Killing to defend others versus Paul Hill's argument to kill abortionists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
How do you get around Paul Hill's argument if we believe that violence is justified in defending the life of one's self or the lives of others?

Paul Hill was a conservative Presbyterian minister that preached and protested outside abortion clinics in FL for years. He eventually shot and killed abortionist John Britton and his security guard at their Pensacola abortion clinic.

There was
1. Immanent danger of innocent lives threatened and in peril in abortion clinics.
2. If the aggressor acts (the doctor in this case), death is very likely for the innocents involved.


My reply would be one of context: If we saw a person killing a baby outside of an abortion clinic, we could shoot them in defense of another. Or if someone on the street were attempting to inject someone with lethal drugs and kill them against their will. However, inside of an abortion clinic or the death row of a prison, done by doctors for that specific task, is a different context protected by the law right now. We can protest the law as unjust right now.But some say we cannot act violently oppose that law. Paul Hill disagreed of course, stating that the laws of the land were to be disobeyed and innocents protected. Yet, many pastors condemned Hill's actions.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
So why is or isn't this a case of murder versus self-defense or the legitimate defense of others?
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
WLC 135 - "The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others..."


 

Wayne

Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Can't say I've read up on the subject, but I have this booklet in my file on that subject:

Lone Gunners for Jesus, by Gary North

Lone Gunners for Jesus

In short, North takes Hill to task over his actions.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I am still left unsatisfied.

What is the difference between shooting an abortionist as his scalpel nears the fetus and Moses killing the Egyptian task-master? Are both murder?

What is the difference between Paul Hill and this scenario:

A man wanders into the restaurant where you are enjoying a steak with your family. He is visibly strung out on drugs, out of his mind, and he begins waving around a loaded handgun. As he wanders by your table, he cocks the gun and aims it at the family in the next booth as he begins shouting obscenities.
Suddenly you become aware that you are holding the steak knife in your hand. You are presented with a brief window of opportunity. What do you do? Better yet, what is the loving thing to do?

How does an abortionist differ from a hired assassin, paid to snuff out life (innocent life at that, at least some assassins and snipers only target "bad guys").

I have a pacifist friend who states that my reasoning for allowing a person to kill the "Restaurant intruder" (in the scenario above) also opens the door to saying there is nothing wrong with killing abortion doctors, even though they operate inside a specially-designated place for such activities (clinics) and do so with the current protection of the law. My reply thus far is that abortion doctors ought to be killed....but by the State after a trial for murder. But how do I answer the one who says that God's law is higher than man's?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Here is my attempt at an answer:


Paul Hill's rationale seems to be: "“Whatever force is legitimate in defending a born child is legitimate in defending an unborn child.”

We ought to find that statement somewhat persuasive, but not entirely thus.

Under most theories of justifiable homicide, one can, under Christian principles, act to defend another’s life; one may not intend to kill. Paul Hill intentionally hunted down the doctor outside the clinic and also killed his escort as well.

I do not find this statement that, "one can, under Christian principles, act to defend another’s life; one may not intend to kill." entirely convincing, however. I admit this further complicates my position since many times to defend another's life and to kill the aggressor is one and the same (though the intention is not to kill but to stop the aggressor, if that is allowed as a distinction, which I believe it is under the principle of "double-effect).

If a band of Jews killed SS guards on their way to work at Dachau or Aushwitz, this seems morally justified. However, what of the unborn?

One could assert: "There is no universal moral obligation to prevent all evil. Still less does anyone have the moral authority to prevent evil by any and all means that he or his associates consider necessary." However, if you CAN prevent evil and DO NOT, this seems morally blameworthy. We are not free to turn a blind eye to evils.

One could say that "Anarchy and disregarding the laws leads to further injustice" and so Paul Hill was wrong because he was unlawful. However, civil disobedience is not always sin and disregarding laws can even be praiseworthy.

Can one consistently believe -as millions of Americans do- that abortion is the taking of innocent human life, and then consistently then believe that it is wrong to murder abortion doctors?

