← Back to sermon library

Okay, you can turn in your Bibles 
to Deuteronomy chapter five. Continuing with the Ten Commandments, 
remember the book of Deuteronomy is a series of exhortations by 
Moses to the children of Israel, the second generation prior to 
their entry into the promised land. And basically we have a 
historical review in chapters one to four, the exhortation 
to pursue covenant loyalty in chapters four to 28, Summary 
and conclusion in chapters 29 and 30 and that is followed then 
by the succession of Joshua and then ultimately the death of 
Moses. So of course the exhortation 
to pursue covenant loyalty 4 to 28 is the largest section and 
central to that is the Ten Commandments or the Decalogue or ten words 
God gave through Moses. So I'll read beginning in verse 
1 In chapter five, Moses called all Israel and said to them, 
hear, 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. So remember, when we look at 
the 10 commandments, we talk about the two tables of the law, 
the first table, the first four commandments are our duty toward 
God, and then the latter six commandments are our duty toward 
man. And so last week I introduced 
the sixth commandment, we looked at the explanation of the command, 
remember the definition of the word, look at chapter 5 verse 
17, you shall not murder, murder is used specifically, it's a 
particular Hebrew word, And the concepts of premeditation, malice 
aforethought, intent, studied vengeance, all those things are 
inherent in that particular word that is used. In terms of the 
prohibitions of the commandment, as far as a general observation, 
it deals obviously with the external act. You're not supposed to stop 
the heart of your neighbor. You are not supposed to murder 
somebody with that malice aforethought or that premeditation. but as 
well the internal disposition. Jesus speaks to that on the Sermon 
on the Mount. It's not that He's elevating 
the law. The Old Testament as well highlighted the internal 
nature of the Sixth Commandment. You weren't supposed to hate 
your brother in Old Covenant Israel either. And then we are 
looking at the explanation of the exceptions. Not technically 
exceptions, but I don't know a better way to refer to them. 
So in other words, there are three instances in scripture 
that provide for lawful killing. And one of them is the death 
penalty. The second is self-defense. And the third is a just war, 
the legitimacy of just war. So last week we looked at the 
biblical doctrine of the death penalty, and tonight we're going 
to take up the objections to the death penalty. But just by 
way of reminder, if you turn back to Genesis chapter 9, in 
Genesis chapter 9 you see an abiding principle. There is no 
place subsequent to Genesis chapter 9 where the Noahic covenant or 
the covenant made with Noah has been nullified or rendered void. It is binding upon all men at 
all times. It's not a special or redemptive 
grace covenant. It is a common grace covenant 
that God made with the entirety of creation. He promised not 
to send a worldwide flood. And he also legislates in terms 
of how life was to be after the fall. Remember, prior to the 
fall, the earth was exceedingly corrupt, and it was filled with 
violence, according to chapter 6. Well, here in chapter 9, in 
this post-fall situation, Noah's kind of functioning as a new 
Adam. We've got that command in verse 
1, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, a command that 
was given to Adam the first. in Genesis chapter 1, but then 
in verse 6 it says, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood 
shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man. Now this 
whoever sheds man's blood and the penalty attached to it indicates 
it's murder. Later in the Mosaic legislation 
you see a distinction between murder and accidental homicide, 
but as I said there's always these exceptions or these other 
instances of lawful killing. But notice as well, whoever sheds 
man's blood by man, his blood shall be shed. So it's not going 
to be a direct judgment of God. You go out and commit a murder 
and then God zaps you. No, by man his blood shall be 
shed. And then the theological reason 
or rationale is given at the end of verse 6, for in the image 
of God he made man. So when we murder others, it 
is a direct assault or an indirect assault rather upon the majesty 
of God whom we image. But then we have the mandate 
for Israel. And in the old covenant, that 
old covenant situation that God made with the children of Israel, 
you see a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Again, 
the idea being if I chop wood and the ax head falls off and 
hits my neighbor and it's an accident, I am not a murderer. But if I lay in wait for my neighbor 
and I have hatred in my heart and I bury my ax head into his 
head specifically, Then I've committed the sin of murder. 
