|
I have been first inspired to write on this topic for three reasons: Firstly, I have realized that most Christians do not understand the Bible. Secondly I have been disturbed by abolitionists who vaguely use the Bible as their main defense tool in their campaign against capital punishment even though it is endorsed by both the Old and New Testaments, and thirdly, I want to illustrate whether the death penalty has proven useful in the fight against crimes.
My Christian friends in most of the countries I have visited across Africa have been astonished to the point of disbelief during intellectual discussions on the issue of the death penalty when references on what the Holy Book says are revealed to them. My objective here is not to illustrate that abolitionists who base their arguments on Biblical or religious grounds are not saying the truth given that God is a God of revenge as revealed in Jeremiah 51:56. "For the Lord is a God of retribution; he will repay in full." The death penalty as a form of punishment for serious crimes is as old as mankind. It traces its genesis in the Holy Bible in both the Old and New Testaments as revealed in Exodus 21:23-25: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…" This is one of many Biblical expressions and quote that is still living today and that lays the foundation for the use of the death penalty. I am convinced that abolitionists who use the Bible to buttress their arguments against the death penalty are on the wrong track since this form of punishment is clearly approved by both Testaments. And since the expression, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…" are often misused today, it is important to know what the words meant in their original context in the Bible. This is not a quote from a personal vendetta. It is not for individuals to do the works of revenge. The quote is found in a legal situation where a judge is at work (Ex 21).. Sometimes the expression was interpreted literally, Lev 24:20f, but sometimes fines were imposed when somebody had caused bodily injuries, Ex 21:18-19, 27. The "eye for an eye" principle can be seen as a legal application of "the golden rule" (Matt 7:12): "Do to others what you would have them do to you". Both principles assume that we humans are equal and should treat each other in an equal and fair manner. If we harm another fellow human we at the same time admit that – according to the spirit of these principles – that others (i.e. the state governed by law) can do the same to us. "An eye for an eye" also means a protection for the guilty party, who should not have to worry about suffering more than the suffering the perpetrator himself has caused. "An eye for an eye" thereby limits the extent of the retribution. The principle means that the punishing consequence should be equal to what the victim has suffered. It means that a fair compensation, sanction, should be imposed. In other words, in the days of the Bible one said "an eye for an eye" just as we today say the same thing about justice or retribution. And retribution is a principle that runs through the Bible as a red thread. We find it in the Old Testament, for instance in the expression "an eye for an eye", in the New Testament (Rom 13:4, Acts 25:11), and in heaven (Rev. 6:10, 19:2). On the question of the atonement of Christ which some Christian abolitionists tend to present as an argument against the death penalty, it should be noted that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that the atonement would invalidate the laws of punishment that exist in every judicial system in the world today and that have been seen as obvious throughout history. Not even Jesus suggested such a thing. The fifth commandment Moses received directly from God as revealed in Exodus 20:13: "thou shall not kill," is also being misunderstood by abolitionists and the clergy. Laymen and highly educated clergies sometimes get ahead of themselves and carelessly believe that the Bible forbids the death penalty because of this commandment. But this is a great mistake. It is patently absurd that God who Himself often in the Bible commands death penalty and who gave Moses the commandments in such a drastic way would contradict Himself. It would mean that a confused god first everywhere in the Old Testament commands the death penalty for a multitude of crimes and then suddenly changes his mind and says: "Sorry, I did not mean it that way, I meant the opposite – you shall not have the death penalty." It is important to note that throughout Christian history the fifth commandment has never been considered as aimed at the courts or the judicial system. Neither has it been considered aimed at any nation’s defensive forces. This commandment, like the others, is aimed at man as a regular citizen of the society. And the simple meaning of the fifth commandment is that no man is allowed to take the life of another man. Other verses of the Bible say that if this happens, the man who has taken the life of another must be punished by death: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:12. The conclusion is that he who breaks the fifth commandment and kills; he "shall surely be put to death." See also below, the comments on Mathew 5:21-22, where Jesus quotes the fifth commandment. Christian enemies of the death penalty often refer to John 7:52-8:12 about the woman who committed adultery that some wanted to stone to death, but whom Jesus set free. But that Jesus did not here attack the capital punishment as such is obvious for many reasons: First, it was not an unconditional freedom that Jesus gave the adulteress. The event ends with the words: "Go now and leave your life of sin." There is a serious warning implied here, a threat even: Do not do that again! Secondly: Jesus’ mission on earth was not that of a judge. Jesus would have committed a mistake if he had sentenced the woman to death. In John 3:17 it says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world." Compare with John 12:47. Thirdly: It is mainly through the governing authorities that God imposes the death penalty. And it is not the authorities that Jesus is representing at this time. It is only himself as the forgiving Savior. Therefore the event is not an example of how a legal state is supposed to act. Jesus himself never put on the robes of the authority and he never walked around and sentenced people to different punishments. If he had dressed in the judge’s robe right there and then he would have had to, in the name of justice, also sentence the others to death. But to sentence sinners to death was not part of Jesus’ mission on earth. Forth: If Jesus had imposed the death penalty it would have been, in the eyes of the Roman authority, equal to a rebellion since Rome only allowed the capital punishment to be carried out within their own judicial system. The Jews did not have the right to pronounce the death penalty. In other words, the scribes and the Pharisees tried to set Jesus up. If Jesus had said "stone her", he would have been arrested by the Romans. Fifth: It is not possible to use the principle "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone" (v.7) within