Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment

[barnhart]

As an Anabaptist, I believe God, in his providence, uses civil govt just like he uses rebels/rebellions and the mafia and Philistines and Canaanites and Pharaoh and the Romans. However, none of what they do reflects Jesus or Godliness. Further the Bible says it's not God's will that any should perish and that redemption be had for all. Therefore I lean toward capital punishment being an affront to the will of God that all be redeemed and that none should perish.

Do you see Genesis 9:6 as descriptive rather than prescriptive? Or as prescriptive for only that era of time?

When God gave the Law to Moses and included instructions for capital punishment, was he instructing them to do something that would be an affront to his will?

In my mind a foundational conviction of Anabaptism is progressive revelation. The covenants of Adam, Noah, Moses and David were for a time, people and place but the covenant of Jesus is universal. This concept is built on Jesus' teaching and relationship to the law and on the book of Hebrews, especially the first several verses. We don't model our life or ethics after previous covenants because the new has come.

[Justfiguringitout]

Because I’m not God. I obey what Jesus tells us to do. I do not consider myself equal to God or Jesus.

What has considering yourself equal to God, or not got to do with my question? Maybe I don't understand you correctly.

You asked this other person how to reconcile his view with the 4 points you mentioned. These are valid points. So I am curious as to what you would say about this as a non-violent anabaptist.

About my points or his?

I would say that since God created us, he can also destroy us, or consign us to eternal punishment. Despite this, God has offered every human being a path to salvation and eternal life. But he doesn’t force anyone to choose it.

Everyone had a chance to repent and join Noah on the ark. Yet only his sons and their dear wives chose to repent and join him. So everyone else perished.

No one is forced to commit capital crimes. It’s a free choice. And the good news is such a person can repent and find eternal life.

I meant your own points.

[joshuabgood]

As an Anabaptist, I believe God, in his providence, uses civil govt just like he uses rebels/rebellions and the mafia and Philistines and Canaanites and Pharaoh and the Romans. However, none of what they do reflects Jesus or Godliness. Further the Bible says it's not God's will that any should perish and that redemption be had for all. Therefore I lean toward capital punishment being an affront to the will of God that all be redeemed and that none should perish.

Do you see Genesis 9:6 as descriptive rather than prescriptive? Or as prescriptive for only that era of time?

When God gave the Law to Moses and included instructions for capital punishment, was he instructing them to do something that would be an affront to his will?

When it comes to interpretation, I read those scriptures through the lens of Jesus and the NT, rather than reinterpreting Jesus and the NT through the OT directives. One could think of it as priority also...I don't go with a flat Bible approach.

Also if you support capital punishment because of scripture does it follow that you support capital punishment for the things that scripture teaches it for? Just curious...

[Neto]

My understanding of the teachings of, for instance, Menno Simons, is that a division of the militarism of the OT and the non-violence of the NT was based on a teaching of the fullness of time appearance of Jesus, the Christ, with the physical battles of the OT being symbolic of the spiritual battles of the new era, ushered in by Jesus, especially in the so-called “Sermon on the Mount”.

Menno may also touch on this difference as based on the theocratic nature of the physical nation of Israel as opposed to the spiritual nature of the “Kingdom-in-Exile” Congregation (Children) of God beginning with Jesus’ own ministry. But if Menno does get into this, I cannot recall where, so I will not contribute this view (which is my own understanding of this perceived conflict of teaching) to Menno, or to any other early anabaptist teacher.

Regarding Civil Capital Punishment, while I cannot recall this sort of language in Menno’s writings, there certainly are sections of The Martyrs’ Mirror where individual anabaptists appealed to God for retribution to be handed out to their persecutors.

As for my own understanding, to flesh that out a hair more, I will point to Jesus’ statement to Pilate, that he says, “Now my kingdom is not of this world – If it were, my followers would have fought.” Further, The Book of the Revelation of (or from) Jesus the Christ speaks of the time when Jesus will return to earth, not as the ‘Meek Savior’ this time, but as the Righteous Judge, fulfilling the part of the Prophecy of Isaiah that he did not read that time in the Synagogue of Capernaum.

[ken_sylvania]

As an Anabaptist, I believe God, in his providence, uses civil govt just like he uses rebels/rebellions and the mafia and Philistines and Canaanites and Pharaoh and the Romans.

If I understand you correctly here, you are suggesting that any organized civil government is on the same plane as a gang of armed robbers. I don't think this squares well with Romans 13 description of our relationship to government. God has designed for there to be civil government, but I don't believe that rebellion and the mafia are part of God's design, even though he does use them to accomplish his purposes.

Do you see Genesis 9:6 as descriptive rather than prescriptive? Or as prescriptive for only that era of time?

When God gave the Law to Moses and included instructions for capital punishment, was he instructing them to do something that would be an affront to his will?

When it comes to interpretation, I read those scriptures through the lens of Jesus and the NT, rather than reinterpreting Jesus and the NT through the OT directives. One could think of it as priority also...I don't go with a flat Bible approach.

Also if you support capital punishment because of scripture does it follow that you support capital punishment for the things that scripture teaches it for? Just curious...

I agree that capital punishment is contrary to the life and teaching of Christ. But then, so is warfare, national defense, self defense, and in general all resistance against evil. If we are going to say that capital punishment is an affront to the will of God, then why wouldn't we say the same about all civil government?