I've committed the crime of murder, and thus I'm subject to the death 
penalty. As well, there's additional crimes 
indicated in that old covenant. So it's not just murder, but 
there's a whole host of other things that would warrant the 
death penalty inflicted by the civil state. And then the necessity 
of the death penalty in Numbers chapter 35. God says you cannot 
take a ransom You cannot take a payment price for the crime 
of murder because that promotes blood guiltiness in the land. 
You've got to actually execute those who engage in murder. So 
from the Old Testament, we moved on to the New Testament, the 
crucifixion of Christ. And while it's an argument from 
silence, notice that Jesus never objects. To the death penalty, 
he doesn't say, I came to teach everybody how to turn the other 
cheek, and what you're doing here is a vile assault upon my 
human rights. He doesn't do that. The Apostle 
Paul in Acts chapter 25 at verse 11, he affirms the practice of 
capital punishment and does not refuse it if he himself is guilty. He says, if I have done anything 
worthy, then I do not refuse. So he is submitting to the civil 
state The argument obviously assumes that he's not guilty 
of what they're trying to allege with reference to any crimes. 
But then the most specific example in the New Testament is in Romans 
chapter 13. You can turn there. Again, just 
by way of review, Romans chapter 13, verses 1 to 4. Remember, this picks up the context 
from chapter 12. There's no chapter and versification 
in the original writings. So you would just read chapter 
12 and 13 connected as a unit. So in chapter 12, notice in verse 
17, 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. Obviously, that means 
we're not supposed to be vigilantes. We're not supposed to go down 
to the gun store, buy a gun, and go take out our enemies. 
We're supposed to rather give place to wrath. Now, how do we 
give place to wrath? We ultimately give it to God. 
we trust in his providence, we trust in the judgment to come, 
but also God in history has ordained the civil government to execute 
his wrath in the civil state. So there is a connection between 
that giving place to wrath and chapter 13. Notice, 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. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil." And I would suggest you add works 
there. It's not evil thoughts. It's not thought crime. It's 
not heart sin. Some of this hate crime legislation, 
or rather hate speech legislation, is very dangerous. We ought not 
to be judged based on what is in our hearts, according to the 
civil polity. God will deal with the sin in 
our hearts, but what we should be judged on are external works. If we haven't engaged in criminal 
activity, again, I'm not endorsing hating your neighbor, but I am 
suggesting that your government shouldn't punish you for hating 
your neighbor. That is outside of their purview. 
Unless you have committed guilty acts or you've committed actual 
crimes, you shouldn't be subject to punishment. So he goes on 
to say, do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is 
good and you will have praise from the same. Now notice verse 
four, in light of chapter 12, give place to wrath. 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 works. So there is a connection there. 
Give place to wrath, give place to the civil state to do its 
job and execute criminal offenders. You don't take that prerogative 
to yourself. You don't buy a gun and police 
the streets because somebody did bad things to you. give place 
to wrath, give it over to God, give it over to God's earthly 
servants within civil government, and they should execute criminal 
offenders. And as I said last week, the 
thought of our Prime Minister making such calls, or our legislative 
body making such calls, is horrifying. It's absolutely horrifying. If 
we actually had civil states that functioned the way they're 
supposed to, to defend persons from criminal activity within 
the civil state and to protect those same persons from foreign 
invasion, and we saw that they wield the sword for the execution 
of God's wrath in society, hopefully it would affect us in such a 
way that we would vote for men that aren't walking fools, men 
that actually understand justice and righteousness, men that actually 
want to execute those things in a manner that's consistent 
with God's revealed will in his word, but also natural theology. Pagans and heathens throughout 
the centuries have gotten these things right because it's right. 
You execute criminal offenders that are a threat to the civil 
state. So Romans 13 shows us the legitimacy 
of what the state does with reference to criminal offenders. As our 
confession says in the chapter on the civil magistrate, it says, 
God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world has ordained 
civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His 
own glory and the public good. and to this end has armed them 
with the power of the sword, for defense and encouragement 
of them that do good and for the punishment of evildoers. 
