Jesus for the Death Penality

Nov 06, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
As crime evolves into its most heinous forms among us, it is incumbent upon President Granger to act decisively for the safety and protection of all Guyanese. It must be said, though, that whatever befalls us due to the foolish political choices we make, it serves us right. If we make ‘issues’, such as the death penalty, as the bases to choose our political leaders rather than ‘race’, then our standard of living will be much, much better.
President Granger had proudly proclaimed, much to the glee of the criminals, that as a ‘Christian’, he opposes the Death Penalty. Such proclamations are symptomatic of a diseased mind of sorts exhibited by the vast majority of Christians.
Every wishful thinking of theirs, no matter how contradictory it is to the teachings of Jesus, is ‘Christian’. According to them, the blood of Jesus is unconditionally for the gays, the rapists, the murderer and every conceivable pervert that is on the face of this earth!
I had previously written advocating the death penalty (see KN August 16, 2016 ) but because of President Granger’s position, I must put him to the test to see if he is a true follower of Jesus (and the Bible).
In the Old Testament, there is no doubt about the death penalty. The Commandments (Laws) given to Moses lists all crimes deserving the death penalty. It includes intentional murder, rape, sodomy and a host of other vices (Deut. 21-24; Ex. 21, 22, 35; Lev. 20,24). The dispute arises with the New Testament and the ‘born again’ Christians. They zealously try to pass off Jesus as some sort of absolute Prince of Peace even though this position is contradicted by Jesus who described himself as a ‘bringer of the sword and not peace on earth’ (Matt. 10:34).
Jesus himself had said in Matt. 5:17 that he was not here to destroy the Laws of the Old Testament but to fulfill those Laws. This meant that he was going to ‘breathe new life’ into the Laws by teaching ‘the true essence’ and principles of these Laws.
The Jews had the habit of adhering to the strict letter of the Law, albeit as it suits their purpose. The Priesthood showed no understanding of ‘mercy’ or ‘justice’ but would simply apply the Law as long as it was to their advantage and it was usually the poor and helpless who felt the brunt of the Law. This was so in the case when the Jews were about to stone the woman for adultery. Jesus stopped them by saying that only he without sin must throw the first stone. He then wrote in the sand.
Some Christians use this as proof that Jesus was against the Law (which was stoning to death for adultery) even though this interpretation would contradict his previous word and the Bible as a whole. A more reasonable and contextual interpretation would be that Jesus was teaching them to be a little more ‘forgiving’, bearing in mind that they themselves were all notorious breakers of the Laws.
What did Jesus write in the sand? It seemed that he wrote the names of all those present and guilty of adultery yet wanting to stone the woman for the same crime. This was perhaps why when they came and looked at what he was writing, they walked quietly away.
Among the many despicable names which Jesus called the Jews was an ‘evil and adulterous generation’ and chastised them for preaching and not practising what they preached and making the Law burdensome on the common man ( Matt. 16: 4, 23-4)
There is no clear teaching in the New Testament for Jesus to say that the death penalty was abrogated. The aforementioned incident and when Jesus urged the turning of the other cheek is perhaps the closest it comes to saying that Jesus had abrogated the Laws of Moses. This is a clear misinterpretation of convenience used by the missionaries to sell Christianity.
The contextual interpretations and a proper analysis of ALL of Jesus’s teachings does not support this but rather that he wanted to teach the Jews about the way God intended the Law to be applied, which was, that the Law must be tempered with mercy and forgiveness as it warrants.
The Catholics introduced the ‘prison’ system. Their theory was that a criminal in jail would use that time to ‘reflect’ on his crime and be ‘sorry’. He would then emerge as a ‘changed’ person, ready to contribute positively to society.
Practically, nothing of the sort happens. Perhaps for every success at reformation, there are maybe a hundred failures. Criminals generally came out of the system more ‘hardened’ and graduate to more serious crimes.
In almost all cases, especially in those of unintentional murder due to anger, etc., a criminal is usually ‘repentant’ immediately after the commission of his crime. By the Catholic theory, he should be freed at this point, since he is already repentant. In fact, if he is allowed to pay compensation to the victim’s family, as is permissible by the Bible, it is almost certain that he will thenceforth be a more productive citizen.
By sentencing him (or the career criminal) to prison, that immediate feeling of remorse will soon turn into depression and hopelessness, leaving the criminal no choice but to burn down the prison. Why risk the safety of society because of some whimsical theory?
It ought to be a matter of common sense that the Giver of life has the right to ordain whether or not that life can be taken (by man) and under what circumstances it may be taken. God has done so in the Bible. To say such things as ‘life is sacred and should not be taken’ is to make oneself ‘holier’ than God.
President Granger will do well to bear in mind that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because of Himself, ‘being a man who made Himself to be God’ (Jn. 10:33). He will also do well to remember that Mr. Hoyte proved that the Death Penalty changes things.
And so when the precedent is clear, why must our politicians debate at the behest of outsiders while innocent lives are being lost?
Sheik Mustapha

---

---