← Back to sermon library

You can turn with me in your 
Bibles to Deuteronomy Chapter 5 as we continue to go through 
the 10 Commandments. We are in the 6th Commandment 
tonight, you shall not murder. And full disclosure, I had planned 
to deal with the death penalty, I typically just sort of fit 
it in. As the lawful exceptions, it's 
not actually the act of murder, so I like to try and explain 
that. And there are three instances of justifiable homicide, the 
death penalty, just war, and self-defense. So we'll look at 
those, God willing, next week, those other two, but we'll focus 
on the doctrine of the death penalty tonight after brief introductory 
comments on the Sixth Commandment proper. So beginning in Deuteronomy 
chapter five at verse one, And Moses called all Israel and said 
to them, here, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which 
I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be 
careful to observe them. The Lord our God made a covenant 
with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant 
with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all 
of us who are alive. The Lord talked with you face 
to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. I stood 
between the Lord and you at that time to declare to you the word 
of the Lord, for you were afraid because of the fire and you did 
not go up the mountain. He said, I am the Lord, your 
God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house 
of bondage. "'You shall have no other gods 
before me. "'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 
"'any likeness of anything that is in heaven above "'or that 
is in the earth beneath, "'or that is in the water under the 
earth. "'You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. "'For 
I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, "'visiting the iniquity 
of the fathers upon the children "'to the third and fourth generations 
of those who hate me, "'but showing mercy to thousands, "'to those 
who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of 
the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless 
who takes his name in vain. Observe the Sabbath day to keep 
it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall 
labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath 
of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work. "'you, 
nor your son, nor your daughter, "'nor your male servant, nor 
your female servant, "'nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any 
of your cattle, "'nor your stranger who is within your gates, "'that 
your male servant and your female servant "'may rest as well as 
you. "'And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, 
"'and the Lord your God brought you out from there "'by a mighty 
hand and by an outstretched arm. "'Therefore, the Lord your God 
commanded you "'to keep the Sabbath day. "'Honor your father and 
your mother, "'as the Lord your God has commanded you, "'that 
your days may be long, "'and that it may be well with you 
"'in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. "'You 
shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, "'you shall 
not steal, "'you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 
"'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, "'and you shall not desire 
your neighbor's house, "'his field, his male servant, his 
female servant, "'his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your 
neighbor's. These words, the Lord spoke to 
all your assembly in the mountain, from the midst of the fire, the 
cloud and the thick darkness with a loud voice. And he added 
no more. And he wrote them on two tablets 
of stone and gave them to me. Amen. We'll remember that Deuteronomy 
is directed specifically to the second generation. They're on 
the plains of Moab. They're poised and getting ready. 
to go into the promised land, and basically what you have are 
a series of exhortations by Moses, God through Moses. You have a 
historical review where they had been and what God had done 
for them in chapters 1 to 4. You have the exhortation to pursue 
covenant loyalty, the largest section of the book, chapters 
5 to chapter 28, and then there's a summary and conclusion in chapters 
29 and 30, and that's followed by the succession of Joshua, 
and then the death of Moses. And when we come to the Ten Commandments, 
remember that we speak of the two tables of the law. The first 
table is our duty to God, the first four commandments, and 
then the latter six commandments are our duty toward man. And 
as I said, we pick up verse 17 tonight, you shall not murder. 
And so the broad outline is in terms of what we'll be doing 
this week and next week and probably the following week is the explanation 
of the command and then secondly the application of the command. 
Specifically tonight under the explanation of the command we'll 
look at the word used, we'll look at the prohibitions involved, 
and then we'll explain the exceptions again. death penalty, self-defense, 
and legitimate or just war are not acts of murder, and I think 
it's good for the people of God to understand that so that we 
know how to argue when it comes to these things. So first, with 
reference to the word. Walter Kaiser talks about the 
word that's used here, the word translated murder, in the New 
King James. The Old King James has kill, 
and that's a bit of an unfortunate translation, because as I said, 
there are three instances of lawful killing or lawful homicide. If it's the death penalty, if 
it's self-defense, if it is a just war, you are permitted by God 
in his law to kill. So Kaiser says, while Hebrew 
possesses seven words for killing, the word used here appears only 
47 times in the Old Testament. If any one of the seven words 
could signify murder, where factors of premeditation and intentionality 
are present, this is the verb. And so that's the underscored 
idea here with reference to murder. There must be premeditation, 
there must be intention, there must be studied vengeance, there 
must be malice aforethought. So those things have to be present 
to constitute murder. And of course, the Bible makes 
that distinction in Exodus chapter 21 in verses 12 to 13, Numbers 
35 in verses 9 and following, and then in Deuteronomy 19 verses 
4 to 13. The specific example used by 
God through Moses is somebody that is chopping wood with an 
axe. If the axe head falls off and it finds its way into your 
neighbor's head by accident, you are not guilty of the crime 
of murder. But if you are hiding in his bush and he comes home 
at night and you jump out and you strike him purposefully with 
the axe, then you've committed the act of murder. So premeditation, 
malice aforethought, intention, deliberation, those things are 
present if you're hiding in the bush and you specifically and 
purposefully want to end your neighbor's life. Now, of course, 
accidental homicide was also dealt with in Old Covenant Israel. 