As Machen well said, the state exists for the repression of 
evildoers and the protection of individual liberty. That's 
it. Really, fundamentally, foundationally, axiomatically, that's why the 
state exists. For the repression of evildoers 
and the protection of individual liberty. Not to be involved in 
every jot and tittle of our lives, from the cradle to the grave. 
Not to do every possible thing other than punish criminal offenders. They don't do that. Why are we 
debating all these other things? So the doctrine of the death 
penalty is biblical. We see it in both Testaments 
with reference to the Noahic Covenant, as I've said. That 
has not been done away with. It's not been abrogated. It's 
not been suspended. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. 
We get to Romans 13. We see the same emphasis, God's 
avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil works. That's 
the function of civil government. Now, we come to the common objections 
to the death penalty. There's two main sections I want 
to look at. Biblical objections, some take 
the Bible and say, well, it does not teach the death penalty. 
And then second, pragmatic or practical objections, those you 
find outside of the Bible, those who are in civil society and 
say things that would challenge or try to usurp the function 
of the death penalty. So in terms of the biblical objections, 
the first is the mistranslation in Exodus chapter 20 at verse 
13 in the King James Bible. There it says, thou shalt not 
kill. But there are different words 
for murder and killing. And what Moses uses under inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit in Deuteronomy 517 is you shall not murder. That's a better rendering and 
a better translation that captures all those things like premeditation, 
malice aforethought, studied vengeance, anger, hatred, and 
a desire to end the life of somebody else that is not lawful. So when 
it says, you shall not kill, people conclude that that means 
nobody ever. But when we see the death penalty, 
as we do in Genesis 9 and in Romans 13, we have to understand 
that's not murder when the civil state convicts a man by a jury 
of his peers and then sentences him to death. We will see with 
reference to self-defense as well. It's stated very clearly 
in Exodus chapter 22 It's assumed by our Lord in His earthly ministry, 
and that again is just something that even pagans and heathen 
have got over the centuries. And then thirdly, just war. Now 
what is a just war is going to probably take us far afield. 
It's tough to define what a just war is, but supposing you have 
a just war, it's not unlawful to participate in it. In fact, 
God commanded holy war in Deuteronomy chapter 7. So when the Israelites 
went into Canaan, they didn't go there and just say, hey, can 
you Canaanites please vacate your property and leave everything 
to us? Thank you very much. Clean up 
on your way out. No, they killed people and they 
broke things. That was not an act of murder. 
Rather, it was lawful, authorized killing by God. We get to the 
New Testament, and you'll see that there are those that are 
soldiers, and they're not commanded to put down their arms and join 
the peace movement. They were able to keep their 
jobs as soldiers, even within the Roman government, who really 
were notorious for killing people. So this idea, you shall not kill, 
means universally and exhaustively it doesn't deal with the biblical 
data accurately. The second is in Matthew chapter 
5, and you can turn there. Matthew chapter 5, the Sermon 
on the Mount. And while you're turning there, 
I would just like to suggest a good rule of thumb as far as 
interpreting the Sermon on the Mount with reference to these 
sorts of things that deal with ethics. It's our personal day-in, 
day-out ethics. It's not speaking to the role 
of the civil state. It's not speaking to what a judge, 
an earthly judge, in a particular city or state is supposed to 
do with criminal offenders. That's not what's in view here. 
