c. 1997 Religion News Service
(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He is now a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J.)
UNDATED _ The jury has come in. The verdict has been rendered. The penalty is death.
Such was the sequence of events in two of the nation’s most-watched criminal trials. Within days of one another, two juries _ one in Denver, the other in Trenton, N.J. _ found Timothy McVeigh and Jesse Timmendequas guilty of murder and sentenced them to death.
Polls show the death sentences were applauded by a majority of Americans, but that’s hardly a surprise. For both the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka offended us to the core. Acts of terrorism and the murder of children strike us where we are most vulnerable.
But now that the people have spoken, what comes next? What should be the attitude of the citizenry _ more than 90 percent of whom profess belief in God _ as McVeigh and Timmendequas exhaust their appeals during the next seven to 10 years?
Should we wait impatiently for the execution of divine punishment? Or is there another course we can take _ one more beneficial for our collective healing?
Some cite Scripture to justify the use of the death penalty:”You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,'”Jesus told his disciples (Matthew 5:38).
But this often misunderstood statement refers to an Old Testament guideline by which godly judges were to mete out fair punishment for criminal offenses.
According to the law, an individual’s right to retribution was limited to exacting from his assailant what he himself had endured _”eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”Similarly, in cases involving murder, the death of the perpetrator was required.
By design, the statutory limiting of private vengeance had broad, public implications. According to Deuteronomy 19:21,”The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.” By Jesus’ day, however, the Old Testament law had been abused and manipulated for centuries. Thus Jesus was compelled to take a different tack regarding the issue of personal vengeance:”But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”(Matthew 5:39)
Why? Because within the context in which Jesus spoke, the assailant has already been found guilty and is awaiting his sentence. As such, for the victim (or his next of kin) to turn the other cheek constitutes an act of personal forgiveness. It signals that the victim has relinquished the right to personal retaliation and is ready to begin the process of healing. He entrusts retribution to God, who alone claims vengeance.
Jesus himself employed this approach. According to I Peter 2:23, he did not retaliate or make threats against those who crucified him.”Instead, he entrusted himself to him (God) who judges justly.” To be sure, public justice is necessary, but so is personal forgiveness. Civil order, however, is the role of government and its authorities. According to Romans 13:4, the government is”God’s servant, the agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer.” That ungodly persons are often in authority does not thwart the plan of God. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that God will often use the unrighteous to serve his purposes and bring about justice.
At bottom, then, is the need for the American people to separate private animus from public justice. Our sense of personal outrage must give way to forgiveness, then healing.
To do less is to ensure we remain victims long after our assailants are punished.
MJP END ATCHISON
