Why Study This Subject?

The subject of the torture of “terrorists” has been a hot topic in America ever since the abuses at Abu Ghraib hit the news. Unfortunately, though there has been much written on the subject, there has been very little Biblical exegesis. Christians have fiercely taken sides on whether the CIA and other agencies should ever be involved in the torture of “hostiles.” Others have fiercely taken sides on whether waterboarding and other interrogation techniques should even be defined as torture. There is no consensus on how to define torture. Nor is there a consensus on whether torture can be used, and if so, which forms of torture? Some have argued that the Bill of Rights only protects American citizens, while others argue that those are God-given rights that pertain to all humans, not just American citizens. As will be seen, this is an incredibly important topic with far-reaching ramifications. It is imperative that Christians be able to argue intelligently from the Scriptures. After all, those Scriptures claim to guide us in “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3-4), and to be sufficient be make the man of God “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

While most arguments in favor of torture have been purely pragmatic arguments, there have been some attempts to argue both for and against torture from the Bible. Some Christians have gone too far by arguing against all infliction of physical or mental pain, including the Biblical penalties of beatings (Ex 21:20; Deut. 25:3; Prov. 20:30; 23:13-14; 26:3; Luke 12:47-48) and the Lex Talionis principle of civil law (Ex 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21; 25:11-12)¹ and they have done so based on Christ’s supposed overturning of all corporal punishment in Matthew 5:38-39.²

Others have gone too far in the other direction, arguing that these latter punishments are indeed a form of torture that justify the use of torture in our “war against terror,” with God Himself engaging in torture (Josh. 23:13; Ps. 89:32; Is. 10:26; Matt 8:29; 18:34; 22:13; 24:51; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; 12:45-48; Rev. 9:4-6; 18:6-8). However, we will see that even if this faulty definition of torture were to be accepted, such an interpretation would explicitly contradict at least fifteen Biblical principles. Before we can get into those Biblical principles, we need to try to define “torture.”

Definition of Torture

Secular Attempts at Defining Torture

Defining torture has proved to be a difficult task for humanists, though most people seem to recognize it when it exists. Both Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have said that it is impossible to define torture by listing prohibited practices, because “[h]owever great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes.”³ They have also admitted that

Whether an act of ill treatment constitutes torture depends on a number of factors, including the nature and severity of the abuse. Both torture and ill treatment are prohibited in all circumstances by international law.”⁴

But international law has had difficulty defining torture in a way that is neither overreaching nor too narrow. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the United Nations in 1984 and entered into force in 1987. It sought to define torture as:

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.⁵

However, this definition has raised so many widely conflicting applications that it has ceased to be a helpful definition. We will use this definition of torture to illustrate the problems inherent in arriving at a humanistic definition of torture without the Bible.

First, Amnesty International has pointed out that acts of violence by private individuals should constitute torture, but this definition only criminalizes state sanctioned torture.⁶ This problem is addressed tangentially by the phrase “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity,” but it certainly does not have the force of a statement that criminalizes all torture, whether public or private. This fact can be easily verified by checking the names of signatory nations⁷ against the list of nations that have torture with no government action against such torture.⁸ The inclusion of some of these signatories would be laughable if the reality was not so tragic. Even in America there has been debate between various agencies, with the Board of Immigration Appeals arguing “that a person is not eligible for relief from torture by private groups or individuals that a government is unable or unwilling to control. (See Matter of S-V- (Interim Decision 3430 (BIA 2000).)”⁹ The very fact that our law provides asylum for those undergoing torture highlights the difficulty of enforcing one interpretation of this law within our borders.

Second, both Amnesty International and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have demonstrated the utter inconsistency of the Convention’s definition of torture when it comes to the matter of abortion. Amnesty International complained against Nicaragua to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, arguing that when Nicaragua criminalized all forms of abortion in July of 2008, that country came into violation of the Convention Against Torture!¹⁰ Given the gruesome nature of abortion,¹¹ one would think that Amnesty International would do everything in its power to stop abortion. On the contrary, Amnesty International described the denial of abortion “rights” to women as being torture of those women.¹² Sadly, the United Nations Committee agreed. This illustrates the schizophrenic nature of any ethics that is divorced from the Bible. Any definition of torture that allows for abortions has lost its credibility.