It's notice in Matthew 5, 38 to 42. You have heard that it 
was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell 
you not to resist an evil person. Again, this eye for an eye principle, 
tooth for a tooth, applies specifically to the civil government. It applies 
to penal sanctions. It applies to punishments for 
guilty criminals. It doesn't apply for us as individuals 
if we have a spat with our neighbor. I tell you not to resist an evil 
person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the 
other to him also. Most people are right-handed, 
so if somebody's slapping you on your right cheek, it's probably 
with a backhand. So it's more of an insult rather 
than it is a direct assault on your well-being with an attempt 
to hurt you or kill you. If anyone wants to sue you and 
take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And again, 
individual ethics on a daily basis. If somebody is, you know, 
taking everything that you own and it's going to jeopardize 
the lives of your children, Jesus doesn't condemn redress through 
civil courts. And whoever compels you to go 
one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you, and 
from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. So 
people take this and they universalize it and they say, well, this dictates 
every aspect of society. But if that's the case, it proves 
too much. Jesus is not suggesting that 
if somebody breaks into your house at night, and you don't 
know what his intentions are, and he, you know, beats you, 
and then asks where your wife and daughters are so he can go 
have, you know, rape them, he doesn't expect you to say, oh, 
they're down at the hall, and I left the door unlocked. That's 
not what the text is teaching. If you universalize this, Then 
there's no room for locks on your doors. There's no need for 
a dog in your backyard. There's no need for any of that 
because you're not supposed to resist an evil person. If evil 
persons want to come in and take everything you got and render 
great harm to you and your family, well, you just have to let them 
because Jesus says so. Now, again, it's a vindictive, 
petty, self-serving attitude that was manifested by the Pharisees. 
And Jesus is saying that kingdom citizens are not going to be 
like that. Again, kingdom citizens, according 
to the civil government they live in, do have redress to the 
criminal courts. They do have redress if they're 
robbed on the street. Jesus is not denying that. It's 
not blameless protection here that's in view, but it's a private 
revenge and to the point of actually injuring or killing people. So 
it's not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally. That is not the case. We're supposed 
to oppose wickedness personally. It's not a universal rule to 
never oppose wickedness in the church. We have church discipline. 
Right? If there was, you know, this 
was universalized and applied across the board, well, we couldn't 
resist an evil person that was committing adultery in the life 
of the church, so therefore we can't discipline him or her. 
We've got to just let them be because Jesus says we're not 
supposed to resist an evil person. That's an absurd way to argue 
based on the Sermon on the Mount. And it's not a universal rule 
to never oppose wickedness in society, or else Romans 13.4 
means absolutely nothing. Why would God give the civil 
government the sword, call him or designate him an avenger to 
execute God's wrath if there was no role for civil society 
to execute God's wrath? If this is universalized, it's 
drawn out of our interpersonal relationships day in and day 
out, and it's applied across the board, then any criminal 
at any time is able to say to any judge, well, you're not supposed 
to resist an evil person. Yeah, you're right. Jesus said 
that. So go back out and rob, go back 
out and rape, go back out and commit murder. This is to mistreat 
the ethics of what Jesus is espousing here in the Sermon on the Mount. He is not suggesting for a moment 
that this contradicts or that this is a universal principle 
that contradicts other expressed purposes of God revealed in Genesis 
9-6, revealed in Romans 13 1-4. revealed in Matthew 18 in matters 
of church discipline, revealed in the supposition that a man 
is going to protect himself and his home from criminal invaders. Jesus again assumes that in his 
earthly ministry. If the man knew, or if the owner 
of a home knew when the man was going to come to rob him, he'd 
post guards. Well, why does Jesus say that? 
Because any of us, if we knew somebody was going to come and 
rob us, we would post guards to do what? To not allow that 
person to rob us. Jesus assumes that. And again, 
I think it's not just a special revelation thing, but general 
revelation, natural order, the law of the light of nature shows 
us that this is legit, and it's just, and it's right. So you 
cannot put all of your eggs in the basket of saying, Jesus, 
here in the Sermon on the Mount, says, turn the other cheek. So 
therefore, if we're robbed, there's no redress. If we're brutalized, 
there's no redress. No, of course not. This is not 
contradictory to anything else. In fact, if you want to keep 
your finger there, I would suggest it is what Paul is speaking about 
there in Romans 12. When he says in verse 17, Repay 
no one evil for evil, have regard for good things in the sight 
of all men, if it is possible, never forget that, if it is possible, 
as much as depends on you live peaceably with all men. You should 
seek to live peaceably with your next door neighbor. If you go 
over to your next door neighbor's house and he punches you in the 
mouth, You've done the best you can. Jesus doesn't demand you 
to go over there each and every day to get punched in the mouth. 