You had cities of refuge, which would certainly encourage the 
people of God or the people in the covenant community to be 
careful to make sure their accents were connected and not possibly 
willing to fly off and hit their neighbor. So cities of refuge 
definitely preserved the life of those who engaged in accidental 
homicide, but it was nevertheless a big interruption in one's life. 
So it wasn't the case that accidental homicide was just nothing. There was something appended 
to it in terms of at least some sort of a penalty. And of course, 
negligent homicide, if you're negligent, if you have an ox 
that tends to gore and you don't secure that ox, then you are 
criminally responsible if that ox gets out and it gores your 
neighbor. So all of those distinctions 
are made in biblical law. All of those things are addressed 
and all of those things are dealt with. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, 
he defines murder this way, to kill a human being with premeditated 
malice. So again, those things are absolutely 
necessary in order to constitute the crime of murder. If you accidentally 
hit somebody with your car and they die, that's not murder. You didn't try to hit them with 
your car. And again, you're going to have 
trouble of conscience. You're probably going to feel 
bad. You're going to probably feel that, you know, I should 
have taken a different route or whatever, but you're not a 
murderer. Again, if you have malice aforethought and you see 
your enemy and you run him over, then you are guilty of the crime 
of murder. So we need to make sure we understand 
the distinctions involved so that we don't unnecessarily charge 
people with the crime of murder when it's probably accidental 
homicide. But conversely, we want to make 
sure that if somebody is a murderer, they are subject to what the 
Bible demands in terms of penalty and in terms of retribution, 
which we'll see in a few moments. Now, in terms of the prohibitions 
of the commandment, obviously the external act. If I, with 
malice aforethought and premeditation and deliberation, end the life 
of another human being, I stop their pulse from beating, I stop 
their heart from beating, I stop their blood from flowing, I am 
guilty of the crime of murder. But the scriptures, both Old 
and New Testaments, this isn't just Jesus in the New Testament 
in the Sermon on the Mount sort of elevating the commandment 
with reference to murder to locate it beyond just the external act. You see all of this in the Old 
Covenant as well. So with reference to an internal 
disposition, you see the hatred of others. And again, Jesus speaks 
of this in the Sermon on the Mount, but so does Moses in Leviticus 
chapter 19. You see it as well in Zechariah 
7 and in Zechariah chapter 8. So the hatred of others. Now 
again, the scripture speaks of David hates God's enemies. We 
see Jesus in that prayer in Psalm 31. I hate those who are given 
over to useless idols. Again, that kind of thing does 
not violate this particular principle. These are specific enemies of 
Yahweh. But with reference to us hating people in our workplace, 
hating people in our family, hating people in our community, 
As Calvin says, the hand indeed gives birth to murder, but the 
mind, when infected with anger and hatred, conceives it. So 
he traces the hand that actually engages in the act of murder, 
but it's traced to the heart and to the mind, which conceives 
that particular act of murder. As well, in the Sermon on the 
Mount, Jesus condemns the unwarranted anger against another person 
in Matthew 5, 22a. And that's all in the section 
where he's dealing with that particular commandment, you shall 
not murder. Again, when Jesus says, you have 
heard that it was said to those of old, but I say to you, he's 
not making an antithesis between him and Moses. Moses taught the 
same thing. The antithesis is between Jesus 
and Moses' interpreters, the Jews that would come subsequent 
to Moses, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the other interpreters 
that would say, oh, as long as you don't actually stop somebody's 
heart from beating, you haven't violated or transgressed the 
commandment. No, Jesus says, When you engage 
in unwarranted anger, you have violated the commandment of God 
relative to not murdering. And again, you see that in Moses 
as well. But in Matthew 5.22b, and we'll 
explore all these things probably in two or three weeks in a bit 
more detail, just giving you an overview now, the assassination 
of another's character. If you call him fool or raka, 
and you destroy his character, or you destroy his reputation, 
That is akin to murder. If you ruin somebody's life by, 
you know, polluting the well with reference to their character 
or their lack of virtue, you can very effectively destroy 
them. We've seen this over the last 
several years in what's been called cancel culture. You pin 
an accusation on somebody that may or may not be true and you 
ruin his life. That is a bad thing. We as God's 
people are not supposed to engage in that specific thing, but non-God's 
people aren't supposed to engage in that either. The law of God 
binds all men in all ages. So the prohibitions deal with 
the external act, but then as well the internal disposition, 
this hatred of others, unwarranted anger against another person, 
or the assassination of another person's character. And again, 
we'll explore those in more detail as we apply the command later 
on. But as I mentioned, there are 
exceptions to this. Three instances in Scripture 
that deal with lawful homicide or justifiable homicide. I already 
had this prepared before the events of the day, just so you 
know. But recently, if you've watched 
the news, the punishment of DeCarlos Brown Jr. And his murder of Irina 
Zarutska on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina has got a lot 
of people saying this guy needs the death penalty. And then today, 
addressing the Charlie Kirk murder, the governor of Utah called it 
a political assassination. And then he reminded everybody 
that the death penalty is still in play in the state of Utah. 