I think I can say, YES, for the private citizen but NO for the government. The government OUGHT to kill abortionists. Private citizens ought NOT ordinarily take upon themselves the role of the government (the civil sword) except in extraordinary cases.

Obviously Paul Hill believed that defending the unborn by killing an abortion doctor was just such an extraordinary case. He seemed to believe that the failure of the government to do their proper job meant that he could step into the place of the civil sword and execute justice (doing what the government should be doing).

And sometimes such acts are appropriate to do so in the absence of a law enforcement presence.

However, private citizens are not allowed to intend to kill another human being and are not allowed to engage in premeditated acts of deadly force in order to accomplish what they intend. The premeditated use of deadly force-as in the cases of capital punishment and just war-rightly belongs to legitimate governments (Romans 13:1-4).

However, I admit it is hard always to know who is a lawful representative of a legitimate government? The lesser magistrate? A group of pioneers in the Old West without the aid of law officers?

If Paul Hill draped himself over the body of a woman undergoing an abortion and killed the doctor in the ensuing struggle as the doctor continued to try to carry out the abortion, the morality might have been different. However, the mother, too, is complicit in the murder behind closed doors and so this is a highly unlikely scenario. Instead, Paul Hill sought out the doctor to kill him.

Paul Hill's action were utterly individualistic and he had no government backing him or legitimacy behind his intentions to purposely kill another person.


However, I am still struggling to lay down the principles which makes Paul Hill to differ from private-Jewish-citizens-turned-resistance-fighters seeking to assassinate SS prison guards on their way to Dachau to kill Jews. I would not charge such Jews with sinful acts. In part, because there was a wider war going on. But I need to think on that difference more before I answer fully.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Sounds to me that Hill's actions lack godly wisdom, as did Moses'.

All they do is give further "ammunition" to the pro-abortionists.

When is it our place to take the law into our own hands and dispense personal justice? What if the early Christians had done this against unjustified but legal killings by the Roman authorities e.g. in first century Palestine?

If we're going to declare war on the state and its sponsored medical practinioners for its legalised murder of babies, we're into the realm of just war theory, and it isn't right for one man to declare war on his own.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I was charged with inconsistency in regards to this statement, "“Whatever force is legitimate in defending a born child is legitimate in defending an unborn child. We ought to find that statement somewhat persuasive, but not entirely thus." My friend's reply was thus:

"We ought to find that statement somewhat persuasive, but not entirely thus."

Why not? Why the inconsistency?
This is where the entire pro-lethal violence argument falls all to pieces.






I replied as such:
I think there are several distinctions right off the bat: (1) Mothers are complicit in abortion and pay and aid the doctor to murder, (2) Abortion is protected by law and done behind closed doors in places specifically designed for this reason, (3). It is hard to fathom (even with pro-life beliefs) that a first trimester fetus is as fully human as a 3-year old child.

How does this reply sound?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
He replies again (with reference to my "intruder in the restaurant example" above, and says, "What justifies violence in the defense of your innocent family should also justify the use of violence to protect your innocent preborn human neighbor who is completely incapable of protecting himself/herself. At least you had a steak knife."

It sounds like he is setting forth a position that Paul Hill's example either proves Paul Hill correct and justified, or else pacifism as right and we cannot defend ourselves.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Jacob,

If Hill is a murderer, why isn't Moses? Or the case of Jewish civilians in Germany/Poland sneaking up on and killing SS guards secretly on their way to work daily at concentration camps to kill Jews? Would these resistance fighters assassinating German guards also be guilty of murder? How are they different from Paul Hill?
 

whirlingmerc

Puritan Board Sophomore
The law is split. Generally speaking:
If a baby is wanted, it is protected with full legal rights of personhood
If a baby is not wanted, it is protected with no legal rights of personhood
 

whirlingmerc

Puritan Board Sophomore
It is recommended by some pro life people in such as argument to 'trot out a toddler' and ask if the unborn was a toddler would it be different to how they t look at the situation.