No, 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. Again, there's no inconsistency. 
And I think Paul is basically picking up in Romans 12, at least 
at this portion, what Jesus already laid down in the Sermon on the 
Mount in Matthew chapter 5. So these are not inconsistent 
things. These are not things that speak to the role of civil 
government. Paul's going to deal with that 
in Romans 13, 1 to 4. But it deals with those at the 
ground level who are surrounded by people. And oftentimes, people 
have spats. Well, when you have that spat, 
you're not supposed to take vengeance into your own hands and take 
that man out. No, you're to pray to God, you're 
to leave it with God, and you're to seek redress in the criminal 
courts if that is an available option. So there's no inconsistency 
there. Now, the third one is the woman 
caught in adultery in John's gospel. You can turn there. John 
chapter eight, specifically verses one to 11. The argument goes 
that Jesus did not stone this woman to death, therefore the 
death penalty is no longer binding. Jesus didn't let her accusers 
stone her, so therefore the death penalty is no longer binding. 
Well, there's a few things going on in the passage that I think 
it does us well to consider. First, the woman is brought to 
Christ in verses 1 to 6, and then the woman is forgiven by 
Christ in verses 7 to 11. Now, I should tell you some Bible 
interpreters and teachers and preachers will say, well, John 
8, verses 1 to 11, isn't part of the original text, so they 
just pretty much neglect it insofar as it goes. I take it as being 
a part of the text. I think it is infallible, inerrant, 
and I think it is given by inspiration of God. But if you ever listen 
to sermons online and John 8 comes up, oftentimes you'll get some 
sort of a long introduction on why this is most likely not supposed 
to be in the canon, In fact, if you're using anything other 
than the King James or New King James, you probably have brackets 
around it and then a marginal note that say, the oldest and 
best manuscripts do not contain John 8, 1 to 11. So just to let 
you know that, if you do any further research or further investigation, 
that's what you're going to find. But it is, as I said, given by 
inspiration of God, it's infallible and inerrant. So note the setting 
in verses one and two. Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives, 
likely the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. They lived in Bethany 
according to chapter 11 in verse one. And then he returns to the 
temple according to verse two. The audience, all the people 
came to him. All the people came to him. So 
he is surrounded by people, the multitudes, his fame has spread, 
and they want to hear what he has to say. And this is an opportune 
time for his enemies, for the religious leaders, to try to 
trip him up. And make no mistake about it, 
these men are not seeking justice. They have no concern whatsoever 
for the law of Moses. John is gonna tip his hand and 
tell us as much. They're testing Jesus. They want 
Jesus to fail. They want Jesus to be seen as 
a sham. And he assumes this posture of 
sitting down. He does that in Matthew chapter 
5 at the Sermon on the Mount. That was the position of authority 
that the rabbi would take and he would sit down and teach. 
Now notice in verses 3 and 4 you have the accusation. They bring 
a guilty woman to him. Verse 3, then the scribes and 
Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. Now this 
is indeed a capital offense. Leviticus 20 verse 10, the man 
who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery 
with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress 
shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 22, 22, if a man 
is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them 
shall die, the man that lay with the woman and the woman, so you 
shall put away the evil from Israel." Again, God, through 
Moses in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy 22, is commanding the death penalty. He's not suggesting it. He's 
not saying, well, this might be a thing for you to consider. 