I do not advocate for capital punishment. Nor do I advocate for war or self defense. At the same time, I don't think that, as Christians, it's in our place to criticize civil government for keeping order in society using the basic principles of justice that were given by God. As it relates to capital punishment as the penalty for murder, it seems that God gave this command to Moses to underscore the seriousness of murder and the sanctity of human life. Hence my unwillingness to condemn the use of capital punishment by civil government.

To be clear, I think that civil government in general is contrary to the life and teaching of Christ, so I lump war, imprisonment, and capital punishment all together as something that the follower of Christ does not do.

I don't think my position really qualifies as "supporting" capital punishment, but if it helps to answer your question, I think that the OT commands regarding law and punishment were fair and just.

[R7ehr]

Jesus experienced public capital punishment.

[joshuabgood]

I don't think this squares well with Romans 13 description of our relationship to government. God has designed for there to be civil government, but I don't believe that rebellion and the mafia are part of God's design, even though he does use them to accomplish his purposes.

This is one of the key differences. In my view it does square well with Romans 13...in fact I think it brings more coherence, as it keeps us from having to make distinctions about "who" is truly God's ordained rightful divinely appointed minister. We simply "give" and submit just like we would to the thief who steals our coat and we give our cloak also.

If rebellions aren't "part of God's govt design," then it follows that you don't accept the USA govt as part of God's design. Or the Mexican govt. Or the Glorious Revolution, or the French Revolution,...etc etc. I think more harmony is brought by realizing that Romans 13 doesn't establish a divine right of govt. Rather I think it makes most sense to take it descriptively, Govt is God's minister only in the same sense that Pharaoh was God's minister. Or Nero. Or Caligula. Or Biden. Or Trump.

I agree that capital punishment is contrary to the life and teaching of Christ. But then, so is warfare, national defense, self defense, and in general all resistance against evil. If we are going to say that capital punishment is an affront to the will of God, then why wouldn't we say the same about all civil government?

Yes that is what I would say. Hence the founding of the new Kingdom, with a new King, a Prince of Peace, who presents real existential threats to the polities and principalities of this world. It isn't a geopolitical nation-state.

[ken_sylvania]

I don't think this squares well with Romans 13 description of our relationship to government. God has designed for there to be civil government, but I don't believe that rebellion and the mafia are part of God's design, even though he does use them to accomplish his purposes.

This is one of the key differences. In my view it does square well with Romans 13...in fact I think it brings more coherence, as it keeps us from having to make distinctions about "who" is truly God's ordained rightful divinely appointed minister. We simply "give" and submit just like we would to the thief who steals our coat and we give our cloak also.

Do you submit to a thief for conscience sake? Would you say that resisting a thief is "resisting one who has been ordained by God"? Is a thief "a revenger to execute wrath on the one who does evil"?

If rebellions aren't "part of God's govt design," then it follows that you don't accept the USA govt as part of God's design. Or the Mexican govt. Or the Glorious Revolution, or the French Revolution,...etc etc. I think more harmony is brought by realizing that Romans 13 doesn't establish a divine right of govt. Rather I think it makes most sense to take it descriptively, Govt is God's minister only in the same sense that Pharaoh was God's minister. Or Nero. Or Caligula. Or Biden. Or Trump.

Rebellion is not of God, but it doesn't therefore follow that any government formed after a rebellion is not a legitimate government.

I'm not sure how to think about an interim period where there are two competing governments. I think there is room for some debate and uncertainty as to how to respond. But once the Crown relinquished its claim of governance over the united States, and a new government was established, I think it becomes clear which government we must submit to.

I agree that capital punishment is contrary to the life and teaching of Christ. But then, so is warfare, national defense, self defense, and in general all resistance against evil. If we are going to say that capital punishment is an affront to the will of God, then why wouldn't we say the same about all civil government?

Yes that is what I would say. Hence the founding of the new Kingdom, with a new King, a Prince of Peace, who presents real existential threats to the polities and principalities of this world. It isn't a geopolitical nation-state.

I don't know how to square that with Romans 13. It seems contradictory to say:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God... for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Their actions are an affront to the will of God.
...
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. The exercise of his power is an affront to the will of God.
...
For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers - their actions are an affront to the will of God.

[ken_sylvania]

I do not advocate for capital punishment. Nor do I advocate for war or self defense. At the same time, I don't think that, as Christians, it's in our place to criticize civil government for keeping order in society using the basic principles of justice that were given by God. As it relates to capital punishment as the penalty for murder, it seems that God gave this command to Moses to underscore the seriousness of murder and the sanctity of human life. Hence my unwillingness to condemn the use of capital punishment by civil government.

I had meant to say that God gave this command to Noah to underscore the seriousness of murder and the sanctity of human life.

[Neto]

Not in this thread, but I've mentioned before how my people struggled to understand what response God wanted them to have during the time in which alternate armies, each representing opposing tentative governments, gained control of the areas in which they lived. This switched back and forth, sometimes within a day or so. Then there were the roving bands of robbers, some of whom also represented ideological theories of government. (The most prevalent in the area where the colonies were was a band of predominantly former robbers who represented a sort of 'non-government' government - anarchism.)

But my own people are not the only ones who have faced this quandary. The early Mennonite immigrants (to North America) faced it during the Revolutionary War, and perhaps some did so again during the War Between the States. During those times, how does one know if the 'band of robbers' that comes in and takes control of an area is not the future 'legitimate government'? SOME of the Mennonites in the colonies decided that they should oppose the raping and murdering of the gangs that came through, and others did not. Both groups suffered as a result of the choice they made. (Neither group fought against the opposing armies, the Bolsheviks and the White Russians.)