Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment

[GaryK]

One of the first commands God gave after the Flood was for capital punishment.
[Gen 9:5-6 NASB20] – I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person. Whoever sheds human blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made mankind.

Then He clearly warned:
[Num 35:33 NASB20] – So you shall not defile the land in which you live; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

Yes, of course. But just as a reminder, the thread topic is Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment. As far as what the Old Testament says, Anabaptists (at least those who are conservative theologically) have no problem accepting what the Old Testament says about God's commands relating to capital punishment, war, retribution, and so forth. But we believe that Jesus came to usher in the kingdom of God in a new and different way that excludes believers wielding the sword. This doesn't mean the Old Testament isn't true or that God is a whole different being now. It means that God has revealed much more of himself in Jesus, showing us what he always wanted his kingdom and people to be. The Old Testament represents a flawed picture indeed, and shows God working with a people who failed to be faithful and rebelled at every turn. And the existence of the state and the power of the sword today still represents God working with a humanity that is fallen and needs some sort of restraint. But the church, the kingdom of God, is the new humanity, where peace and nonresistance is the way.

I disagree. I think the practice set forth in the Noahic Covenant of "life for life" is applicable today and given by God for governments to carry out as a restraining force against evil. Its not by chance, I believe, that chapter 10 follows chapter 9 as the "table of nations". God established borders and nations following these commands.

I see a distinction between the Mosaic and Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled but the Noahic has not...I dont believe that scripture promotes that all the instruction prior to the cross is now wiped. The only scripture in the NT that speaks of fulfillment is in reference to the "Law" not the entire OT.

In saying you disagree, I'm curious what, specifically, you disagree with that Mike wrote. Do you disagree with the idea that the NT excludes believers wielding the sword?

[mike]

I disagree. I think the practice set forth in the Noahic Covenant of "life for life" is applicable today and given by God for governments to carry out as a restraining force against evil. Its not by chance, I believe, that chapter 10 follows chapter 9 as the "table of nations". God established borders and nations following these commands.

I see a distinction between the Mosaic and Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled but the Noahic has not...I dont believe that scripture promotes that all the instruction prior to the cross is now wiped. The only scripture in the NT that speaks of fulfillment is in reference to the "Law" not the entire OT.

Are you an Anabaptist?

Yes.

OK. What, in your view, prevents a Christian from being a member of the civil government who uses the sword?

[JohnH]

I can't because I cannot execute the God-ordained duties of the office whilst also obeying what I believe Jesus has taught me to do.

That doesn't mean I go and bleat about other people in government doing their God-ordained duties.

[Nomad]

Are you an Anabaptist?

Yes.

OK. What, in your view, prevents a Christian from being a member of the civil government who uses the sword?

I haven't spent a lot of time on this like some here and I'm a bit distracted with work so I apologize if this doesn't make sense. I can't really find any scripture in OT or NT that prevents a Christian from the civil government. All I have to go on was that Centurions and governing officials were witnessed to yet never told to leave their office. Also, John the Baptist whom prepared the way before our Savior told soldiers this: Lk 3:14 "Then some soldiers asked him, ‘And what should we do?’ He replied, ‘Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely —be content with your pay.’"

I wouldn't go to a Anabaptist meeting and broadcast this (partly why I'm using a pseudonym here)...but I am not necessarily against participation in government positions. It would just be very tough to do so...especially when the current parties endorse ungodliness.

I view "nonresistance" as loving our enemies and not retaliating (whether physically or verbally). Anabaptist tend to stress the physical restraint but not the verbal...thats why I have always said I have yet to meet a "nonresistant Anabaptist". A officer can do both while also exacting punishment on an evildoer. Similarly, we Anabaptist often administer punishment when individuals participate in sin in our own church's while still adhering to nonresistance. I also sometimes get the feeling that "loving" our enemies gets mistaken with "encouraging" our enemy. I can love my enemy yet not encourage them in the evil they participate in.