So most likely, there's going to be a lot of discussion about 
the death penalty over the next little while. And of course, 
in Canada, I have my dates written down somewhere here. In Canada, 
it was eliminated de facto in 1963 and then de jure on July 
14, 1976. So the death penalty has not 
been practiced in Canada for many, many, many years. And I'm 
going to argue tonight that that's a major crime, and that's a major 
sin. If the government is too severe, 
that's bad. But if the government is too 
lenient, that's bad as well. And as I've said before, the 
problem isn't that government kills people. The problem is 
that the government presently is in the business of killing 
the wrong people. They kill babies in the womb. 
They kill old people when they're infirm. They kill all manner 
of people, but not violent criminals, not murderers, not rapists, not 
pedophiles, not those who should be subject to the death penalty. So I've had this burden for many, 
many years. Early on in my time here in Chilliwack, 
I met with another pastor, and this was probably only a couple 
years in for me, and I asked him if he ever preached on the 
death penalty or abortion. And he said, well, you know, 
abortion's pretty controversial. I don't like to touch that. And 
you know, with Jesus, he taught us to turn the other cheek. And 
I thought, this guy's pastoring a church, and he doesn't know 
what the Bible teaches about the death penalty. I fear that 
you can multiply that pastor by a whole lot and by a lot of 
Christians that are very fuzzy when it comes to what does the 
Bible teach with reference to capital punishment or the death 
penalty. And again, I say this mindful 
of the fact that I'm glad that in Canada there was no death 
penalty during the time of Prime Minister Trudeau and probably 
now with Prime Minister Carney. I don't want those guys having 
the power of the sword. I think that if we actually take 
seriously what God says concerning death penalty and capital punishment, 
it should affect us in such a way as to see the severity and the 
gravity of civil government and choose men that are proven in 
terms of wisdom, in terms of virtue, and in terms of competence 
in order to carry out such a requirement. And so when we pick fools for 
civil government, we ought to be at least somewhat thankful 
that they're not wielding the sword, because in the COVID area, 
they probably would have wielded the sword against us, and that 
wouldn't have been very happy as far as I'm concerned. So we 
need to think biblically with reference to the doctrine of 
the death penalty, so we're gonna do a biblical theology of it. 
First, the Old Testament, turn to Genesis chapter nine. Genesis 
chapter nine. This is what we call the Noahic 
covenant, the covenant made with Noah. And you can search from 
Genesis 10 to Revelation 22 and you will never find a place where 
the Noahic covenant has been obliterated or abrogated or done 
away with. You'll never find a place where 
the Noahic covenant has been suspended. It's not a redemptive 
covenant. It's not a special grace covenant. 
It is rather a common grace covenant that is meant to govern the creation. It is meant to govern all creatures 
under God, and that's precisely what we find with God's instructions 
to Noah. So note first with reference 
to the mandate for mankind in Genesis 9, 6. It says, whoever 
sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the 
image of God he made man. So that's God's mandate for mankind. Again, you don't see it suspended, 
you don't see it abrogated, you don't see it done away with, 
you don't see it nullified, you don't see it invalid anywhere. 
This is a common grace covenant that holds for all time. Now in terms of the context, 
notice it's a post-flood context. It's when Noah and his family 
emerged from the ark after the flood. If you look back to chapter 
6, you'll see the pre-flood conditions, and I don't just mean it was 
dry. I mean the pre-flood conditions on the earth in terms of earth's 
ethics. Look at verses 11 and 12. The 
earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled 
with violence. So God looked upon the earth, 
and indeed it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their 
way on the earth. So the earth was filled with 
violence. So he gives redress for that in a post-flood world 
in Genesis 9, 6. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. 
So back to Genesis chapter 9, in verses 1 and 7, we see an 
emphasis on the propagation of life. Verse 1, so God blessed 
Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful and multiply 
and fill the earth. Noah's functioning as an Adam-like 
figure. This was originally given to 
Adam in Genesis 1, verses 26 to 28. Post-flood, Noah, as an 
Adam-like figure in a new situation or context, is given a similar 
mandate. Notice in verse 7, and as for 
you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the 
earth and multiply in it. Notice as well there's a provision 
made for life in verses 2 and 3. And the fear of you and the 
dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every 
bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all 
the fish of the sea. These are given into your hand. 
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have 
given you all things, even as the green herbs. And then notice 
the protection of life. 2A, the fear of you and the dread 
of you shall be on every beast of the earth. That's to protect 
man and his life on earth. Verse 4, but you shall not eat 
flesh with its life, that is its blood. and then, I'm sorry, 
the provision of life, and then we've got the protection of life, 
so in 2A, 4, and then 6. So, but you shall not eat flesh 
with its life, that is its blood, in verse 4. Wenham says, no sin 
shows greater contempt for life than homicide. Whereas an animal's 
blood may be shed but not consumed, human blood cannot even be shed. 
That's the prohibition in view here. And then that brings us 
specifically to the protection of life in verse six. So the 
offense is obvious, whoever sheds man's blood. And as you move 
on in scripture, as I said, you get that distinction between 
murder and accidental homicide. And so this is obviously dealing 
with murder. The penalty tells us or demands 
that interpretation. So the whoever sheds man's blood 
has reference to murderers and that jives with verse 11 in chapter 
6. The earth also was corrupt before 
God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked 
upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt, for all flesh had 
corrupted their way on the earth. So the offense is simple, the 
unlawful taking of another person's life. Notice the punishment that's 
involved. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood shall be shed. That's the punishment demanded 
by God in a common grace covenant made for the regulation of society 
on earth. By man his blood shall be shed. And then notice the agent that 
is involved. By man his blood shall be shed. You have to appreciate what he's 
saying here. If you go out and you unlawfully 
take the life of another, then there are those appointed that 
are going to take your life. Now, there's going to be a trial. 
