‘Mercy Killing’—Is It Biblical?

Throughout human history people have known prolonged illnesses and other sufferings for which the relief of death would seem welcome. The Bible is an accurate record of humanity in general and Israel in particular, and so it is naturally full of examples of suffering and misery, including the misery of prolonged fatal illness. We need to know what if anything it says or implies about euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the practice of mercifully terminating the life of a person who is hopelessly sick or injured, so as to hasten the relief of death. Euthanasia is commonly divided into “active” and “passive” forms. What is called “passive euthanasia,” rarely objectionable to Christians, involves a refusal to use life-sustaining medical equipment to prolong a life when there is no prospect of recovery. There was no opportunity to make this decision in biblical times, since there was no life-prolonging equipment. This does not mean that Christians have no right to take a stand for or against passive euthanasia. It simply means that a purely exegetical analysis cannot dwell upon that topic.

Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves taking purposeful action to end a person’s life. The difference between the two practices is the difference between refusing to prolong life “artificially” and “artificially” shortening that life. Throughout human history people have known how to shorten life—i.e., to cause death—and so the matter of active euthanasia is very much subject to biblical scrutiny.

Although the word euthanasia comes from Greek roots that may be translated “good death,” it more strictly means either “easy death” or mercy killing. The function of euthanasia is to make an inevitable death easier. It is often argued that there is benefit to all concerned if a person who is surely going to die can die not in prolonged agony or misery but in an easier, less painful way. For a cancer victim, for example, the reason for considering euthanasia is often just the desire to end the terrible pain often suffered in the terminal stages of the illness. Sometimes the agony is not so much that of the dying person, who may be unconscious, as that of his or her family, or perhaps of other sectors of society. Psychological agony can be as severe as physical agony, as many biblical persons could attest—Moses, Naomi, David, Elijah, and Paul among them.

But what of God’s specific revelation to us as we find it in the Bible: First, do we actually have the opportunity to examine any cases of people who were fatally ill or injured and who wanted to end their lives quickly? If so, can we learn anything from their circumstances?

We have precisely one such case: the death of King Saul of Israel (1 Sam. 31:1–6). Mortally injured in battle against the Philistines, Saul pleaded for his own armor-bearer to stab him to death so as to prevent either a slow death or torture or humiliation at the hands of the victorious Philistines. When the aide refused to kill him, Saul did his best to kill himself with his own sword.

We learn from Second Samuel 1:1–10 that a bystander who was observing the battle actually helped Saul to kill himself. He did so because Saul pleaded with him, “Stand beside me and slay me; for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.” This is a classic description of the reasons for euthanasia. And the response of the bystander, a neutral Amalekite, is precisely that of the practitioner of euthanasia: “So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen.” The Amalekite was convinced that since death was certain anyway, he might as well help shorten Saul’s life and put him out of his misery.

The response to this single clear case of euthanasia in the Scripture is one of severe disapproval. King David had the Amalekite killed (2 Sam. 1:15, 16). At this point we are faced with an interpretational difficulty. We cannot tell definitely whether David loathed the Amalekite’s act in itself or only because it was done to “the Lord’s anointed” (his king). Most likely, both reasons were involved, since David describes the act as “putting forth the hand to destroy” (2 Sam. 1:14), which does not sound like a description of mercy killing. It is clear at the very least that David considers the act as entirely unacceptable regardless of the motive, which the Amalekite has carefully explained to him. David equates the Amalekite’s act with an act of assassination.

David was not always the best example of ethical behavior. Possibly he was wrong in this instance and should have appreciated what the well-meaning Amalekite had done. But since we have no other commentary on this text here or elsewhere in Scripture, nor any prophet who appears in the story to judge David’s action, we are left to assume that David reflects the biblical stance of the sacredness of life and the importance of preserving it. At any rate, we certainly cannot purport to find any justification for euthanasia in this text.

In the Bible life is regarded as precious. The biblical people who ask God that their death, when it comes, might be a “good death,” such as Balaam (Num. 23:10) and Simeon (Luke 2:26, 29), show no desire for an early death.

Even in the personal misery described in Psalm 22, the psalmist’s immediate as well as prophetic plea is not for death but for deliverance and a continuation of the covenant life (vv. 19–21). In Psalm 88, which contains a long list of expressions for the nearness of death, death itself is neither sweet nor welcome. What is desired is deliverance and restoration to life. In fact, in the dozens of psalms that portray the speaker or writer as painfully near death, we never find expressed a desire for the end of life—but always a pleading for restoration to a full, active life.

Perhaps the only place in the Bible where we might seem to find a genuine praise of death is in Ecclesiastes (7:1, 2). But this represents such a cynical, twisted outlook (see verse three, where sorrow is said to be better than laughter) that one cannot make much of it as a biblical theme, especially since one purpose of the Book of Ecclesiastes is to preserve a variety of unorthodox views.