Ironically the result of violence is the opposite of what the shooter wanted. The violence works to the detriment of pro life laws making public opinion less respeptive and easier to pass pro life laws. Praying, counseling,, offering emergency help, offering sonograms... better choices Violence doesn't help
 
Last edited:

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I'm actually on Paul Hill's side. I find his reasoning logical and biblical. No worries, I don't plan on acting on it, because I believe God puts us in certain spots with certain responsibilities. For me to rush to save these babies' lives would mean abandoning what I think are several important posts I currently have. Similarly, I doubt I'd rush into a raging sea to save a drowning person. Because I am a coward? Perhaps. But more because I doubt my ability to save that person, and think it would be wrong to risk my life so severely and thus risk the care of others who are dependent upon me.

Were I on a jury considering a verdict on a man who killed a known abortionist, I would not vote to convict.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Where is the line drawn?

How about a very drunk and inattentive man you witness behind the wheel approaching a crosswalk full of children? Is killing him warranted?

How does the above fail this "test":
1. Immanent danger of innocent lives threatened and in peril...
2. If the aggressor acts, death is very likely for the innocents involved.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
How does someone get the archives to work around here?!

10yrs ago (is everything cyclical?) I was writing on this board, making my best case against a promoter of the godless vigilanteeism of PaulHill. GaryNorth's pertinent "open-letter" was as clear then as it remains to this day.

Frankly, it's too hard now to rework-up the "youthful energies" I had then, in order to shut down all the false dualist (fight-or-flight) accusations, and other calls for "direct action" by Christians to fix what's wrong with this world by violence if necessary.

If you haven't read the GN piece, for GOD's sake read it until you understand what he's saying--and recognize it for the truth it is.

*******************

And Jacob,
With all due respect, the Act.7 commentary on Moses' slaying does not function as an exoneration of him, being an lengthy indictment of the people. The Israelite aggressor failed to ask the proper question, "Are you the LORD's judge?" He was not prepared to accept Moses' authority on anyone's authority. In the story itself, fault lies in both parties; but Stephen's purpose is to focus on perpetual, national resistance and guilt.

The reality was, the Moses was destined to be the LORD's judge, but he wasn't yet commissioned; he wasn't ready. He ran before he was sent. He was like a youth with some early signs of giftedness to be a great preacher, a church-leader, who thrusts himself into the ministry because "he knows" he's called. Yet, he does not submit to the wisdom of the past, the discipline of learning, and the orderly process of the church. In fact, he's offended that the "sticks in the mud" can't see how necessary it is that he be recognized, so he blows them off and does his own thing.

Well, Moses found out that he wasn't ready to be a leader, and the people weren't ready to be delivered. He didn't stick around to boldly face Pharaoh, and the providential outcome of justice. Moses has something in common with PHill at that point in the RH story: both experience conflict over their own culpability for precipitous action (sin and guilt). The justified ought to be confident in their innocency and divine providential deliverance. Neither of these persons (Moses or PHill) exhibited such.

What would have happened in Moses' case? We'll never know; that wasn't part of the providential plan for what should happen, at the appropriate time, to deliver the people.

When deliverance came, it wasn't by the sword of a judge, or an insurrection. "Stand still, and see the salvation of your God." Israel stood by as the plagues came, as God made a difference between the Egyptians and them, and as he brought them out without one of them doing anything other than believe. The Word of the LORD delivered them. And meek, chastened Moses was there to deliver that Word in Pharaoh's teeth.

*********************

Pergy,
Let's separate redemptive history as much as possible from the rest of it. The Bible's historic instances cannot be lifted out of those narratives and (if they seem like reasons to cheer) used as templates for us today. Great skill is required to determine how much of what they present is subject to rational judgment, and by what criteria.

People might want to take Moses' slaying as some example for them. How convenient. Ignore everything else in the passage, and its redemptive-historical (main) purpose, and on one's own ipse dixit identify with Moses, saying, "therefore having justified Moses, and being a "Moses," and deciding that my moment is analogous to Moses', I will act in ways I think are analogous to Moses."

This is an abuse of Scripture. People need to listen to the careful exegetes and faithful guides they have (heaven help us!) called to shepherd the flocks to which they belong. Sadly, there are countless "patriot" culture-warriors with the megaphones today.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
It is recommended by some pro life people in such as argument to 'trot out a toddler' and ask if the unborn was a toddler would it be different to how they t look at the situation.