There's going to be accusation. There's going to be rules of 
evidence. There's going to be all of that cross-examination. But 
if you are found guilty, then you will be executed. You will 
have your blood shed by man, by an agency. Luther says this 
was the first command having reference to the temporal sword. 
By these words, temporal government was established and the sword 
placed in its hand by God. And then Calvin comments, God 
so threatens and denounces vengeance against the murderer that He 
even arms the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of 
slaughter, in order that the blood of men may not be shed 
with impunity. Again, in a post-flood context, 
where the pre-flood context had been much violence, much corruption, 
much murder, much mayhem, post-flood context is very simple. Whoever 
sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. And note 
the reason given, for in the image of God he made man. Now 
commentators are split on what that refers to. For in the image 
of God he made man. Does that refer to by man his 
blood shall be shed? In other words, God's image bearer 
is such that he has the authority to be the shedder of blood as 
a magistrate. Or does it ground the whoever 
sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, because 
the dignity of man is seen in the image of God? I think it's 
that one, but listen to Klein. This could explain both the enormity 
of murder and the dignity of man that justified assigning 
him so grave a judicial responsibility. So it could, by man, his blood 
shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man, such that 
he has this authority from God to execute criminal offenders." 
I don't think that's an outlandish interpretation, though I favor 
the interpretation that grounds the prohibition in the reality 
that man is image-bearer. and for someone to murder man, 
the image bearer, it is an indirect assault upon the very majesty 
of God. In fact, Gerardus Vos says such. In life slain, it is the image 
of God, i.e., the divine majesty that is assaulted. So if I murder 
somebody, it is heinous because that somebody is made in the 
image of God. When we murder babies in their 
mother's wombs, that's heinous because they're made in the image 
of God. When we murder elderly folk or infirm folk or mentally 
ill folk or any folk that we choose to, that is heinous because 
those folk are in the image of God. It grounds the commandment 
theologically. It's not just, well, you know, 
it's a nice way to sort of conduct ourselves in this post-flood 
environment. No, the theological rationale in terms of the prohibition 
of murder, is the reality that man bears God's image. And as, 
I think, Vos is bang on, in life slain, it is the image of God, 
the divine majesty, that is assaulted. So in Genesis 9, verse 6, we 
have, again, a non-suspended, a non-abrogated, a non-done-away-with 
covenantal arrangement that God made with the universe to regulate 
earthly society until the new heavens and the new earth. And 
that includes the death penalty or capital punishment with reference 
to murderers. Now, when we get to the mandate, 
so that's the mandate for mankind. When we get to the mandate for 
Israel or the old covenant, we see certain things there that 
are further extrapolated and further explained what we see 
here in Genesis 9-6. The first is the distinction 
between accidental homicide and murder. Just turn to Exodus 21. 
It's the shorter version, Exodus 21. I already touched on this. I gave you the main places, Exodus 
numbers in Deuteronomy. I'll speak to this, but the most 
concise is Exodus 21, 12 to 14. Notice, he who strikes a man 
so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if 
he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, 
then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. That's the 
city of refuge. Notice the however. He who strikes a man so that 
he dies shall surely be put to death. That's consistent with 
Genesis 9, 6. However, if he did not lie and wait, if there 
was no malice aforethought, if there was no premeditation, if 
there was no deliberation, there was not hatred in the man's heart. 
And then in verse 14, but if a man acts with premeditation 
against his neighbor to kill him by treachery, you shall take 
him from my altar that he may die. So there's a distinction 
between accidental homicide and murder that the Old Covenant 
shows to us. As well, there is an identification 
of additional capital crimes, or additional death penalty crimes. So in Genesis 9, 6, it's pretty 
limited. Well, it's very much limited 
only to the crime of murder. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. 
Now, in the Old Covenant, murder is certainly a capital crime, 
but so are adultery and sexual immorality. So is bestiality. So is homosexuality. So is rape. So is incest. So is the incorrigible 
son. So is Sabbath breaking. So is 
kidnapping. So is solicitation to apostasy. And so is witchcraft, sorcery, 
and false pretension of prophecy, and blasphemy as well. And I 
have all the texts there. If you're thinking on making 
this up so you can You know, refer to these later. If you 
want to email me, I'll cut and paste and send that over to you. 
So what the Old Covenant does, it shows us, it reinforces the 
prohibition in terms of murder and appends the death penalty 
to the crime of murder, but it gives us a whole host of other 
things that are capital offenses as well. Now, the obvious question 
in the New Covenant is, does those things still apply? Well, 
we will argue that another time. I have my own thoughts on that. 