This is one option among many. No, it's mandated. This is commanded. This is God, through Moses, saying 
that if somebody is found out guilty in adultery, both man 
and woman should be executed. They should be stoned. Notice, 
then, the formal charge is given in verse 4. They said to him, 
Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery in the very act. Now, this woman is in the midst 
of them all. Notice there in verse 3 toward 
the end. And when they had set her in 
the midst, they said to him, So he's surrounded by people, 
he's surrounded by these scribes and Pharisees, and now this woman, 
I don't wanna call her a poor woman, she's obviously guilty 
of sin, but this is probably the worst way for them to go 
about seeking prosecution. But as well, if she was caught 
in adultery in the very act, what does that necessarily mean? It means there was a man with 
her, right? I'm not a genius or a biologist 
or a scientist, but this much I know. If a woman is caught 
in the very act of adultery, she's not on her own. She's got 
a man with her. Where's the man? There's no man 
because they don't care. There's no man because they don't 
care about the law of Moses. They want to see Jesus tripped 
up. If she was in the very act, then 
there was a man present. Deuteronomy 22, 22 again. If a man is found, conclusive 
proof of the crime. If she was guilty, then so was 
he. Where is he? If you guys are 
so concerned about the jot and tittles of Moses' law. That then 
brings us to the issue in verses 5 and 6. Notice their appeal 
to Moses. Verse 5, now Moses in the law 
commanded us that such should be stoned, but what do you say? So the Lord had appealed to Moses 
in John 7 to rebuke them. So does Nicodemus in John 7 as 
well. The Pharisees and scribes appealed 
to Moses, why? to rebuke Jesus, to try to show 
Jesus up, to show that Jesus isn't pro-Moses. Remember in 
Matthew 5 in verses 17 to 20, Jesus says he is pro-Moses. Do 
not think that I came to abolish the law. I didn't come to abolish 
it. I came rather to fulfill it, to confirm it, to affirm 
it. So notice, what do you say? This is problematic as well. 
Now Jesus is the Christ, Jesus is the Messiah, but Jesus wasn't 
a civil authority. He wasn't an earthly judge. That 
wasn't his job. He was a carpenter, and then 
he went out and he was an itinerant preacher. So he didn't have any 
authority whatsoever to execute, but he also wasn't an ecclesiastical 
authority. He had no, you know, position 
in the church at that time to make such pronouncements. The 
leaders want to escalate their attempt to take and kill him. 
That's what's in view here. Notice the comment by John according 
to verse 6. This they said, testing him, 
that they might have something of which to accuse him. But Jesus 
stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger as though 
he did not hear. So the Pharisees and the scribes 
were testing him. They were not concerned with 
the law of Moses. They were not concerned with 
his rendering. They were not concerned with his interpretation. 
They were testing him. There's no way that they are 
legitimate. They don't bring the man. They 
only bring the woman. They set her right smack dab 
in the middle of all these people, and they try to put Jesus on 
the horns of a dilemma. They want to accuse him. Everybody 
know what the horns of a dilemma is? Basically, and I'm quoting 
from a logic book, a common form of argument in ordinary discourse 
in which it is claimed that a choice must be made between two alternatives, 
both of which are bad. Right? That's the horns of a 
dilemma. You're given two alternatives and both of them are bad. That's 
not a good place to be. So the nature of the dilemma 
is obvious. If Jesus is pro-Moses, then he's 
not compassionate toward sinners. But if Jesus is compassionate 
toward this sinner, then he's not pro-Moses. Those are the 
two horns of the dilemma, both equally bad. Jesus is the savior 
for sinners and that's what he does. So of course he's got compassion. But Jesus is Israel's Messiah 
who says, do not think that I came to abolish the law. I didn't 
come to abolish it, but to fulfill it. So he's pro-Moses and he's 
pro-compassion. Now, when Jesus stoops down and 
writes on the ground with his finger as though he did not hear, 
we have no idea what he wrote. People speculate. I mean, commentaries 
have, you know, that much on it. Well, we don't know what 
he wrote, but probably it was this. But it is interesting that 
John indicates that he stoops and wrote on the ground with 
his finger. Those of you who've been with 
us for any amount of time, we've noted that the moral law, not 
that the ceremonial and the judicial aren't given by God through Moses, 
but it's the moral law, the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, 
which are ascribed to the finger of God. It's kind of an interesting 
thing. He stoops to the ground and with 
his finger he writes. Remember in Exodus 31, 18, and 
when he had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave 
Moses two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written with 
the finger of God. Deuteronomy 9, 10, and the Lord 
delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger 
of God. And on them were all the words which the Lord had 
spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on 
the day of the assembly. There are several other places 
that the Decalogue is referred to as having been written by 
the finger of God. Maybe this is why those guys 
in the comments say he's probably writing the sixth commandment, 
he's probably writing the seventh commandment. We don't know what 
he's writing, but that he does so with his finger is intriguing 
and does provide a link to what we see in the Old Testament law. 