Ironically the result of violence is the opposite of what the shooter wanted. The violence works to the detriment of pro life laws making public opinion less respeptive and easier to pass pro life laws. Praying, counseling,, offering emergency help, offering sonograms... better choices Violence doesn't help

That is an argument based on pragmatics rather than principle, however.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I'm actually on Paul Hill's side. I find his reasoning logical and biblical. No worries, I don't plan on acting on it, because I believe God puts us in certain spots with certain responsibilities. For me to rush to save these babies' lives would mean abandoning what I think are several important posts I currently have. Similarly, I doubt I'd rush into a raging sea to save a drowning person. Because I am a coward? Perhaps. But more because I doubt my ability to save that person, and think it would be wrong to risk my life so severely and thus risk the care of others who are dependent upon me.

Were I on a jury considering a verdict on a man who killed a known abortionist, I would not vote to convict.

If you believe Paul Hill was right, you should at least be willing to act on his principles....or else you are just admitting that cowardice is preventing you from doing what is right.

If you can swim and are healthy and see a drowning person, it seems there is a strong argument not only that you COULD try to save the person if you wanted to, but that you MUST try.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Sounds to me that Hill's actions lack godly wisdom, as did Moses'.

All they do is give further "ammunition" to the pro-abortionists.

When is it our place to take the law into our own hands and dispense personal justice? What if the early Christians had done this against unjustified but legal killings by the Roman authorities e.g. in first century Palestine?

If we're going to declare war on the state and its sponsored medical practinioners for its legalised murder of babies, we're into the realm of just war theory, and it isn't right for one man to declare war on his own.

Richard,

Yes that is also my conclusion right now:

it isn't right for one man to declare war on his own.

It seems vigilanteeism is wrong. Though in some cases where law enforcement or the arm of the State is not present, some limited acts of the government may be taken over by private citizens in the lack of duly constituted authorities.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
I don't agree, Pergamum. I believe it is not a sin to kill a man who is a known child murderer, has appointments to murder children, and is continuing openly to kill children with impunity and government protection - no doubt, subsidy. If he is on his way to kill yet another child, well, if you kill him, you have prevented a murder. Clearly.

Just because I believe it is not a sin to kill that man, does not mean that I must kill him, however. It is not always my duty to prevent a man from sinning. I have to assess the situation carefully, particularly when we are talking about taking someone's life, which is a grave thing to do in the most clear cut of circumstances.

But as I say, put me on a jury, I could not in good conscience convict anyone for doing it.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
How does someone get the archives to work around here?!

10yrs ago (is everything cyclical?) I was writing on this board, making my best case against a promoter of the godless vigilanteeism of PaulHill. GaryNorth's pertinent "open-letter" was as clear then as it remains to this day.

Frankly, it's too hard now to rework-up the "youthful energies" I had then, in order to shut down all the false dualist (fight-or-flight) accusations, and other calls for "direct action" by Christians to fix what's wrong with this world by violence if necessary.

If you haven't read the GN piece, for GOD's sake read it until you understand what he's saying--and recognize it for the truth it is.

*******************

And Jacob,
With all due respect, the Act.7 commentary on Moses' slaying does not function as an exoneration of him, being an lengthy indictment of the people. The Israelite aggressor failed to ask the proper question, "Are you the LORD's judge?" He was not prepared to accept Moses' authority on anyone's authority. In the story itself, fault lies in both parties; but Stephen's purpose is to focus on perpetual, national resistance and guilt.

The reality was, the Moses was destined to be the LORD's judge, but he wasn't yet commissioned; he wasn't ready. He ran before he was sent. He was like a youth with some early signs of giftedness to be a great preacher, a church-leader, who thrusts himself into the ministry because "he knows" he's called. Yet, he does not submit to the wisdom of the past, the discipline of learning, and the orderly process of the church. In fact, he's offended that the "sticks in the mud" can't see how necessary it is that he be recognized, so he blows them off and does his own thing.