But it would take us too far afield. But the last thing I 
want to see in terms of the Old Covenant with reference to its 
dealings with the death penalty is in Numbers 35. Numbers 35. So in the Old Covenant, we see 
the distinction between accidental homicide and murder, the identification 
of additional capital crimes, and then we get something of 
the declaration of its necessity, the declaration of its necessity, 
not, again, a suggestion. This has concerned me for many, 
many years in political discourse. The government's job is very 
simple according to Scripture. It's to protect its citizens. 
from obviously domestic criminals, we should be able to walk down 
the street at night without getting robbed or mugged or raped, and 
from foreign invasion. When you ask the Bible, what's 
the role of civil government? That's it. I mean, we could have 
that debate too, and you know, should they build roads, and 
should they send your kids to school? We could have that debate, 
but we know for certain that the primary equipment given to 
civil government is the sword. And the sword isn't for educating 
your children. It isn't for running your health 
care. It isn't for paying you welfare. It isn't for opening 
your borders. It is for the public execution 
of criminal offenders in a body politic and the defense from 
foreign invasion. And so when it comes to political 
discourse, we don't even question or think about the idea that 
our government should actually be punishing criminal offenders. 
It doesn't even come up. I mean, is there this or these 
benefits? What freebies are in it for me 
this time around? It really is sickening. But if 
you look at Numbers 35, specifically in verses 31 to 34, Notice, moreover, 
you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is 
guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. Several, 
many, many years ago, Pastor Albert M. Martin preached on 
the sins of blood guiltiness, the sins of blood guiltiness 
in our lands, and he definitely mentioned abortion, and that 
innocent blood cries out. It must be requited. It must 
be visited with punishment on the criminal offenders, not just 
abortion, but drive-by shootings or that man who stuck a knife 
in that Ukrainian girl's neck on a train in Charlotte, North 
Carolina. So moreover, you shall take no 
ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he 
shall surely be put to death. And you shall take no ransom 
for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return 
to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. So you shall 
not pollute the land where you are, 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 him who shed it. Think 
about all the blood guiltiness in our land for the crimes that 
are carried out on a regular basis. If the blood of righteous 
Abel cried out to God from the grave, what is the blood of all 
these righteous innocents doing? Therefore, verse 34, do not defile 
the land which you inhabit in the midst of which I dwell, for 
I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel. Now, there 
are many other places we could go to in the Old Testament, but 
I hope that just whets your appetite and shows you Genesis 9-6 is 
constantly and continuously binding. Certainly, the Mosaic Covenant 
upholds that with reference to the crime of murder, adds additional 
crimes, gives us distinctions to think through, and then underscores 
the necessity of capital punishment, specifically with reference to 
the crime of murder. So Numbers 35 basically echoes 
Genesis 9. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, he made 
man. This isn't a suggestion. This 
isn't, you know, this is the way that you guys can graduate 
to a better body politic. You're not a body politic if 
you're not exercising justice. If you're not exercising righteousness. 
If your people can't walk down the street at night, or if there's 
foreign invasion that is happening recurringly, your government 
has failed. They're not doing their job, because that's the 
job. That's the primary emphasis. Now, in terms of the New Testament, 
we have the crucifixion of Jesus. Notice that Jesus, and again, 
this is an argument by silence. He never said, well, the death 
penalty is immoral. We're not supposed to kill people. 
He didn't do that. He subjected himself to Roman 
punishment, to Roman execution. Turn to Acts 25, where Paul has 
a favorable view with reference to his own situation concerning 
the death penalty. Acts 25 at verse 10. Well verse 9, but Fastus wanting 
to do the Jews a favor answered Paul and said, Are you willing 
to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning 
these things? So Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where 
I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, 
as you very well know, for if I am an offender or have committed 
anything deserving of death, you know, broaden out from just 
murder deserving death. If I've done anything deserving 
death, he acknowledges the reality that the death penalty is in 
play and that it's not just for the crime of murder, but there's 
also other crimes that one can be justly executed for. So he says, if I am an offender 
or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to 
dying. But if there is nothing in these things of which these 
men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them, I appeal to Caesar. 
Paul doesn't put on his pacifist pants and say, you know, let's 
discuss this death penalty thing. That's not something that should 
be done in civil society. That's not what he does. He embraces 
the reality. He says, if I'm guilty, I don't 
reject it. If I'm guilty, I don't resist 
it. If I'm guilty, I don't refuse it. The issue is Paul's not guilty. And Paul knows he's not guilty, 
so he's able to lay down that gauntlet. But he acknowledges 
the validity of the death penalty in the Roman Empire, and does 
not object in principle to being executed, should it be found 
that he should be executed. And of course, the classic passage 
is Romans chapter 13. Romans chapter 13. Specifically, verses one to four. But before we get to chapter 
13, verses one to four, we should look a bit at the larger context. Notice how chapter 13, verse 
one starts. Let every soul be subject. Notice 
it doesn't say and or but. You know, there's often these 
adversitives that sort of separate contexts a bit. This continues 
on from chapter 12. And if Paul's emphasis in chapter 
12 is his ethics, his emphasis in chapter 13 verses one to eight 
are his politics. But you see the close connection 
between the two chapters. Remember that chapter headings 
or chapter numbers and verse numbers, those aren't inspired. 
Those came much later. So if you were reading Romans 
12, I mean, I think it's our practice. We have a Bible reading 
plan, and we read Romans 12, and then we read Romans 13 the 
next time we come to our Bibles. We sometimes miss connections 
when we do that. So my argument is always read 
more Bible. You're not going to be hurt by 
reading more Bible. I guarantee you. You're not going 
to burst in flames. If you read an extra chapter, you can do 
that. That's OK. But look at verse 
17 in Romans 12. Verse 17 in Romans 12. Repay 
no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in 
the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as 
depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not 
avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is 
written, vengeance is mine. I will repay, says the Lord. 
Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give 
him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on 
his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with 
good. Now, remember this bit or this section. Later, we're 
going to deal with objections. And one of the objections is 
Matthew 5, turn the other cheek. I think Matthew 5 and this section 
in Romans 12 are parallel. It's our interpersonal, day-in, 
day-out ethics. It's the way we conduct ourselves 
around the people we are with. It does not dictate what happens 
in criminal court. It does not dictate what happens 
in terms of jurisprudence. It does not mean that we just 
invite a rapist in to visit our wives and visit our daughters. 
It doesn't mean that. In fact, as Turretin says, commenting 
here, blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 
but private revenge. That's what the apostle is telling 
them not to engage in. Do not get a gun and go out and 
start shooting criminals in five corners downtown. But here's 
where you need to see the connection. Please remember verse 19. Beloved, 
do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. I 
mentioned this the other day. One of the ways that we can give 
place to wrath is by praying and singing the imprecatory psalms. 
We call upon God to judge his enemies. That's a way to give 
place to wrath. Do you know another way we give 
place to wrath is by acknowledging the role of the civil government. 
Again, notice in verse 1 of chapter 13. Well, look specifically just 
to see the connection. Notice in verse 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 
and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Don't 
avenge yourselves. Your government's supposed to 
do that. Don't avenge yourselves, the civil king or the civil polity, 
the leaders of the body politic. That's why God instituted them. That's why they're present. That's 
their job. It's to punish evildoers in the 
body politic. That's one way that the people 
of God give place to God's wrath. There is a close connection between 
1219 in terms of giving place to wrath and 1304 that the civil 
government is God's avenger to execute wrath on him who practices 
evil. So the give place to wrath in 
1219 isn't, well, you know, it's gonna all fan out someday. No, 
you can pick up the phone and call the cops and get that fellow 
arrested and send him to court, testify against him and see the 
full weight of the law come to bear upon him. That's the way 
things should function in a decent, civilized society, not the way 
that we so often see it, where murderers are let free and victims 
are oftentimes stuck. So the context is very important. 
Now when we come specifically to Romans chapter 13, notice 
the duty to submit. Verse 1, let every soul be subject 
to the governing authorities. What's the reason? For there 
is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist 
are appointed by God. This is not unique in the scripture, 
with reference to the governing authorities and our response 
to them. 1 Timothy 2, we're supposed to 
submit to civil authority. Titus 3, verse 1. And 1 Peter 
2, verses 13 and 14. The Old Covenant is all about 
that. You couldn't be a rebel transgressor 
against the King of Judah and think that everything was going 
to go well for you. No, God's instituted authorities. 
He's instituted parents in the home. He's instituted elders 
in the church, not with the sword, of course. but he's instituted 
civil government and armed them specifically with the sword. 
What's our responsibility to parents? Submit. What's our responsibility 
in Hebrews 13? To those who rule over us, obey 
those who rule over you in the Lord. And what is our duty with 
reference to civil government? It's to submit. Now again, that's 
not unqualified, it's not universal. If they command us to sin, or 
they command us to commit crimes, then obviously we must obey God 
rather than men, and we'll look at that in just a moment. The 
reason for the command is there is no authority except from God, 
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Proverbs 
8, 15, Christ speaking his wisdom says, by me kings reign. Daniel chapter 4, what did Nebuchadnezzar 
learn? He learned that God most high 
institutes kings. And then John 19, remember that? 
I know it was a long time ago, but when Jesus is there with 
Pontius Pilate, what does he say? You would have no authority 
over me unless it had been given to you from above. So Pilate, 
you know, flexing his political muscles with Jesus, you're not 
going to answer me. You'd have no authority over 
me at all unless it had been given to you from above. So the 
duty to submit is theological in nature. It's because God put 
them there. And I know that's a tough pill 
to swallow. He put Manasseh in. I mean, praise God, you only 
get two terms as a prime minister or president. Anybody know how 
long Manasseh reigned? 55 years. And it wasn't a good one. It 
wasn't happiness and joy and, you know, lollipop forests there 
in the northern kingdom in Israel. So the origin of civil government 
demands that we submit. Now, in terms of the sin of resistance, 
notice in verse 2. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority, resists the ordinance of God. It's a simple, logical 
connection. Let every soul be subject to 
the governing authorities, for there is no authority except 
from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Ergo, 
if you resist the authority placed there by God, then you resist 
the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring 
judgment on themselves. Now, having said this, we need 
to make sure again that we qualify this. The magistrate is ultimately 
subject to God and accountable to man. Subject to God and accountable 
to man. Our confession in the chapter 
on the civil magistrates says God the Supreme Lord and King 
of all the world has ordained civil magistrates to be under 
him. We mustn't ever forget that, 
to be under him, over the people, for God's glory and the public 
good. And to this end, he has armed 
them with the power of the sword for defense and encouragement 
of them that do good and for the punishment of evil doers. 
One man says the divine order requires that a lower power not 
be obeyed in opposition to a higher one. All right? A lower power 
ought not to be obeyed if he's in opposition to a higher one. 
