Misinterpreting Scripture: A Biblical Warning from the Daniel Penny Case
CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY
The tragic death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental health struggles, at the hands of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, recently sparked a firestorm of debate across the United States. Penny restrained Neely after Neely became violent and threatened passengers on a New York City subway. In an attempt to protect others, Penny placed Neely in a chokehold, which tragically led to Neely's death.
The case quickly became a flashpoint for larger debates on self-defense, justice, and social responsibility. Yet, amid the legal arguments, many have turned to Scripture, using the Bible to either justify or condemn Daniel Penny's actions based on personal political or social views. This tendency to co-opt the Bible to support preconceived political or social positions is not new, but it is misleading and dangerous as it distorts God's Word.
Progressive Christians: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
Some progressive Christians, like Al Sharpton and Cheni Khonje, have been vocal in condemning Penny's actions. Sharpton warned that the verdict could set a dangerous precedent for "civilian vigilantism," where individuals take justice into their own hands, bypassing the law.
Khonje, writing in the Presbyterian Outlook, argued that Penny's actions violated the biblical commandment, "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13), citing the sanctity of life and comparing the incident to the violence of Cain against Abel.
At the heart of this argument is the assertion that Penny's actions went against the sanctity of life and that Christians should never resort to violence. However, this appeal to Exodus 20:13 is a classic example of using Scripture to promote a social or political agenda, rather than understanding it in its proper context. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" does not prohibit all forms of taking life; it prohibits murder—the unjust taking of life. The Bible makes a distinction between murder and self-defense, and using Scripture to argue against all violence, even in cases where it is justified, distorts its original intent.
The Bible consistently upholds the right to protect oneself and others from harm. In Exodus 22:2-3, for example, God allows for self-defense in situations where an intruder threatens one's life. Jesus Himself, while teaching non-retaliation in the face of personal insults (Matthew 5:38-39), did not advocate for passivity when it came to imminent threats. In fact, He instructed those disciples who do not have a sword to sell their cloak to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Not only does this acknowledge the need for self-defense, but it also highlights that some throughout Jesus' ministry were already carrying swords.
Conservative Christians: The Good Samaritan
On the other side of the debate, some conservative Christians have sought to justify Daniel Penny's actions by invoking the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this interpretation, Penny is seen as a "Good Samaritan" who acted heroically to protect others from harm. This view, while well-intentioned, also reflects a misunderstanding of the parable and how it applies to the situation.
The Samaritan does not resort to violence to stop the robbery or defend the victim but instead offers practical help and takes the injured man to safety. He further pays the innkeeper to continue to help the man.
Using the Good Samaritan parable to justify Penny's intervention in a dangerous situation conflates mercy with justice. While mercy and justice are both vital components of a Christian life, they are not interchangeable.
Mercy in the Bible is about showing compassion and care, especially to those who are suffering. It does not call for the use of force or violence as a means of intervention. The parable is not about self-defense or the defense of others. We are to show compassion and love for those we encounter in our everyday activities regardless of their social status or our societal lines of division.
A Biblical Corrective: Obedience to God's Word
The key to avoiding the misuse of Scripture is obedience to God's Word, not manipulation of it to fit our desires. Both progressive and conservative responses to the Daniel Penny case should be measured against the full counsel of Scripture, not "cherry-picked" verses that support predetermined positions. True obedience to God's Word involves interpreting Scripture in its proper context, seeking to understand what God is truly saying, and applying it in ways that align with His character.
In situations of self-defense, for example, the Bible upholds the sanctity of life and the right to defend oneself and others from harm. At the same time, it calls for wisdom, discernment, and mercy. Christians must be careful to ensure that their actions reflect the balance of justice and mercy that God calls for, recognizing that justice involves protecting the vulnerable, but mercy requires that we act with compassion and avoid excessive harm.
The Danger of Using Scripture for Political or Social Agendas
Both progressive and conservative Christians in the Daniel Penny case are guilty of using Scripture as a tool to support their political or social views rather than seeking to understand and apply it in a way that is true to God's Word. This tendency to mold Scripture to fit personal or ideological positions is a dangerous practice that can lead to distorted interpretations and a misrepresentation of biblical truth.
The Bible is not a political or social tool to be wielded in the service of our agendas. Instead, it is the living Word of God, meant to shape and transform our hearts, minds, and actions. When we use Scripture to justify our personal or political views, we are engaging in a form of idolatry, placing our own preferences above God's truth.
Peter Demos is the author of "On the Duty of Christian Civil Disobedience" and the host of "Uncommon Sense in Current Times." A Christian business leader from Tennessee, Demos uses his biblical perspective and insight gained from his own struggles to lead others to truth and authenticity in a broken world.
