Are Pro-Lifers Inconsistent When They Support The Death Penalty?

[Tree of Life]

Many pro-life folks also support - or at least do not oppose - capital punishment. Is this inconsistent? If you are pro-life shouldn't you seek to preserve human life in every situation - including capital cases?

No. This isn't inconsistent and here's one reason why.

Many of us get our ideas about capital punishment from Genesis 9. The context: Noah and his family have just exited the ark and are tasked with repopulating the earth. But God has some new stipulations that belong to the Noahic Covenant that were not explicitly in place before the flood. One of these is capital punishment. Observe:

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image.

"Your lifeblood" refers to the life of human beings. God says here that blood for blood will be required for whoever kills a human being - whether it be animal or man. Further stipulations follow in the Pentateuch concerning animals that slay humans - they are to be slaughtered. Why? Because man is made in God's image and, as an image bearer of God, man cannot be unjustly slain with impunity. An assault on man as God's image bearer is taken as an assault on God himself. So even if an animal kills a human that animal must be slain in the sight of all the community so that all would see, fear, and know that human life is sacred.

To provide an example of how radical this notion is to modern sensibilities consider this year's Harambe incident. The child was not harmed here, but suppose that the gorilla actually did kill the child. In the OT world the gorilla must be killed after the fact for this offense so that all would see the grave consequences of taking human life - and thus the sanctity of human life.

God here gives a law to all mankind (all mankind issued from Noah) wherein he requires that the manslayer would lose his life. So, ironically, to lose capital punishment is actually to diminish the sanctity of life. If a murderer does not have to lose his life then this shows that murder is not very serious - not really a capital offense - because human life is not really all that sacred. And capital punishment, ironically, upholds the sanctity of human life because it puts on graphic display the serious consequences of assaulting human life.

 

[Moral Orel]

Many pro-life folks also support - or at least do not oppose - capital punishment. Is this inconsistent? If you are pro-life shouldn't you seek to preserve human life in every situation - including capital cases?

No. This isn't inconsistent and here's one reason why.

Many of us get our ideas about capital punishment from Genesis 9. The context: Noah and his family have just exited the ark and are tasked with repopulating the earth. But God has some new stipulations that belong to the Noahic Covenant that were not explicitly in place before the flood. One of these is capital punishment. Observe:

"Your lifeblood" refers to the life of human beings. God says here that blood for blood will be required for whoever kills a human being - whether it be animal or man. Further stipulations follow in the Pentateuch concerning animals that slay humans - they are to be slaughtered. Why? Because man is made in God's image and, as an image bearer of God, man cannot be unjustly slain with impunity. An assault on man as God's image bearer is taken as an assault on God himself. So even if an animal kills a human that animal must be slain in the sight of all the community so that all would see, fear, and know that human life is sacred.

To provide an example of how radical this notion is to modern sensibilities consider this year's Harambe incident. The child was not harmed here, but suppose that the gorilla actually did kill the child. In the OT world the gorilla must be killed after the fact for this offense so that all would see the grave consequences of taking human life - and thus the sanctity of human life.

God here gives a law to all mankind (all mankind issued from Noah) wherein he requires that the manslayer would lose his life. So, ironically, to lose capital punishment is actually to diminish the sanctity of life. If a murderer does not have to lose his life then this shows that murder is not very serious - not really a capital offense - because human life is not really all that sacred. And capital punishment, ironically, upholds the sanctity of human life because it puts on graphic display the serious consequences of assaulting human life.

Capital punishment is bad because sometimes we kill the wrong person. We have a fallible justice system, so it is inevitable that we will sometimes kill an innocent person. I'm not pro-life, but if I was to claim that, as opposed to simply calling myself "anti-abortion", then I should expect myself to desire to preserve, at the very least, all innocent life. If you support the death penalty, you support breaking a few eggs to make your omelette.

As to your scripture references, if you want to use the OT to tell us what laws we should have, then you need to support a lot more things than the death penalty for murder. What does the NT have to say about giving someone the death penalty? Off the top of my head, I can only think of one instance it is mentioned, and it isn't mentioned favorably.

 

[quatona]

Ah, God and His moral relativism.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Killing people is wrong and if you do it, we'll kill you.

 

[Nithavela]

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’a]">[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

[Nithavela]

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one instance it is mentioned, and it isn't mentioned favorably.

Which instance? The whole "who is without guilt shall throw the first stone" thing?

That's been proven to have been added to the bible at a later date.

 

[Rubiks]

It depends on the reason he/she is against abortion.

 

[Tree of Life]

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’a]">[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

These texts concord with one another. The Genesis passage is about the obligations of the state to punish murder. This passage from Matthew 5 is about not seeking personal vengeance.

 

[Moral Orel]

These texts concord with one another. The Genesis passage is about the obligations of the state to punish murder. This passage from Matthew 5 is about not seeking personal vengeance.

There was no government in Genesis for God to be speaking to. However the Matthew passage starts with a reference to Moses talking about God's government from Exodus 21, and then says to not act that way anymore.