[Nomad]

Yes, of course. But just as a reminder, the thread topic is Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment. As far as what the Old Testament says, Anabaptists (at least those who are conservative theologically) have no problem accepting what the Old Testament says about God's commands relating to capital punishment, war, retribution, and so forth. But we believe that Jesus came to usher in the kingdom of God in a new and different way that excludes believers wielding the sword. This doesn't mean the Old Testament isn't true or that God is a whole different being now. It means that God has revealed much more of himself in Jesus, showing us what he always wanted his kingdom and people to be. The Old Testament represents a flawed picture indeed, and shows God working with a people who failed to be faithful and rebelled at every turn. And the existence of the state and the power of the sword today still represents God working with a humanity that is fallen and needs some sort of restraint. But the church, the kingdom of God, is the new humanity, where peace and nonresistance is the way.

I disagree. I think the practice set forth in the Noahic Covenant of "life for life" is applicable today and given by God for governments to carry out as a restraining force against evil. Its not by chance, I believe, that chapter 10 follows chapter 9 as the "table of nations". God established borders and nations following these commands.

I see a distinction between the Mosaic and Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled but the Noahic has not...I dont believe that scripture promotes that all the instruction prior to the cross is now wiped. The only scripture in the NT that speaks of fulfillment is in reference to the "Law" not the entire OT.

In saying you disagree, I'm curious what, specifically, you disagree with that Mike wrote. Do you disagree with the idea that the NT excludes believers wielding the sword?

I may have misread some parts of what he stated above. To which I apologize...

But I understood the statement that the "OT is a flawed picture" as dismissing the passage in Genesis 9 that was quoted. I believe its still applicable to the NT era and implicitly applied in Romans 13.

I wouldn't dismiss Genesis chapter 9.

[mike]

Yes.

OK. What, in your view, prevents a Christian from being a member of the civil government who uses the sword?

I haven't spent a lot of time on this like some here and I'm a bit distracted with work so I apologize if this doesn't make sense. I can't really find any scripture in OT or NT that prevents a Christian from the civil government. All I have to go on was that Centurions and governing officials were witnessed to yet never told to leave their office. Also, John the Baptist whom prepared the way before our Savior told soldiers this: Lk 3:14 "Then some soldiers asked him, ‘And what should we do?’ He replied, ‘Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely —be content with your pay.’"

I wouldn't go to a Anabaptist meeting and broadcast this (partly why I'm using a pseudonym here)...but I am not necessarily against participation in government positions. It would just be very tough to do so...especially when the current parties endorse ungodliness.

I view "nonresistance" as loving our enemies and not retaliating (whether physically or verbally). Anabaptist tend to stress the physical restraint but not the verbal...thats why I have always said I have yet to meet a "nonresistant Anabaptist". A officer can do both while also exacting punishment on an evildoer. Similarly, we Anabaptist often administer punishment when individuals participate in sin in our own church's while still adhering to nonresistance. I also sometimes get the feeling that "loving" our enemies gets mistaken with "encouraging" our enemy. I can love my enemy yet not encourage them in the evil they participate in.

OK, if you don't hold the Anabaptist understanding of participation in civil government (and by implication the use of the sword), then your viewpoint is understandable from that perspective. It's just not what Anabaptists typically believe.

[ohio jones]

Are you an Anabaptist?

Yes.

Please go to the User Control Panel (click on your name at the top right of the page) and update the Affiliation field on the Profile tab. Maybe you are indeed an Alien, but it's helpful to be more descriptive.

[Nomad]

Are you an Anabaptist?

Yes.

Please go to the User Control Panel (click on your name at the top right of the page) and update the Affiliation field on the Profile tab. Maybe you are indeed an Alien, but it's helpful to be more descriptive.

No

[JohnH]

The typical Anabaptist position is to not use deadly force. That makes some civil government options available, like being a firefighter or even a fire chief, but others are not, such as a bailiff.

Some Anabaptists take it to a stricter degree and avoid any kind of force at all, or claim they don't, although this tends to stretch the bounds of believability in my view, since such people also discipline their children and so forth.

Finally, many people criticise Anabaptists who claim that words are the same thing as using deadly force or strong persuasion, even though they aren't. This is one of the most common criticisms of nonresistance I hear, actually, going so far as to tell me it's actually the same thing as using violence and deadly force for me to merely disagree with someone or rebuke them.

[R7ehr]

Are you an Anabaptist?

Yes.

Please go to the User Control Panel (click on your name at the top right of the page) and update the Affiliation field on the Profile tab. Maybe you are indeed an Alien, but it's helpful to be more descriptive.

He No-mad.