Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment

[joshuabgood]

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"?

I would say the above apply to folks like Pharaoh. He stole the labor and children of the Israelites. And yet he was described by Paul as - For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

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 don't know. Maybe I am too black and white, but this doesn't compute for me. A rebellion led by a group of mafia, even terrorist, like figures, ie Sons of Liberty, that then sets up there own "govt," can hardly be considered a legitimate divinely appointed government several years later simply because they appropriate violence more efficiently. Further there are plenty of situations where the "former govt's" do not concede rule, ie Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Gaza, USA/Iran, China/Taiwan, N/S Korea, etc. Who is God's divinely appointed?

Similarly, the Russians who are now governing Donbass, also claimed by Ukraine. Or consider the Confederacy, for those 4 years, what were they? Perhaps a better way to harmonize things like this is to realize all of them are like Pharaoh, they are used by God in his sovereignty, just like the Romans who killed Jesus. But none of it is Godly or somehow a "divine right" but rather, it is descriptive of principalities and polities ruled by Satan and are kingdoms of this world that are in competition with the Kingdom of God for dominion.

For me it makes more sense to put them all in the same boat, and the one's we 'listen' too are merely the ones with the biggest guns who have appropriated power in that time and space.

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.

In so far as they don't align to the words of Jesus, who is one with the Father, and who is the perfect revelation of the Father, by his own words, and to whom God has given all authority, yes. They are an affront to the will of God. Nero, Pharaoh, etc etc...were only ministers in a descriptive sense, not in a Godly divine right sense. That is the best way I can harmonize it.

I think the other interpretation seems to result in Christian Nationalism.

[joshuabgood]

Back to the OP, how about those in favor of capital punishment, and its righteousness, be the ones to literally pull the trigger or watch the, presumably live streamed, execution. My guess is, if that were that the case, there would be considerably less support.

It's a little like the theologian who suggested the nuclear/war codes be surgically inserted into the heart cavity of the aide, and the president could/should cut them out himself with a knife when he thinks they are necessary.

[JohnH]

Back to the OP, how about those in favor of capital punishment, and its righteousness, be the ones to literally pull the trigger or watch the, presumably live streamed, execution. My guess is, if that were that the case, there would be considerably less support.

What do you propose be done when a violent lunatic is running around, waving a gun, injuring and killing people, or else driving a car recklessly and hitting pedestrians? (To use two recent real life examples.)

Someone has to decide to stop them. That's why we have governments who in turn appoint and hire police.

Do you think it's somehow a more morally justified position to claim nobody should ever stop a violent murderer and simply let him go on a murderous rampage?

Now... the fact I'm not a policeman or an executioner has nothing to do with the fact the magistrate is indeed ordained by God, and that a magistrate that doesn't use force is not a magistrate at all.

[ohio jones]

There are usually ways of stopping a lunatic, reckless driver, or murderer short of killing them.

But even when a police killing happens, it's not capital punishment, and thus beyond the scope of the thread.

[ohio jones]

Back to the OP, how about those in favor of capital punishment, and its righteousness, be the ones to literally pull the trigger or watch the, presumably live streamed, execution. My guess is, if that were that the case, there would be considerably less support.

My random audio playlist fed me a Voice of Praise song this morning: Keep on the Firing Line.

[MattY]

As I explained in much more detail here, I see government as a provisional, interim institution established by God for the present era. It is his gracious provision of an institution to keep order and administer justice in society. If we do wrong, government is God's servant to punish us. Capital punishment was instituted to underscore the point that human life is sacred and wanton disregard for human life cannot be ignored. There is a solid argument from the New Testament (Romans 13 in particular) that in the right circumstances the death penalty is still valid for government today, although I would say the more important principle is that life is sacred, and there are to be serious consequences meted out by human society for the shedding of innocent blood.

The best argument against capital punishment today (in my view) is prudential: the real possibility of executing someone who is innocent, and inequality in sentencing - that is, the disproportionate application of the death penalty to those who are ethnic minorities and/or poor.

I would also maintain that *public* executions are quite unnecessary today. Watching a person be put to death is not just a neutral act. It would change a person, and not for the better. Intentionally watching someone being killed coarsens society. The sometimes-cited public executions in the Old Testament were done under a specific covenantal framework that is not in place in our era; furthermore, they were not voyeuristic, but participatory. The specific community affected by the crime took part in meting out the consequences for the crime. In that case, yes, they would have changed those who participated, teaching them a lesson about the consequences of disobeying God's covenant. We are no longer under that Mosaic covenantal framework, and broadcasting an execution that all and sundry can watch - even anticipate and enjoy - is far different. (The theocracy of Israel, and the various penalties of the Law of Moses, were part of God's redemptive plan that culminated in the New Covenant - separate from the establishment of civil government in general back in Genesis 9. And so the theocracy of Israel is not a model or prescription for governments today).

Also, of course, the establishment of capital punishment - or any form of punishment - by government does not mean that Christians are supposed to participate in its administration. Nor does the establishment of a nonviolent ethic for Christians mean that the government is also supposed to be nonviolent now.

[JohnH]

If capital punishment is so terrible, why on earth did God put it in the law?

[ken_sylvania]

The best argument against capital punishment today (in my view) is prudential: the real possibility of executing someone who is innocent, and inequality in sentencing - that is, the disproportionate application of the death penalty to those who are ethnic minorities and/or poor.

I would say that if the Mosaic law is used as a rationale for the use of the death penalty, then the evidence standard for conviction under the Mosaic law ought to also be implemented.

[ken_sylvania]

If capital punishment is so terrible, why on earth did God put it in the law?

If, as stated in Hebrews, the new covenant is much better than the old covenant, why would anybody want to go back and implement the old covenant?

[JayP]

I am bamboozled by this thread. I see a lot of supposed Anabaptists taking a fundamentalist Protestant view

The arguments such as what to do about a crazed killer com0letely change the subject. Yes, government is ordained by God. It does a LOT of things that should not be part of a Christians life. Hence the Anabaptist view ypu do not serve on the government.

Just like they do not run a bar, or casino, or gun store, or lots of things that are legal.

Why is it hard to understand that just as the Christian does not partake of doing capital punishment, nor sitting on a jury, they equally do not condemn government for having trials or even executions?

Separation is a keystone of Anabaptist thought