How come every time an atheist points out some terrible thing supported in the OT, Christians come along and say, "We're under the New Covenant now, the NT doesn't support it, and that's where you have to look" but then sometimes Christians try to support arguments for what we ought to do based solely on the OT?

 

[Tree of Life]

There was no government in Genesis for God to be speaking to. However the Matthew passage starts with a reference to Moses talking about God's government from Exodus 21, and then says to not act that way anymore.

God spoke to Noah as the representative head of humanity just like Adam was our covenant head in the garden. He wasn't speaking to Noah as an individual, but as our official representative.

Jesus does not contradict the OT in the Sermon on the Mount. He does contradict the scribes' interpretation of it. But in this passage in question he quotes from some OT legislation that restrained vengeance. "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" was not given because people weren't taking vengeance. It was given in order to restrain vengeance to a reasonable degree. It could be ready as "Only and eye for an eye; Only a tooth for a tooth - don't overdo it."

Jesus does not contradict this principle but he does introduce a new principle - don't seek personal vengeance at all (even if you might have the right to do so).

How come every time an atheist points out some terrible thing supported in the OT, Christians come along and say, "We're under the New Covenant now, the NT doesn't support it, and that's where you have to look" but then sometimes Christians try to support arguments for what we ought to do based solely on the OT?

You'll never hear me dismiss anything from the OT. I believe that we're under the same covenant that believers in the OT were - though some of the administrative details have changed.

 

[Moral Orel]

God spoke to Noah as the representative head of humanity just like Adam was our covenant head in the garden. He wasn't speaking to Noah as an individual, but as our official representative.

Jesus does not contradict the OT in the Sermon on the Mount. He does contradict the scribes' interpretation of it. But in this passage in question he quotes from some OT legislation that restrained vengeance. "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" was not given because people weren't taking vengeance. It was given in order to restrain vengeance to a reasonable degree. It could be ready as "Only and eye for an eye; Only a tooth for a tooth - don't overdo it."

Jesus does not contradict this principle but he does introduce a new principle - don't seek personal vengeance at all (even if you might have the right to do so).

Since He also said, "He among you without sin cast the first stone" I see Him as opposing the death penalty. True, He added a new principle, in that we shouldn't be killing people for vengeance. You think a degree of separation in the State is enough for Jesus to approve of us killing people for vengeance?

Who should be the executioner? A Christian surely shouldn't ever be the executioner since they aren't without sin. Is this a time to use an atheist, agnostic, or other religion to do the dirty work? Or should a Christian feel okay about taking a human life if they're pretty sure the person they're killing is a murderer?

You'll never hear me dismiss anything from the OT. I believe that we're under the same covenant that believers in the OT were - though some of the administrative details have changed.

Really? Are you Kosher? I don't mean that sarcastically, I know it can sound like that from an unbeliever, but seriously, you still follow the stuff from the OT? I could derail the thread with a bunch of other much more terrible things in the OT Law, but I won't go into all that.

 

[Nithavela]

What did Noah do after getting off that boat, again?

 

[Nithavela]

Since He also said, "He among you without sin cast the first stone" I see Him as opposing the death penalty.

He propably didn't actually say that.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

 

[Tree of Life]

What did Noah do after getting off that boat, again?

Made wine and got turnt.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

In my view I can't be pro-life for the life yet innocent and unborn and living in the womb, and all for killing that life later on because it was convicted of a crime in a courtroom.

 

[-57]

Many pro-life folks also support - or at least do not oppose - capital punishment. Is this inconsistent? If you are pro-life shouldn't you seek to preserve human life in every situation - including capital cases?

And here I thought unborn babies were innocent. Unlike those who deserve capitol punishment.

 

[Moral Orel]

He propably didn't actually say that.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

LOL! That's hilarious and interesting!

 

[Tree of Life]

Since He also said, "He among you without sin cast the first stone" I see Him as opposing the death penalty.

This same Jesus also said:
13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. (Lk 10:13–15).

True, He added a new principle, in that we shouldn't be killing people for vengeance. You think a degree of separation in the State is enough for Jesus to approve of us killing people for vengeance?

Seeking personal vengeance is different from the state (community) administering vengeance after due process (another prescription from the OT).

Who should be the executioner? A Christian surely shouldn't ever be the executioner since they aren't without sin. Is this a time to use an atheist, agnostic, or other religion to do the dirty work? Or should a Christian feel okay about taking a human life if they're pretty sure the person they're killing is a murderer?

It's ok for a Christian to play this role. God commands that the manslayer would die.

Really? Are you Kosher? I don't mean that sarcastically, I know it can sound like that from an unbeliever, but seriously, you still follow the stuff from the OT? I could derail the thread with a bunch of other much more terrible things in the OT Law, but I won't go into all that.

I don't follow OT food laws because they are part of ceremonial regulations that become unnecessary in the new dispensation. Just like I don't conduct animal sacrifices.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, there's romans 12...

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d says the Lord.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, there's romans 12...

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d says the Lord.

This, also, is about seeking personal vengeance. In Romans 13 Paul speaks of the "sword of the state":

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 13:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.