So the Lord Jesus is the lawgiver and always does what is consistent 
with Moses, not them. They want to test him, they want 
to upbraid him, they want to throw him on the horns of a dilemma, 
but Jesus is not playing their games. That then brings us to 
verses 7 to 11, the woman forgiven by Christ. Note the application 
of the law. So if you've got the horns of 
a dilemma, and both choices are equally bad, what's the way through 
it? Well, there's got to be a third 
option. There's got to be a third way. 
And Jesus invokes that third way. Verse 7, so when they continued 
asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, he who is 
without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. So 
the Pharisees continue to press him, and what does Jesus do here? He upholds the law of Moses. 
I know we take that and we go, well, you know, he was without 
sin among you. Let him throw a stone. Let him throw the first 
stone. I mean, that's become sort of a slogan in our society 
so that we can never denounce any sort of criminal doings or 
evil. Jesus is appealing to witnesses. 
You cannot engage in the death penalty and you cannot capitally 
execute somebody without witnesses. Deuteronomy 17, six and seven, 
whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the 
testimony of two or three witnesses. He shall not be put to death 
on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall 
be the first against him to put him to death and afterward the 
hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil 
from among you. That's in Deuteronomy 13, 9 and 
Deuteronomy 19, 15 to 21 as well. So when Jesus says, he who is 
without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. He's 
invoking the law of Moses. You guys want to go down this 
path? You want to do this? Then pony up your witnesses. 
You better have guys that are willing to stand by and take 
up stones and throw them at her in order to kill her. Now the 
Lord demands judicially responsible witnesses when he says, he who 
is without sin among you. The demand is not for one that 
is sinlessly perfect, because there'd never be a judgment rendered 
at all. Right? If that's the demand, 
you can't have civil judges, because every judge has sin in 
his heart. The Lord's demand is for one 
who is not guilty of this particular sin. And they were, according 
to verse 9. Notice, and saw no one but the 
woman. It's quite common for religious 
leaders to have girlfriends on the side. Quite common for men, 
yeah, I know it's hard to believe, even in the first century, to 
be adulterers and to be guilty of those sorts of things. There's 
a principle in civil justice. Thomas says it this way. Those 
who stand guilty of grievous sins should not judge those who 
are guilty of the same or lesser sins. That's just a basic principle. Again, heathens have even found 
that to be the case. So I said, if we know what the 
civil government is actually responsible for and the gravity 
and seriousness of their calling to wield the sword as avengers 
of God's wrath in history, it should hopefully sober us up 
when it comes time to voting for people and to make sure that 
they have the ability and the wherewithal to actually engage 
in those practices in a way that's responsible. As well, Matthew 
Pool on John 8, 7. In reason, those who are zealous 
for the punishment of others should neither be guilty of the 
same nor of greater crimes themselves. That's what he means. He who 
is without this particular sin among you, let him throw a stone 
at her first. I need witnesses, and they need 
to be witnesses that are qualified, not being compromised because 
they're as bad as or even worse than this woman and the man that 
was with her. And then Meredith Klein says 
a minimum of two witnesses was required and their confidence 
in their own testimony was to be evidenced by their assuming 
the dread responsibility of delivering the first and quite possibly 
lethal blows in the execution of the condemned. Again, we read 
passages like this or we read those stoning passages in the 
Old Testament. That's hardcore, brethren. If 
we were functioning as witnesses and there was a pronouncement 
of guilt made upon a person that was to be executed right before 
our eyes by our own hand, I'm sure we'd take that seriously. 