Euthanasia was indeed possible in biblical times. It was not difficult for a person to kill his or her neighbor, especially if the neighbor was dying already. We must ask why we have no word from God commanding its use in certain kinds of circumstances. Why did Job not take his wife’s suggestion that he end his misery by ending his life (Job 2:9, 10)? Why was David furious at the Amalekite’s mercy killing of Saul, equating it with assassination?

The answer to questions like these is to be found in the fact that the Bible has a different perspective on death and life from that on which the modern euthanasia debate is based. One dramatic difference is that the Bible consistently presents the hope of a life after death. From the time of the Old Testament patriarchs, who took care that their bones were properly buried with their fathers awaiting the resurrection (Gen. 50:25; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32; Heb. 11:22), to the guarantee of this resurrection in the victorious eternal life expressed in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 20:6), the Scriptures testify to the surety of the world to come, with its guarantee of freedom from death for those who belong to God.

Now, when certainty of life after death enters the picture, the events of this life, whether miserable or joyful, are placed in a very different perspective. This life is seen as by definition temporary and transitory (Jas. 4:13), and its miseries are not ends in themselves but are potentially beneficial.

In fact, the Bible presents two important alternatives to euthanasia. The first is the opportunity for healing, which is available precisely and specifically in cases of terminal illness or injury where there is no other hope for recovery. It is these situations that occasion the miraculous healing stories of the Bible. These stories provide a kind of opposite of euthanasia. We even have eight cases in the Bible of temporary resurrections from death itself (the first is reported in First Kings 17:22, the last in Acts 20:10). People who had died were brought back to life, so that they would actually have to go through death again. It may well be that their second earthly death was as bad as the first, or even worse. Yet such a priority is placed on the goodness of life that even a temporary resurrection to this current miserable life is seen as a blessing of God in all eight cases.

For Christians who suffer from an incurable illness, the opportunity of healing is always an alternative to the impending death. But healing, like temporary resurrection, is not universally available. No less a saint than Paul, having sought healing three times, finally had to reconcile himself to the fact that he was not going to be divinely cured. The explanation given to Paul in connection with this very circumstance (2 Cor. 12:7–10) is that God has a purpose in suffering. Paul realized that God’s power and effectiveness would be demonstrated by his accomplishments through an infirm servant. So for the Apostle, suffering turned out to be a blessing from God.

Non-Christians find it a cruel suggestion that God somehow allows suffering in order to please himself. Their perspective obviously cannot take into account the ways in which God will, by means of his Judgment, make all things new, make the first last, and establish a complete healing and renewing of the universe (Rom. 8:18, 21; Rev. 21:1–4). Furthermore, they cannot understand that if God is pleased with suffering it is for a purpose. Thus Jesus can say in Matthew 5:4, “Fortunate are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Surprising as it may seem, a person who mourns in this life may well be fortunate or blessed above a person who does not! There is a benefit to suffering.

Some biblical texts extol the benefits of suffering in connection with actual persecution; for example, First Peter 4:12–17. But others, such as Hebrews 2:18, suggest that any kind of involuntary suffering is of benefit—and Hebrews is a letter written to people who are not suffering from persecution but are growing “soft,” partly from the lack of suffering. James certainly makes this clear in saying that suffering is good (5:10, 11), and that it should be endured as necessary to spiritual growth.

This does not mean that we should not pray for healing for those who suffer. James assures us that the prayer of faith can save the sick. But we know that this does not automatically or universally occur. What we do know is that James describes the benefits of general suffering in 5:10 with the same term that he uses to describe the suffering of serious illness in 5:13. Suffering does not need to be the result of persecution in order to be spiritually beneficial, according to Scripture. God himself will compensate those who have suffered and mourned, when he brings into being the new heaven and earth.

Eventually, the argument against euthanasia from the biblical point of view comes down to an argument from silence—a legitimate one. Euthanasia was plainly possible in biblical times. It could well have been included in the ample ethical standards of the Scriptures, but it does not appear. It is not condoned or encouraged even when suggested or requested. And obvious alternatives to euthanasia are found in temporary resurrections and healings and in the benefits of endured sufferings.

We certainly presume that God loved people in biblical times just as much as now. And we suppose that he took no more delight in human suffering then than now. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have provided for the “active” variety of euthanasia as a solution to physical suffering. He could have done so but did not. Even in cases of miserably infirmed people who suffered for most of their lives, people who went through every sort of trial, people whose agonies were not foreshortened though they were saints dear and precious to him, we find no biblical justification or encouragement for euthanasia. We just don’t find it.

This in itself will hardly prevent the practice of euthanasia. It should, however, give great pause to anyone who seeks support from the Bible for the practice; he or she will have to support it by means of an indirectly derived principle, such as the idea that it is more loving to cause a person in misery to die than to live. And we will still be left to contemplate why God, who is himself Love, and his servants, including his revealing son Jesus, never practiced or championed euthanasia but looked instead either to healing or to the benefits of suffering as an alternative.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.