Third, there is an inherent tension between the main body of the definition and the last qualifying sentence. The main body of the definition is so broad that it could theoretically rule out all acts of war as inflicting torture,¹³ and some forms of military training as being torture.¹⁴ The last sentence is perhaps an attempt to rule this out, though it is difficult to see how military training could be seen to fall under “lawful sanctions.” In any case, the last sentence of the definition has opened the door to virtually any form of torture since administrative laws of various agencies have been able to make virtually all torture technically “lawful.” The reason for this is that the Convention leaves the definition of “lawful sanctions” to each country, and several countries have given a great deal of discretion to agencies to create their own policies.¹⁵ The United States (in their reservations to the document) has explicitly redefined “sanctions” to include “any actions authorized by United States law” even if it applies to a person who has had no hearing in a court of law.¹⁶ A simple glance at the current signatories to the Convention Against Torture¹⁷ shows that this is not a theoretical problem in other countries either. Many of these countries engage in forms of horrific torture, but can justify them as “lawful sanctions.” On the other hand, many activists have been pushing Western nations into prohibiting all forms of spanking a child (however moderate the spanking may be), arguing that “consent or acquiescence” by the state to such spanking is a violation of the Convention.¹⁸ Such widely divergent applications of this Convention make it clear that the definition is hopelessly inadequate.¹⁹

Fourth, the word “severe” does not have definition and has enabled prominent Americans to say that subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures, forced standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding is not torture.²⁰ Water boarding especially has been touted as a “safe” and effective way of getting information. After all, we use these measures on our own soldiers. Many scholars have contested the claim that it is safe,²¹ and have pointed to examples of lasting psychological damage, extreme pain, lung damage, brain damage, and broken bones from struggling against restraints. The word “severe” defies definition, though admittedly the United Nations has declared those practices as a form of torture.²² Certainly the person who is being subjected to these painful procedures thinks they are so severe that he or she is willing to confess to anything rather quickly. But when top legal scholars can disagree on these practices, it makes one wonder if humanists can ever come to a consensus on the definition of torture.

Fifth, the first part of the definition has been interpreted by at least some to rule out self-defense with Tasers or other electric shock devices,²³ all corporal punishment²⁴ (beatings,²⁵ death penalty,²⁶ hard labor,²⁷ or an optional literal application of lex talionis), as well as any punishment that would bring great mental anguish to a person (including the pain suffered from loss of position, shame, public rebuke, social ostracism, etc). It would be thought that the last sentence of the definition would protect such sanctions when applied to a person already convicted of a crime and receiving lawful penalties within a given country. However, as the Congressional Record shows, American law may “not include sanctions that defeat the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture to prohibit torture.”²⁸ But this begs the question on how exactly we should define torture. Humanists are all over the map on this question.

Sixth, the first part of the definition could at least theoretically rule out liberal ideas of incarceration in prisons, since it has been well documented that prisons almost guarantee the infliction of notoriously evil forms of psychological and physical abuse by guards and/or inmates.²⁹ It is hard to take people seriously when they argue that our prison system is more humane than the Bible’s punishments.

Seventh, the ambiguity within this definition has led the DOJ and the INS to give interpretations of torture³⁰ that have been at odds with the definitions used by the CIA.³¹

I bring up these issues to point out that without the inspired civil law of the Bible to judge our behavior, nations will continue to be at a loss to know how to consistently prohibit what they intuitively know to be wrong. We need an objective standard by which to judge these debates.

