Anabaptism, the New Testament, and capital punishment

[JohnH]

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

Why do you assume those in this conversation don't fall into the Separation category? I'm not convinced the separation is best accomplished by ignorance or silence. From my experience practice without building the underlying philosophy or conviction quickly becomes legalistic.

Godly separation is not easily accomplished or maintained in an interconnected world. What does separation mean when my mortgage is wrapped into complicated financial instruments that finance the oppression of the poor in some distance place or my traditional views on gender and sexuality are used as justification to platform political movements or my respect for the Bible is used to justify wars that are declared just or executions declared righteous.

At what point am I allowed to say I don't actually believe the outcome of that reasoning chain, remove me from the list of supportive reasoning.

"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." -1Timothy

The most traditional Anabaptist groups will avoid the charging of usury or even participation in it. This means they have to buy real estate cash and buy up land nobody else wants, or else buy it communally for multiple families.

Compromised Anabaptists come up with excuses why they can’t do any of that.

[JohnH]

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?

Well, the New Covenant doesn’t lay out what laws a civil government should or shouldn’t have.

The King didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

Our King left us with instructions to respect civil governments including that he ordained them to bear the sword as a terror to evildoers.

[joshuabgood]

Well, the New Covenant doesn’t lay out what laws a civil government should or shouldn’t have.

The King didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

Our King left us with instructions to respect civil governments including that he ordained them to bear the sword as a terror to evildoers.

We should respect everyone. And relating with government/political officials like say, well, Jesus himself, and say, John the Baptist did...seem like good examples to follow. How did Jesus relate to King Herod? The Jewish political council? Did he pose any threat to them?

[temporal1]

OT:

When Moses spoke the execution of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, I'd say that was pretty public: in front of all Israel. The earth opened up and swallowed all those rebellious people, and they fell screaming into the pit. After which God sent down fire to burn up 250 more men. That was not at all private. Traumatic to behold? Of course. But God had a reason--to show what He thinks of sin.

NT:

Jesus experienced public capital punishment.

^^In the most miserable and undignified way his persecutors could imagine. It was deliberate.

The most remembered, recorded, reenacted, grieved, respected, appreciated, emulated act of self-sacrifice in all of history.
Humility and victory in one.

- - - - - - -

OP:

What does the Bible say about this? What do Anabaptists general believe?

Let's try not to discuss current events. For the sake of discussion, we could restrict our conversation on this topic to pre-1600s era, and disambiguate other topics like racism, slavery, modern incarceration practices, etc. and instead focus on the question at hand.

JohnH:
But our King didn’t leave us with some generic “respect everyone”.

Instead, he told us that government is ordained by God and that it bears the sword for our own good, and it is ordained to be a terror to evildoers.

In my view, if Jesus wanted to be “efficient”, as human reasoning defines efficiency, He could have EASILY gone straight to governments, organized them to do His will. He didn’t. He didn’t take from them or ignore them.
He said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “follow me”.

Human reasoning, a siren song, convinces there’s a better way. There isn’t.

(i suppose) the NT could be a very thin Book, no need of all the personal accounts of the many tiresome individuals Jesus interacted with. He could have gathered the heads of states, straightened them out, returned to heaven. Like today’s tech gods.

[JohnH]

The King didn't come to take sides, he came to take over.

Our King left us with instructions to respect civil governments including that he ordained them to bear the sword as a terror to evildoers.

We should respect everyone. And relating with government/political officials like say, well, Jesus himself, and say, John the Baptist did...seem like good examples to follow. How did Jesus relate to King Herod? The Jewish political council? Did he pose any threat to them?

But our King didn’t leave us with some generic “respect everyone”.

Instead, he told us that government is ordained by God and that it bears the sword for our own good, and it is ordained to be a terror to evildoers.

[Ernie]

Our King left us with instructions to respect civil governments including that he ordained them to bear the sword as a terror to evildoers.

We should respect everyone. And relating with government/political officials like say, well, Jesus himself, and say, John the Baptist did...seem like good examples to follow. How did Jesus relate to King Herod? The Jewish political council? Did he pose any threat to them?

But our King didn’t leave us with some generic “respect everyone”.

Instead, he told us that government is ordained by God and that it bears the sword for our own good, and it is ordained to be a terror to evildoers.

You need to quote everything that the King said on this topic. Not just isolate one verse.

[R7ehr]

But our King didn’t leave us with some generic “respect everyone”.

Honor all men - 1 Peter 2:17

[JohnH]

But our King didn’t leave us with some generic “respect everyone”.

Honor all men - 1 Peter 2:17

Yes, that's true that he did. I should have said "he didn't leave us with just some generic 'respect everyone'."

There are specific passages that instruct us how to relate to government. Nowhere do I see the idea of anarchy promoted, nor the idea that Christians should somehow take a stance against the government using force.

[R7ehr]

Maybe this belongs in the other politics thread about capital punishment. I figured I’d put it here since it mentioned Jesus.

[Jazman]

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?

My answer to that question is; we humans most times probably can't tell, at least not for sure and therefore we should be really hesitant to decide... and maybe even never decide in our lifetime... that doesn't mean I live in constant rebellion and refuse to pay taxes etc, but I definitely withhold any sense of loyalty or allegiance or certainty about which side God might favor (does He ever even pick a 'favorite'? I'm not sure He does...)

As more years roll by and with more observations in my mind, I find it increasingly puzzling that so many christians think they know which side God is on... or which team He's 'picked' or divinely sided with... I think your post illustrates a different approach; a rarer approach and one that doesn't seem to be taught by christian leaders (or exemplified) and the laity isn't being discipled in either. Most people I know, family/friends/coworkers seem to have decided which 'sides' God is on...
But we don't see that in the Gospels... Jesus lived in the midst of a boiling culture war with competing factions who all wanted ultimate governance and yet He didn't side with any of them... Instead He did His thing and invited people to it.
(This is probably pay-walled), but the two gentlemen here discuss the ease with which christians slip into this deciding with certainty and using Scripture to do it... they mention numerous sobering and new-for-me examples in history...