Originally posted by 1Way
Jefferson – Hey friend, I just read most of this thread. I’m usually way to busy to respond as I’m gone all week driving truck OTR, and have many things to catch up on like moving for example. I hope you will entreat me with yet another response.
I agree with you about how capitol punishment is carried out has moral implications that can be beneficial to a society and that we should be careful to not stray from the written word. And that for example, prolonged torture is wrong and is not a Godly punishment.
Morality and absolutes
You hold that capitol punishment for a “"non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense” is a moral issue. In other words, it would be “wrong” to do otherwise. For example, to execute by drowning a murderer who drowned their victim(s), that would be wrong. But where I come from, morality is an issue of absolute right and wrong, it doesn’t change from time to time. So what about Cain and Able? Was God wrong for contradicting what you evidently hold is a moral issue? Wasn’t that a case of “non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense.”? Even if it was one of those exceptions you keep mentioning, do you think that God could violate a moral issue? You don’t deny that (true) morality is absolute, do you?
? hmmmmm ?
Why do you keep saying, “the body of Christ dispensation”, instead of the “dispensation of mystery”, or the “dispensation of grace”, for example?
Details verses big picture
As to the issue of Romans 13 and “bearing” the sword verses “keeping” the sword, your point in part being that your view is more active and fitting, and ours is less active and less fitting. On the contrary, your view is more passive and ours more active.
Here’s the text.
“Romans 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”
-- God’s purposeful sword bearing minister --
-- an avenger -- to [execute] wrath -- on the criminal --
That is a picture of active use, a present active threat, avenging against a criminal, executing wrath on the criminal. These ideas of godly wrath and vengeance are within the context of righteous judgment against the evil doer. To “avenge” and to “execute” wrath does not lend to a police officer packing just in case a crime might happen. To “avenge” and to “execute wrath” usually means that the crime already happened, and that judgment has already passed. See Romans 12:9 below.
So, I think your view turns the “bearing of the sword” into a more passive and undeveloped potential role than the idea presented of the sword’s active use in “executing wrath and vengeance” “on” the criminal. If not, then what’s the difference between “repaying after the fact” and (“prepaying” if you will) “packing” in advance before hand?
When is Godly wrath and vengeance normally executed on the criminal?
How does the old saying go?
Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance [is] Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
Repay? Is the packing police man bearing arms to repay “passed tense”. Or isn’t he generally packing to take care of present and perhaps future or potential threats, and to protect his own life and the lives of the innocent in so doing? I.E. a prophylactic safeguard, not as much one of repayment.
Who generally, and without doubt, rules and governs a land?
Lastly, consider who is named as the sword bearer. The governing authority, what do those words bring to mind?
- Judges, rulers, magistrates, etc.
- Military, police, soldiers, armies, etc.
Sure they can overlap ideas, buy you are distinguishing between the two. I doubt it if those societies back then separated their military from civilian protection. But, if God intended a police or military idea, either would normally represent a large numerous and less distinct group of people who actually does not have inherent authority and are governed by their own rulers, as compared to magistrates and rulers, who are generally considered the few or the distinct or the one (guy in charge), and they are the seat or location of authority. So why instead of military, did He say, the “governing authorities” and “rulers” and “the authority” (verse 3), and “he” in verse 4? All of which have the idea of ruling judicial authority, and lend far better to the few or the singular and those who rule over others than it would armies and military who are governed by their governors. Armies and police themselves don’t rule a land, they answer to the lands laws and magistrates created by its rulers. So, it’s not about military; it’s about rulers who are in governing authority, and they appropriately preside over capitol punishment and the like.
1Way
