A Liberal Interpretation of Scripture
Using the Bible to advocate ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards
animals is comparable to using the Bible to advocate the emancipation of
women or the abolition of human slavery: the secular arguments are much
stronger.
A vegetarian interpretation of the Bible IS possible, as St. Jerome, Thomas
Tryon, William Metcalfe, John Wesley, Ellen White, and other distinguished
figures in the Christian tradition have demonstrated, but -- like the
abortion issue! -- arguments can be made on both sides of the coin.
Christian activists often cite the Bible with regards to other contemporary
moral issues.
In his book Death as a Penalty, Howard Zehr makes a Christian case for the
abolition of capital punishment. He notes that retaliation in the Old
Testament was not as much of a requirement as it was a limitation on
vengeance. In early Hebrew history, vengeance had to be controlled. "An eye
for an eye" was a rule to make retaliation proportionate to the offense.
Hebrew society thus moved from unlimited to limited retaliation. "An eye for
an eye" was not a command to seek vengeance, but a limitation on
retribution. According to Zehr, "Retribution, like divorce, reflected a
concession, not God's highest intent." (Deuteronomy 24; Matthew 19:8)
Zehr points out that the Old Testament death penalty included many offenses
that our society does not consider capital. "To be consistent with the Old
Testament," Zehr argues, "we would need to apply the death penalty much more
broadly than we do today, including for accidental manslaughter and
rebellious teenagers without regard to intent or mitigating circumstances.
(Exodus 21)"
Moreover, the Old Testament and later rabbinic tradition placed many
restrictions on the application of capital punishment. An "eye for an eye"
was one such limitation. Mosaic law and the later rabbinic tradition
established a strict set of judicial procedures for cases involving capital
punishment. The standard of proof required to convict someone went beyond
our own standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" and required almost absolute
certainty.
A conviction required at least two eyewitnesses, and witnesses who lied were
subject to the same penalty as the accused. (Deuteronomy 17, 19) Hebrew law
regarding capital punishment was much more restrictive than our own. Further
restrictions were added, and by the 2nd century, the sanction was rarely
carried out.
According to Zehr, a frequent theme in the Old Testament is that of mercy
for the offender: "The first murder recorded was followed by an act of God
protecting the murderer (Genesis 4). Cities of refuge were to be provided
where the guilty could avoid revenge by the victim’s family (Numbers 35;
Deuteronomy 4, 19; Joshua 20). These sanctuaries allowed time for tempers to
cool and a solution to be worked out.
"The themes of Deuteronomy 32:35--‘To Me belong vengeance and
recompense’--and of Leviticus 19:18--‘You shall not take vengeance... but
shall love your neighbor as yourself’--recur frequently in the Old
Testament."
Zehr states that taking a life for a life in the Old Testament was more of a
sacrificial and ceremonial action, rather than a legal one: "A killing was a
religious evil that demanded compensation through a religious ceremony.
(Genesis 9, Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 19)" Executions, Zehr insists, were not
as much a device for maintaining social order as they were a way of righting
a moral imbalance. "The death penalty had a sacrificial and ceremonial more
than a legal function," observes Zehr, "and to draw parallels to modern use
of capital punishment is fallacious."
Zehr thus draws the conclusion that "The Old Testament allowed capital
punishment, but as a concession. Retribution was possible, but as a
limitation, not as a command. Mercy was preferred. The death penalty served
a primarily ceremonial function and was hedged with serious restrictions and
reservations."
In the New Testament, Jesus refers to capital punishment in one of his
parables. (Luke 19:27) However, Jesus’ response to capital punishment
undermined the penalty by his demand that both judges and executioners be
sinless.
"On one occasion," Zehr writes, "Christ was asked to rule on a death penalty
case (John 8). His response: ‘Let one without sin cast the first stone.’ And
this was consistent with Christ’s other teachings. He reminds his listeners
to beware of condemning others because God’s judgements do not necessarily
coincide with our own (e.g. Matthew 25, Luke 6). If our judgements are so
fallible, how can we make the decision to take a life?"
According to Zehr, the sacrificial aspect of taking a life was fulfilled by
the sacrifice of Christ:
"Christ's death on the cross, itself an application of capital punishment,
wiped away the Old Testament ceremonial and moral basis for the death
penalty (e.g. Hebrews 10). No more blood needs to be shed to testify to the
sacredness of life. Christ died that others may live. By trading places with
the guilty and the enemy, by dying in place of the murderer Barabbas, Christ
closed off the Old Testament reason for the death penalty.
"Christ did not simply eliminate the rationale for the death penalty. He
constantly reiterated our responsibility to see Christ in our needy
neighbor, even in our enemies."
A theme repeated throughout the New Testament is that of love and
forgiveness towards one's enemies and persecutors:
"When Christ himself was executed," observes Zehr, "he gave a model response
to his enemies in his dying words: ‘Father, forgive them.’ Jesus teaches
that we are to love those who harm us and he sees no way to love a person
without caring for life.
"If we love God, Jesus says we are obligated to show that love in our
actions toward others. Christ moves us from the Old Testament perspective of
limited retaliation to nonretaliation and active love (e.g. Romans 12, I
John 4, Luke 6:27-36).
"In Jesus’ teaching," Zehr concludes, "life belongs to God. It is not ours
to take. We also have to repudiate capital punishment because it is
incompatible with the basic focus of the Gospel--reconciliation and
redemption."
Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of
Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted
for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.
Zehr asks, "When the state takes a life, is it performing a function that
belongs to God?"
In a pamphlet entitled The Death Penalty: Cruel & Inhuman Punishment,
Amnesty International USA reports that "the United States is the only
western industrial nation which still practices capital punishment."
Moreover, the death penalty does not deter violent crime:
"Most people who murder do not see beyond their action; they kill quickly in
moments of great fear or emotional stress and under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. When the crime is premeditated, the individual rarely believes
he or she will be apprehended or executed…in 1976, the United States Supreme
Court found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent
crime. The United Nations came to similar conclusions."
According to Amnesty International USA, capital punishment tends to
discriminate against minorities and the poor. In the United States since
1972, over 65 percent of the people on death row have been unskilled,
service, or domestic workers, while 60 percent were unemployed at the time
of their crimes.
"In the United States," reports Amnesty International USA, "blacks and other
minorities face a much greater likelihood of execution than whites similarly
charged...The victim’s race still factors heavily in determining the
offender’s punishment. In Texas, blacks who kill whites are six times more
likely to receive the death sentence than those with black victims. In
Florida, black offenders who murder whites are forty times more likely than
whites who kill blacks to end up on death row."
Responding to the concept of "an eye for an eye," Amnesty International USA
asks, "If capital punishment is appropriate because it takes a life for a
life, why doesn’t the government also burn the arsonist’s home and rape the
rapist? Because justice does not mean punishment that imitates the crime."
Amnesty International USA states further that the death penalty costs more
than life imprisonment.
United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed: "The
death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… While
police and law enforcement officials are the strongest advocates of capital
punishment, the evidence is overwhelming that police are no safer in
communities that retain the sanction than in those that have abolished it.
It also is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the
poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society."
United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against
capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being
involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's
humanity."
Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual
punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous
crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law."
This clearly implies that persons can be deprived of their right to life,
but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is
constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can
correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.
Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of
Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted
for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."
Religious leaders throughout the world have taken a stand against capital
punishment. Leading Jewish organizations, Protestant denominations, and the
United States Catholic Bishops Conference all oppose the death penalty.
Go on to: A Return to Organic Gardening
Return to: Articles