Well, Moses found out that he wasn't ready to be a leader, and the people weren't ready to be delivered. He didn't stick around to boldly face Pharaoh, and the providential outcome of justice. Moses has something in common with PHill at that point in the RH story: both experience conflict over their own culpability for precipitous action (sin and guilt). The justified ought to be confident in their innocency and divine providential deliverance. Neither of these persons (Moses or PHill) exhibited such.

What would have happened in Moses' case? We'll never know; that wasn't part of the providential plan for what should happen, at the appropriate time, to deliver the people.

When deliverance came, it wasn't by the sword of a judge, or an insurrection. "Stand still, and see the salvation of your God." Israel stood by as the plagues came, as God made a difference between the Egyptians and them, and as he brought them out without one of them doing anything other than believe. The Word of the LORD delivered them. And meek, chastened Moses was there to deliver that Word in Pharaoh's teeth.

*********************

Pergy,
Let's separate redemptive history as much as possible from the rest of it. The Bible's historic instances cannot be lifted out of those narratives and (if they seem like reasons to cheer) used as templates for us today. Great skill is required to determine how much of what they present is subject to rational judgment, and by what criteria.

People might want to take Moses' slaying as some example for them. How convenient. Ignore everything else in the passage, and its redemptive-historical (main) purpose, and on one's own ipse dixit identify with Moses, saying, "therefore having justified Moses, and being a "Moses," and deciding that my moment is analogous to Moses', I will act in ways I think are analogous to Moses."

This is an abuse of Scripture. People need to listen to the careful exegetes and faithful guides they have (heaven help us!) called to shepherd the flocks to which they belong. Sadly, there are countless "patriot" culture-warriors with the megaphones today.

Hi Pastor Bruce,

Yes, I have read Gary North's letters (multiple) in their entirety, and each one more than once. I can't help but not like "Scary Gary" North and thus have a hard time accepting what he says.

The principle that "vigilanteeism is wrong" seems to be a strong argument against Hill's action. Also, there are strange arguments of excommunication about "what is bound on earth is bound in heaven" and therefore, the excommunicated member should expect damnation because the Church has spoken, which North applies to Paul Hill.

Is vigilanteeism ever justified and under what conditions (I am willing to start a separate thread on this)?

Also, if the "lone gunner" is always wrong, as Gary North says, because he lacks legitimate authority for his action, what does this do to my example of Jewish civilians sniping at SS guards on their way to Dachau to work? If I were in Poland as a civilian during WWII and knew there was a camp where Jews were gassed regularly, it seems morally justified to find a good rifle and take out the guards at every opportunity, even as a civilian and even in the lack of a clear order from a legitimate government. If an SS guard entered your home and demanded to eat prior to reporting in for work, it seems legit to poison his dinner. Did Jael sin as a civilian woman by killing the sleeping king who had no beef with her? Or can we draw nothing from the OT examples due to their OT nature?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I don't agree, Pergamum. I believe it is not a sin to kill a man who is a known child murderer, has appointments to murder children, and is continuing openly to kill children with impunity and government protection - no doubt, subsidy. If he is on his way to kill yet another child, well, if you kill him, you have prevented a murder. Clearly.

Just because I believe it is not a sin to kill that man, does not mean that I must kill him, however. It is not always my duty to prevent a man from sinning. I have to assess the situation carefully, particularly when we are talking about taking someone's life, which is a grave thing to do in the most clear cut of circumstances.

But as I say, put me on a jury, I could not in good conscience convict anyone for doing it.

If you can prevent evil and choose consistently not to do so (not even once), then this seems very blameworthy.
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
Think it out. Consider for example North Korea. Could I prevent some evil there? I could get my visa, leave my family and all responsibilities, fly to South Korea, cross the DMZ, and perhaps get some food and Bibles out before I got taken somewhere and shot. I could, ergo, prevent some evil.

There is all sorts of evil I could conceivably prevent. I could get out of my cab in the pre-dawn hours and intercede between a prostitute and her customer. I see them. I know what's going on. I could stop that one transaction that one time.

