin' are simply holdovers from the corrupt "traditions" which are non-biblical. They do not come from the Bible; they come from corrupt human institutions.
Thanks again for your diligent efforts. I hope that many here are motivated to read carefully what the Bible has to say for itself.