A Biblical Definition of Torture

I offer the following as a broad definition of human torture: “any deliberate infliction of pain or torment upon oneself or another human being that is not explicitly authorized by the Bible.” A more narrow definition is: “the use of such pain or torment to gain information.” Though this booklet will argue against any infliction of pain that violates these two definitions, it is the latter definition that will be its primary focus. These two definitions are a necessary consequence of the following Biblical data:

A woman who gets her ears pierced for earrings is deliberately inflicting temporary pain upon herself, but because this is authorized by the Bible (Ezek. 16:12), it does not fit the definition of torture. Circumcision was also a painful act, with debilitating pain lasting for several days (Gen. 34:25), but because it too was authorized by God’s Word (Gen. 17), we will not define circumcision as torture. Likewise, surgeries designed to restore a body to God’s normal order, though inflicting pain, had a Biblical and God-glorifying purpose and would not constitute torture. Likewise, the Biblical punishments mentioned in the first paragraph of this booklet do not constitute torture if they were inflicted by the jurisdictions authorized by God, on the crimes authorized by God, within the limits authorized by God, and after Biblical due process.

By way of contrast, surgeons who engage in willful body modification (such as splitting tongues, inserting horns under the scalp, performing sex change operations, etc) would fit the definition of torture whether the surgeon was asked to do it or not. Surgeons who perform abortions are indeed torturers and murderers. The painful scarification process that some African tribes inflict on the bodies of children is clearly forbidden in Leviticus 19:28 and would qualify as a prohibited act of torture. This same passage would also rule out all sadism and masochism, whether the person receiving the pain “enjoyed” the pain or not. Such torture is clearly demonic in origin (Deut. 14:1; 1Kings 18:28; Mark 5:5). Our bodies belong to God (1Cor. 3:16-19), and we need to ask God whether graffiti, pain, scars, or death may be inflicted on humans. Even tattooing of prisoners for identification purposes would be forbidden (Lev. 19:28). Biblical law must define all issues related to pain inflicted on man.

The issue is not whether corporal or psychological pain may ever be inflicted upon humans. The Bible is quite clear that lawful wars of self-defense are situations where soldiers may indeed inflict pain and death upon the invading army. It is just as clear that corporal punishment may be inflicted upon criminals, with the death penalty being applied to murder (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; Lev. 24:17; Numb. 35:16-33; Deut. 19:11-13; 21:1-19; Matt 15:3-9; Luke 23:41; Acts 25:11), a just number of beatings being applied to certain criminals (Deut. 25:2-3; Prov. 18:6; 19:29; 20:30; 26:3), and the theoretical possibility that the lex talionis laws could be applied literally (Ex 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21; 25:11-12).³² Likewise, Biblical law was often severe enough that it produced legitimate fear (a form of psychological pain) that helped to discourage criminal behavior (Deut. 13:11; 19:20). So the issue is not whether it is Biblical to inflict pain. The issue is whether it is ever legitimate to engage in “any deliberate infliction of pain or torment upon oneself or another human being that is not explicitly authorized by the Bible.” And more to the point of this booklet, is it ever legitimate to inflict pain or torment upon anyone to gain information? The clear answer of Scripture is “No.”

The Biblical Prohibition of Torture

In Acts 23:3 Paul gave the standard Jewish interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:1-2. He said that it was not lawful for authorities to so much as slap a prisoner prior to a trial and conviction.³³ Of course, people might object that this was only a protection for a citizen, not an enemy combatant. But Scripture was quite clear that “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you” (Ex. 12:49). This did not preclude interrogation of hostiles on the field of battle (Judges 8:14) or offering mercy to hostiles who voluntarily gave helpful information – a kind of plea-bargaining (Judges 1:24-26). These situations were proper applications of the offer of peace to a city (Deut. 20:10-15) also being extended to any citizen of that city who defected. It is true that on the field of battle enemy soldiers knew that their fate was death (Deut. 20:10-15) unless they had worthwhile information to give. Since information was a weapon on the field of battle, an enemy who withheld information during the heat of battle could be considered to be armed and could be killed. This was why plea-bargaining was so powerful on the battlefield. Failing to plea bargain could mean death. But God never allowed torture to extract information. The following are the main Biblical arguments against the torture of any human, whether alien or citizen:

1. Paul declared the slapping of a prisoner prior to conviction under due process of law to be a violation of the law (Acts 23:3). If Paul was struck “contrary to the law,” then anything greater than a slap on the face should also be considered unlawful. This would be true whether the person was a “native-born” or “a stranger who dwells among you” since there must be “one law” for both (Ex. 12:49). This principle would rule out waterboarding.