As even in human affairs, a governor is not obeyed against an emperor, 
nor a bailiff against a king. And every human power is set 
under the divine power, so that no human power should be obeyed 
against God. As it says in Acts, we must obey 
God rather than men, Acts 529. So I think the simple principle 
is, insofar as they don't command you to sin, they don't command 
you to commit crimes, submit. I mean, we may not like driving 
50 when we think it should be 75, but it's not sin to drive 
50. Again, our preferences for 75 
notwithstanding, that's not a call to us to sin. It's not a command 
to us to commit a crime. It's just kind of an inconvenience. 
I mean, there's roads that, yeah, you could extend that limit a 
bit. you know, when you're out in 
the middle of nowhere and there's nobody around. Yeah, you know, 
but that's not a crime. It's not a sin. It's not bad. 
It's not necessarily evil. But if they command abortion, 
if they command euthanasia, if they command those things, I'd 
argue that they permit it, because sometimes people say, well, they're 
not commanding it. Well, yeah, but they're permitting it. That's 
like saying, well, they're not commanding drive-by shootings. Yeah, but they're not doing anything 
to stop drive-by shootings. They're not commanding drug overdoses. Yeah, but they're not doing anything 
to stop drug overdoses. That's another argument for another 
day. John Gill made the observation, 
this is not to be understood as if magistrates were above 
the laws and had a lawless power to do as they will without opposition, 
for they are under the law and liable to the penalty of it in 
case of disobedience as others. And when they make their own 
will a law or exercise a lawless tyrannical power in defiance 
of the laws of God and of the land, to the endangering of the 
lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted. 
There's always this qualified sort of submission to civil authority 
in the scripture. It's not universal. And if you 
doubt the existence of bad civil authorities, all you got to do 
is read the scripture. You had Moses in Egypt. I mean, 
Pharaoh wasn't a nice guy. He was commanding the infanticide. Elijah and Ahab. What does Elijah 
do? Well, you're the civil government, 
so I got to do whatever you say. No, that's not what Elijah does. 
You've got Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Well, they were 
under a lawful authority, but did they obey? No, because what 
he was commanding was sin and contrary to God. You got the 
apostles, Acts 4, Acts 5. We must obey God rather than 
men. The beasts in Revelation, there are two of them. One's 
a political entity and one is a religious entity. They're bad. That's why they're called beasts. 
That's who the devil in chapter 12 gives his power to, that political 
power and that ecclesiastical power for the crushing of the 
people of God. So that there is bad civil government, 
everybody must agree. So what's our responsibility 
when it comes to bad civil government? Well, if they're telling us to 
sit, I like what Gil says. And again, stuff we don't even 
think about. to the endangering of the lives, liberties, and 
properties of subjects. They may be resisted. You know, 
well, over the last few, well, your liberties aren't that important. 
What do you mean my liberties aren't that important? The only 
people that say that are tyrants. The only people that say your 
liberties are not important are people that wanna take your liberties 
away from you. So resistance is sin when the 
magistrate is functioning lawfully. We'd all agree. Resistance is 
sin when the magistrate is functioning the way he ought to be. If he's, 
you know, punishing criminals, he's defending our borders, he's 
keeping the bad guys out, and we have a good, safe body politic, 
sure, we submit in all things. But resistance is not sin when 
the magistrate is functioning unlawfully. If he commands us 
to commit abortion, we must obey God rather than men. If he commands 
us to euthanize our grandparents, we must obey God rather than 
men. I also love Machen when he spoke 
to matters concerning civil polity. He says, the state exists for 
the repression of evildoers and the protection of individual 
liberty. Notice he doesn't go on to say, 
and for public schools, and for healthcare, and for this, and 
for that, and for roads, and for the, he doesn't say that. 
He says the state exists. for the repression of evildoers 
and the protection of individual liberty. He also says the civil 
government is not intended to produce blessedness or happiness, 
but intended to prevent blessedness or happiness from being interfered 
with by wicked men. Their job is not to bless us 
and make us happy, but to provide a context where we can pursue 
our own blessedness and happiness without being crushed, without 
being murdered, without being brutalized by criminal offenders. And then in terms of the function 
of civil government, notice specifically in verses three and four. For 
rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. I'm gonna 
ask you to supply works after evil. You don't have to physically 
write it in your Bible, but I think good works is paralleled there 
with evil works. So if we read, for rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to evil, that becomes very subjective. Because in Saudi Arabia, it's 
evil to preach Jesus Christ. The government should not be 
about policing thoughts or minds or even words, but acts and works 
and crimes that are a threat to other people. We do not want 
Orwellian thought police in our world that, you know, you had 
wrong think and you're off to, you know, go see O'Brien in room 
101. That is very terrifying sort 
of thing. So rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil works. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good and you will 
have praise from the saint. Now, I don't think the praise 
there means we're going to take you down to five corners and 
reward you for being an upstanding citizen. I think it means they're 
going to leave you alone. That's the praise I want from 
my civil government is just leave me alone. You know, just don't 
throw me into jail. Just don't, you know, cut my 
head off. Just allow me to do my stuff. That's what it should 
be. But then notice in verse four, 
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 and avenger to execute wrath 
on him who practices evil. And again, I would suggest works 
is what we ought to see there. He practices evil works. He is 
a minister of God's wrath in time, in history, in space. to 
bring the judgment of God to bear upon that civil polity. We sang it in Psalm 82, God is 
in the midst of the gods. In that passage or in that Psalm, 
he's talking about earthly judges. They're supposed to protect the 
widows. They're supposed to protect the orphans. They're supposed 
to make sure that people aren't criminally violated at every 
step of the way. So they're to function as a public 
good. Calvin says magistrates may hence 
learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for 
their own interest, but for the public good. Nor are they endued 
with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the well-being 
of their subjects. In short, they are responsible 
to God and to men in the exercise of their power. And then notice 
in verse 4, for he is God's minister to you for good, but if you do 
evil, be afraid. Some of the pragmatic objections 
to the death penalty includes, well, it doesn't provide a deterrent. 