Would it be a sin for a person to trespass into NK and try to rescue some people? Would it be a sin to try to stop an act of prostitution? I'd certainly say "no." But I don't do it, for now, for the reasons above given. I don't think it's a sin of omission. I think it is a question of what has God made me responsible to do? What is my personal responsibility here and now? I think that answer is different for all of us at different times.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
The situation changes when we compare a country thousands of miles away with the clinic right down the block.

If you walked by a swimming pool and saw a kid drowning, most would see it as blameworthy if you said, "I could prevent some evil today, but I choose not to prevent this one."

If your logic is correct, why is there only rare cases of people acting in the same manner as Paul Hill?
 

Miss Marple

Puritan Board Junior
True, the situation changes. We have to judge each situation. It's hard. It seems like there is so much grey area.

I think there are lots of reasons why people don't take Paul Hill's route. Apathy. Fear. Uncertainty. Having lesser authorities above us that we respect that have a principled opposition to us doing it. Lack of actual ability. Knowledge that we'd be abandoning many important roles we do have if we rush in to save another person's child. Realizing pragmatically that if we go to prison for killing a known abortionist, we can't do other things like vote or volunteer at a CPC or shelter unwed mothers. Which might possibly save more children's lives in the long run.

For example, if my neighbor's child could not be saved without my donating my kidney, I don't think I'd donate my kidney. I have dependents and I don't think it is right to risk my responsibility towards them in order to save another. If I could donate without harming them, I'd be much more likely.

But I'd have to think the situation out seriously and try to make sure I wasn't just being a chicken, or lazy or apathetic. The heart is deceitful above all things.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
How does someone get the archives to work around here?!
Heh. Go here: http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/

Or use Google search entry field entering all the text (including site:) shown immediately below which limits search to the site url only:

site:www.puritanboard.com Paul hill


For example, with the above, scrolling down and examining older post dates this search hit comes up: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/patriotism-2340/

From the above you will get the hang of it, brother.
 

Ryan J. Ross

Puritan Board Freshman
Bruce, regarding Jacob's comment about Moses, Thomas Ridgley has some pertinent words in his commentary on the sixth commandment, pp. 544–45. I have founds his interpretation exceedingly judicious. In fact, I commend it to all readers and posters of this thread.

Further, it is my personal judgment that Rev. Barnes's early comment (#3) should be more carefully considered as discussants engage the OP.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Jacob,

If Hill is a murderer, why isn't Moses? Or the case of Jewish civilians in Germany/Poland sneaking up on and killing SS guards secretly on their way to work daily at concentration camps to kill Jews? Would these resistance fighters assassinating German guards also be guilty of murder? How are they different from Paul Hill?

When godly wisdom is applied different situations demand different reponses. In the case of the Jews, a war was on, and war had virtually been declared on the Jews. Even then it wouldn't have always been the wise and therefore the right thing to randomly kill the guards as it would lead to more and not less killing.

Hill's actions lack the wisdom that is from above by playing into the hands of pro-abortionists.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Bruce, regarding Jacob's comment about Moses, Thomas Ridgley has some pertinent words in his commentary on the sixth commandment, pp. 544–45. I have founds his interpretation exceedingly judicious. In fact, I commend it to all readers and posters of this thread.

Thank you for the suggestion, Ryan. I disagree with the learned Dr. Ridgley.

I agree, as I imagine you do also, that Moses is ONLY justified if
...Moses was, at this time, raised up, and called by God, to be a ruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in this action he first began to fulfil his commission;

I am utterly unconvinced that Moses was yet commissioned at 40yrs, i.e. made ready by God for the people's sake. I believe the author of Hebrews makes clear an important distinction between the Moses who fled Egypt afraid, Ex.2:13-14 (cf. Ex.1:17); and the Moses who forsook Egypt with a multitude "without fear," Heb.11:27.

Moses was not yet God's mighty instrument, that he should someday be, when he thought to deliver the people by his own strength, in his own wisdom. He could not face Pharaoh with the courage of his conviction. This does not mean he was a man without faith; but he was a failure. And the people were no different spiritually at the second hour; only perhaps worse sunk in despair.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top