the judicial system. Since neither judge nor juror is without guilt, trials in themselves would become impossible and no sentences could be imposed. The principle is a good rule to live by, but Jesus did not intend for his words in this context to be included in the judicial system. In other words, the answer given by Jesus does not have any legal character or application. It concerns everyday morality between people. And when the New Testament was written – a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection – we find nothing in any letter of the New Testament that says that Law and Order must be abandoned or revised by the authorities because of the atonement’s message of love. The authority, with the right to punish, was completely accepted in the NT as a divine ordinance (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-14). Both Paul and Peter accepted the authority’s punishing function and role, despite the fact that they lived in a time where the punishments were many and severe and that the death penalty was very common. However, it should be noted that, according to Christian ethics judgement, revenge and retaliation are not allowed between people in everyday life. Jesus encouraged love and forgiveness between people, but at the same time accepted the punishing authority (Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11). Anti-abolitionists argue that there will always be dreamers who yearn for a society that is based on the Biblical principles such as "turning the other cheek" and "pay evil with good". These dreamers have a good heart. But if they are to be consistent they cannot only use these words by Jesus in only one reference – concerning the capital punishment. They must then allow these principles to run through the entire judicial system. All criminals must then be met by only goodness and no one may even whisper the word "punishment." Such a utopian society is neither realistic nor desired here on this earth. Besides, the above quoted words belong to the same category as Jesus’ words "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matt 7:1). If this also was aimed at the judicial system it would mean that all courts of law and all trials that have ever taken place and that take place now are in defiance of Jesus. As an introduction it should be mentioned that the Old Testament was the only Holy Scripture for Jesus, the apostles and the first Christians. It was the Old Testament they read, studied, sang from and believed in. The Christian Church has never abandoned the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament isn’t relevant for the Christian Church today (Col 2:16-17, Hebr 9-10), but the church has always taught that everywhere in the Old Testament there are divine principles with an eternal relevant character. We will always be able to find God’s being, his thoughts and plans also in the Old Testament. Christ himself has eternally sanctioned the Old Testament by saying that he is written about everywhere in the Old Testament, Luke 24:44-45. But the question is, if we believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God, why should anyone want to derail from its instructions? Can anybody say that the Lord God had made a mistake when He gave those instructions in the Old Testaments? Do Christians think that the faithful should derail from the word of God because it is not in line with their reasoning? The other question is, if we think that the Almighty God had made a mistake in the Old Testament why have the same instructions been replicated in the New Testament are revealed here in Matt 15:3-4: "Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ´Honor your father and mother´ and ´Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death´." Here Jesus quotes the word about the death penalty from the Old Testament (Ex 21:17), and uses it as proof against the scribes. Thus Jesus confirms the validity of the scripture and shows that the words are not only linked to the time of the Old Testament. In this situation Jesus strikes hard at the scribes whom he claims are revoking the commandments of God in order to hold their own laws and statute. The Old Testament cites a multitude of crimes punishable by death according to Numbers 35:31: 1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21). 2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15). 3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17). 4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16, 23).5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36). 6. Practicing magic (Ex 22:18). 7. Fortune telling and practicing sorcery (Lev 20:27). 8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20). 9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22). The other ten crimes punishable by death include: 10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21). 11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24). 12. The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9). 13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25). 14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19). 15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7). 16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21). 17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13). 18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16). 19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19). 20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13). The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8). The Zimbabwean poet Chenjerai Hove looks at the issue from a moral viewpoint: “The death sentence is abominable, as abominable as the crime itself. Our state must be based on love, not hatred and victimization. Our penal code must be based on rehabilitation rather than annihilation.” But from the same moral perspective, the scripture confirms that over the Old Testament’s commandment of the capital punishment rests also the spirit of Christ as revealed in Matt 18:6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Here Jesus says that it would be good for one who causes a Christian to sin, be punished to death by drowning. According to Jesus such a person does not deserve to live. Jesus is not exaggerating here; drowning, according to historical records, was not an unusual punishment in the Greek and Roman society. One can say that Jesus here accepts such a death sentence. To say the Holy Bible does not approve of the death penalty, or that Jesus never endorsed it, is to confess one’s superficial knowledge of the Scripture as Jesus himself spoke here in the imperative in support of the death penalty as we read in Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me." Had Dr. Martin Luther-King (Jr.) read the above verse attributed the Lord Jesus Christ, I wonder whether he would have said these words: “I do not think God approves the death penalty for any crime - rape and murder included. Capital punishment is against the best judgment of modern criminology and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God,” a statement that contradicts the teaching of Christ. It