2. Nicodemus argued that judging either an individual or a crowd of being an enemy of the state without having been convicted in a court of law was contrary to the law (John 7:47-53). Torture assumes the guilt of an individual without due process.

3. Arguing from the lesser to the greater, cruelty against animals was forbidden in the Bible (Gen. 49:5-7; Prov. 12:10); how much more so cruelty against humans (Gen. 49:5-7; Ex. 6:9; Ps. 71:4; 74:20)?

4. Biblical law governing the treatment of captives does not allow for torturing or killing them (2Kings 6:8-23). On the field of battle, an enemy can be killed, but once the immediate conflict has ceased, such prisoners cannot be treated inhumanely. Nor should people argue that we are in a perpetual state of emergency. We all know how the threat of danger can be perceived to be perpetual (even years after a proven attempt at attack has ceased). Can we treat a captured soldier who is now in America differently than God commanded the captured pagans in 2 Kings 6:8-23 to be treated (despite imminent threats from Syria)? That would violate centuries of Western war policies. The limits of any form of “roughing up” would be on the battlefield in face-to-face combat. Once the soldiers are in custody and off the battlefield, 2 Kings 6:8-23 kicks in and they should be treated well.

5. Though hostiles from an aggressor nation could be made into slaves for war reparations (Lev. 25:44-46; Josh. 9:23), all Biblical slaves (indentured servants) had basic God-given rights that would rule out torture: A) Beatings could only be inflicted on slaves for clear-cut punishment for documented disobedience (Luke 12:44-48). There is no evidence that slaves could be beaten to extract information from them. Keep in mind that “a child is no different from a slave” (Gal. 4:1). This means that any corporal punishment that is ungodly for a parent to inflict upon his child would also be ungodly to inflict upon his slave. This first principle would clearly rule out waterboarding. B) Second, slaves were always to be treated with respect, and not with cruelty (Lev 25:46,53). Interrogation techniques that are cruel or harsh should not be used. C) Scripture protected slaves with the lex talionis principle just as it did any other citizen, and if permanent damage of any type was inflicted on such a captive (Ex. 21:20-27), he was to be let free (Ex. 21:26-27; Lev 24:19-22). Likewise, equivalent punishment was to be inflicted on the torturer: “as he has done, so shall it be done to him— fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him… You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the LORD your God.’ ” (Lev. 24:19-22).

6. Witnesses were required of the prosecution, but not of the accused (Deut. 19:15; Lev 5:1). This by itself rules out the use of torture because it is requiring a person to become a witness against himself. Only the accuser was forced to testify.

7. Torture violates the Biblical right of the accused to remain silent. This law is implied in Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15 and is explicitly affirmed by Christ’s silence in Mark 15:3-5; Matt. 27:14.  This reinforces the previous point that the prosecution had the responsibility of bringing witnesses and that the accused did not.

8. The accused is treated as innocent until proven guilty (Deut. 25:1-2; Is. 43:9; Imp. Deut. 17:6; Acts 16:37; 23:3). This was one of the gross violations of the law that occurred at the trial of Jesus. He was mocked and beaten prior to trial (Luke 22:63-65). But modern torture of captured “suspects” is a similar violation of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

9. Torture erodes the character and testimony of a nation (Deut. 4:6-8 versus Lam 4:3; Ezek. 34:4). God wanted the Gentiles to be jealous of the liberties that His law brought to Israel (Deut. 4:6-8), and declared his laws to be the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12). However, through cruelty, Israel’s reputation was destroyed (Lam. 4:3; Ezek. 34:4). In a similar way, torture has ruined America’s grand testimony. Though not agreeing with much of his politics, Sen. John McCain was correct when he excoriated the forms of torture that have recently been perpetrated in America:

   I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength--that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.”³⁴

10. Many commentators have pointed out that the torturer himself is dehumanized and that the “cruel man does himself harm” (Prov. 11:17 NASB). As Alexander Solzhenitsyn worded it, “Our torturers have been punished most horribly of all: They are turning into swine; they are departing downward from humanity.”³⁵

11. All men are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6) and torture degrades that image (Deut. 25:3). Even after a trial and conviction, this image of God in man meant that no one could be given more than forty lashes in a beating because that would make him “degraded” (Deut. 25:3 NASB). It didn’t matter that a horrendous criminal might be thought to “deserve” more than that, this was the limit of degradation that was allowed in the Bible as punishment. Nor were there other forms of physical pain beyond beatings and capital punishment that were allowed for any one crime. Torture appeared to be off the radar of Biblical justice.

12. Even after capital punishment was inflicted, the body of a criminal had to be treated respectfully lest the land be defiled (Deut. 21:23). Certain forms of torture have flagrantly disrespected people’s bodies.

13. Authorizing torture trusts government with far too much power. Since civil government is made up of depraved individuals (Rom. 3:10-18), unrestrained power in the hands of such would be corrupting. We have seen what the power to torture has done to degrade governments in even “civilized” countries. Why would we want that in America?

14. The New Testament says that “every transgression and disobedience [in the Old Testament] received a just penalty” (Heb. 2:2). To the degree that we deviate from God’s law, we deviate from justice. Since the Old Testament nowhere shows torture as a just use of civil force, to use it is to deviate from justice and to buy into pragmatism.

15. The Golden Rule – do unto others what you would have them do to you (Matt 7:12). No one would want to be tortured if captured by the enemy.

There simply is no Biblical evidence of coerced testimony authorized in the Bible. Even Achan, who jeopardized the safety of the entire nation and whom God had already tried and convicted, was only asked to give a voluntary confession in Josh 7:9-26. Thus Paul rightly protested when he was treated as guilty until proven innocent (Acts 16:37) and the trial of Christ (as much of a Kangaroo court as it was!) was stymied in their attempt to prove Christ guilty because he refused to give information despite torture. This however does not mean that a person cannot be condemned when he testifies to his own guilt. See for example 2Sam. 1:16 where David said, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the LORD’s anointed.’”

Many people object that water boarding is a safe form of information gathering and does not meet the criteria of torture. They also argue that so long as water boarding is not used on American citizens, it is proper to use. However, many of the principles already given apply here. Other questions that expose the problem with water boarding are these:

1. If water boarding is permissible for non-citizens, what is there about water boarding that makes it not acceptable to be used on citizens? Could it be used on a citizen who was suspected of being a terrorist? Do his rights vanish? Do citizens have more rights than non-citizens? I do not accept the idea that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights applies only to citizens. Those were rights that the citizens had before there was any nation of America or any citizens. They were seen as God-given rights that relate to humanity, not to US citizenship. The bottom line is that Scripture mandates that “one law shall be for the native born and for the stranger who dwells among you” (Ex. 12:49; Numb. 15:16).

2. If someone were to turn around and argue that waterboarding is indeed permissible even for citizens, under what Biblically defined circumstances? This author has searched in vain for such guidelines in the Scripture. Given the strong language against coerced testimony, the onus is on those who believe torture is acceptable to prove that the Bible allows for it. Furthermore, what would be the limits of psychological pressure and pain that could be used on citizens? If this is not defined Biblically, there really are no limits. How could you demonstrate that there is a logical stopping point? If you were the subject of water boarding (suspected of being a rightwing extremist), would you feel like your civil liberties were being abridged? Christians need to think Biblically on these issues and not argue that the end (of peace and safety) justifies the means (of torture).

Conclusion

Based upon the Biblical evidence that we have examined, we conclude that torture should never be used by anyone to gain information. Not only is it not authorized for our war on terror, it is itself a hostile attack against God’s social order and should be opposed by every citizen.