Well, it does 100% of the time in the person executed by the 
civil state. They'll never go out and murder 
again. But we just don't know because it hasn't been practiced. 
I think that Ecclesiastes 8.11 is very fitting and appropriate 
here. Ecclesiastes 8.11, because the sentence against an evil 
work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons 
of men is fully set in them to do evil. We live in an environment 
where people aren't punished. Criminals aren't punished. I 
mean, this guy's jabbed a Ukrainian girl in the neck, and there's 
a GoFundMe page raising thousands and thousands of dollars for 
the murderer. You know, that demoralizes people 
to some degree. But whether the statistics show 
it or not, it's always a 100% effective deterrent against the 
subject of capital punishment. But listen to God's word, for 
he is God's minister to you for good, but if you do evil, be 
afraid. Criminals should be afraid to 
go out and commit crimes. They're not. Why? Because we 
do not practice these things in the government. We do not 
practice civil polity the way the Bible tells us to. So he's 
supposed to execute God's wrath in history. He doesn't bear the 
sword in vain. Now listen to Murray commenting 
on the sword. He says, not merely the sign of his authority, 
but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which 
a sword does. It can be wielded to execute 
punishment that falls short of death, but to exclude the right 
of the death penalty when the nature of the crime calls for 
such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies and 
executes. It's not just there as a sign 
of his authority. It's there as the instrument 
of his authority. And it's not to be put into the 
sheath and never used. Listen to Watson. We're going 
to end there. We'll pick up the objections next week. So I don't 
want to, you know, tax us too long and shove too much in our 
heads. But listen to Watson. Thomas 
Watts, and he says, to kill an offender is not murder, but justice. A private person sins if he draws 
the sword. A public person sins if he puts 
up the sword. A magistrate ought not to let 
the sword of justice rust in the scabbard. So a private person 
sins if he takes up the sword. A public person sins if he gets 
rid of the sword. Again, how do we even begin to 
address the monstrosity of federal government ethics now? I don't 
even know where you begin. But at some point, Christians 
need to start thinking biblically and need to start thinking in 
terms of what does the Bible actually say government's role 
and responsibility is? What are the limitations of government? What are the expectations? What 
is it that would successfully manage the carrying out of just 
common grace decency on our city streets? I fear that many of 
us have been so brainwashed by our modern culture, we don't 
even think about these things. We don't pray for them. We don't 
think that, wow, I'd want to vote for a guy that actually 
takes seriously capital punishment and the death penalty. I mean, 
that's ultimately what we should want, are streets we can walk 
down without being criminally violated and not having people 
coming over and bombing us from other countries. That's it. Do 
that well, and then we can talk about roads, and then we can 
talk about schools, and then we can talk about, you know, 
the myriad of other things. You just protect us, and then 
maybe we have some, you know, arena for discourse to talk about 
all these other programs or all these other projects. So, as 
I said, next week we'll take up the biblical objections and 
then the pragmatic objections. The biblical... are very simple. Matthew 5 typically is the big 
one, and then the woman caught in adultery in John 8. So if 
you want to do a little bit of pre-reading, the pragmatic objections, 
they're pretty easy to dispense with, but I think they're necessary 
for us to at least consider because so many people operate in that 
realm of feeling and subjectivity, and it just doesn't seem right. 
Well, We are not supposed to say that as God's people. If 
the Bible commands something, then it's right, because it's 
God's will, God's word, God's commandment for his creatures. So I'll pray, and then we'll, 
if there's any questions. Father in heaven, thank you for 
this time. Thank you for your word. Thank you for its clarity 
on this very grave and serious subject, one that often goes 
overlooked with reference to political discourse in these 
days. We pray for our civil government. We pray that you would put them 
on a path that is decent, a path that is righteous, a path that 
pursues justice. We know, God, that we are unable 
to do this, but we appeal to you Solomon says that the king's 
heart is in your hand. You turn it like you do the rivers 
of water. And we pray that you would be 
merciful in this land. We pray that you would be merciful 
in the United States as so many are aching and in pain there 
tonight and many crying out for vigilantism and things like that. 
We just pray that the discourse would be taken down a notch and 
that we would see things properly enacted and things that will 
actually help people. But most of all, we pray for 
the proclamation of your gospel this Lord's Day and every Lord's 
Day and throughout the week so that sinners can be called effectually 
out of darkness into marvelous light by our God, to our Lord 
Jesus Christ. And we pray in His name. Amen.