is therefore still unclear to me as to why celebrated writers, religious leaders and world leaders are using Christianity to condemn the death penalty even though the Scriptures say the opposite thing. Let’s take an excerpt from Bishop Eberhard Arnold (1883-1935), German Christian writer, philosopher, and theologian, the founder of the Bruderhof (place of brothers) in 1920: “We ourselves must not presume to shorten the life of any human being. That would be no less than a crime against God. If we believe that death is the last enemy, then we shall not offer him our hand to serve him by killing men.” As one reads through the statements made by abolitionists who cite the Holy Bible as basis of their opposition to capital punishment, one wonders as to how they can reconcile the Bible’s approval of penal code with their abolitionist position as we read Gabino Zavala, San Gabriel Region Auxiliary Bishop, in his acceptance speech at the 2004 Abolition Award, Beverly Hills, Tidings Online, 4/30/2004: “Violence is not our way, it is not God's way. My religious formation supports my belief and conviction that all have the right to life -- life with dignity that should be accorded to children of a gracious, merciful and loving Creator.” So to argue that the death penalty is not the way of God from a Christian perspective is to get it all wrong. The numerous references in the two Testaments have clearly indicated that capital punishment is a legalized form of justice in the Christian faith. Scholars, religious leaders, politicians and human rights activists across the world have remained strongly divided over the use of the death penalty as a punishment to fight violent crimes. Prominent among philosophers in favor of the death penalty are Hugo Grotius [1583-1645], Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679], John Locke [1632-1704], Jean Jacques Rousseau [1712-78], Denis Diderot [1713-84], Baron de Montesquieu [1689-1755], Friedrich Hegel [1770-1831], John Stuart Mill [1806-1873], and Immanuel Kant [1724-1804]. As we read them through, we find their arguments similar to those in both the old and New Testaments. In his book, “The Right of Punishing", under the section, "Metaphysics of Morals, Prof. Immanuel Kant, the German Philosopher and writer defends the death penalty in the following words: " It is better that one man should die than that the whole people should perish. For if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world.” As we read Prof. Kant further in The Right of Punishing; we get the impression that he might have been inspired in his writings by both the Old and New Testaments as he sounds categorical and uncompromising on the issue of the death penalty: “But whoever has committed murder must die. There is, in this case, no juridical substitute or surrogate that can be given or taken for the satisfaction of justice. There is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and death; and therefore there is no equality between the crime of murder and the retaliation of it but what is judicially accomplished by the execution of the criminal”. Two Biblical verses can be likened to Prof. Kant’s radical stance: "Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death,” Numbers 35:31. In Numbers 35:33, God instructs in the imperative form to hammer home a strong message: "Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Every bloody violent crime that takes place shakes the heavens and the universe. It is not cold and quiet out there in the universe at that time. The death penalty is also approved by the Holy Qur’an as a legitimate form of punishment to be administered by a system of justice for crimes such as murder, adultery, homosexual behavior, making mischief in the land, apostasy, among others. Making mischief in the land may mean acts of terrorism, treason and or declaration of war. Life is sacred, according to Islam and most other world faiths. But how can one hold life sacred, yet still support capital punishment? The Qur'an answers: "...Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom" (6:151). The key point is that one may take life only "by way of justice and law." In Islam, therefore, the death penalty can be applied by a court as punishment for the most serious of crimes. Ultimately, one's eternal punishment is in God's hands, but there is a place for punishment here on earth as well. The spirit of the Islamic penal code is to save lives, promote justice, and prevent corruption and tyranny. Islamic philosophy holds that a harsh punishment serves as a deterrent to serious crimes that harm individual victims, or threaten to destabilize the foundation of society. The Qur'an legislates the death penalty for murder, although forgiveness and compassion are strongly encouraged. The murder victim's family is given a choice to either insist on the death penalty, or to pardon the perpetrator and accept monetary compensation for their loss (2:178). The Qur’an makes provisions for pardon, compensation which defers from the Biblical standpoints as already quoted: "Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death,” Numbers 35:31. The Qur’an clarifies here the circumstance under which the death penalty may be carried in the following verse: "...If anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Qur'an 5:32). Abolitionists focus on the fact that the death penalty increases violence whether it is legally carried by the state or not, to quote Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr): “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... In fact, violence merely increases hate. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.” An anecdote of how the Government of Sierra Leone executed 22 soldiers found guilty of treason in 1998 and how the comrades of the executed soldiers invaded the capital on January 6, 1999, killing an estimated 5000 persons in cold blood can vividly illustrates the vicious circle of violence being described above by Dr. King. To conclude a long exposé, I would like to note that though the death penalty exists in Sierra Leone for serious crimes such as treason and murder, it has not succeeded to serve as a deterrent to any of these crimes. The Old APC administration had carried several executions for treason related crimes but treasonable offences have continued to pose serious threats to the security and stability of the state. The NPRC military junta carried two summary executions from 1992 to 1996 while the SLPP administration carried another upon its reinstatement in 1998. Now the question is, do we need to maintain the death penalty because we think it serves as a deterrent to serious crimes, or do we need to protect it because it has been prescribed by God in both the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur’an? Can we afford to deny the word of God as Christians and Muslims because we think it is unreasonable according to our human logic? Are Christian abolitionists sticking to the word of God? We can start the debate right from this angle by attempting to answers to these questions. Idrissa Salam Conteh (Atomic Pen writing from Niger |