I'd like to think we would. I'd like to make sure that I'm 
meticulous in terms of what I remember with reference to this crime 
before I pick up a stone and throw it at another human being 
to end his life. The gravity and the seriousness 
of these things are lost in a society that doesn't take seriously civil 
justice. Now notice again he writes on 
the ground according to verse eight. We don't know what he 
wrote then either. Commentators notwithstanding, verse eight, 
again, he scooped down and wrote on the ground. But then notice 
in verse nine, then those who heard it being convicted by their 
conscience went out one by one. They understood what he was saying. 
I need two or three witnesses to fulfill the law of Moses and 
the dictates by God through him. And they need to be witnesses 
who are qualified. They can't be compromised. They 
can't be the sorts of men that are worse than what we have in 
this particular woman. So this is conviction for them. Then those who heard it being 
convicted by their conscience went out one by one, beginning 
with the oldest, even to the last. And Jesus was left alone 
and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised 
himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, woman, 
where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you? She 
said, no one, Lord. Intriguing, they test him. They 
want to upbraid him. They want to put him on the horns 
of a dilemma. They want to show him as a sham. They want to show him as a fake. They want to show him contra 
Moses or contra compassion. She calls him Lord. Pretty amazing, 
isn't it? These men, the religious leaders 
are ready to kill him. And she calls him Lord. So here, of course, there's no 
witnesses. Doesn't mean there wasn't a crime. 
There's no witnesses. He can't successfully carry out 
the death penalty if there's no witnesses, judicially responsible 
and qualified witnesses. That's why he says, neither do 
I condemn you. Go and sin no more. So how does 
Jesus deal with the horns of the dilemma? He upholds the law 
of Moses and he upholds compassion all in one fell swoop by this 
appeal to witnesses. The leaders had no regard whatsoever 
for... Oh, and just back to the text. 
Notice in verse 11, neither do I condemn you, go and sin no 
more. I think this helps us understand, he who is without sin among you. I mentioned there in verse 7, 
he who is without this particular sin, It's the same emphasis in 
verse 11. He does not suspect, suppose, 
or believe that she will be a sinless perfect human from then on out. No, go and commit this sin no 
more. You've been found out. I've exercised 
mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. Don't go out and commit more 
adultery. Again, he's not calling her to sinless perfection. Jesus 
was not a perfectionist. And by that, I mean the theological 
teaching that believes that man on this side of heaven can arrive 
at perfection. Charles or John Wesley taught 
that. There's a group of people in 
the history of the church that taught perfectionism. Jesus is 
not a perfectionist. Again, he is in terms of his 
holy, harmless, undefiled life, his obedience to the law, which 
was perfect. But the theological idea of perfectionism, 
Jesus knows that when somebody is saved, they're still going 
to have remaining corruption. Because Jesus, as God, inspired 
the apostle Paul to write Romans chapter 7 and Galatians chapter 
5, which speaks about remaining corruption. So when he says, 
neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. Go and do this 
sin no more. You've been forgiven. You've 
been cleansed. Don't do this particular sin 
anymore. So he exercises that. So the 
leaders had no regard for the Sixth Commandment. They'd already 
expressed in John's gospel in chapter 5 and chapter 7 that 
they want to kill him. They're not sticklers on the 
Sixth Commandment. They're ready to kill a man who 
hadn't done any external evil acts. He had done nothing wrong. 
He was a man that went about doing good. They had no regard 
for the Seventh Commandment either. The whole thing is a sham. And 
therefore, it is not a passage that we ought to use to turn 
over the dictates of God through his prophets and apostles that 
the civil state is responsible under God to execute criminal 
offenders. This passage actually upholds 
the death penalty in Jesus' appeal to the witnesses that will confirm 
the particular crime and then pick up the stones to throw at 
her. No, He brings conviction to bear 
upon them as well. Their consciences are affected 
and they themselves can't even go through with it. So those 
are biblical. The pragmatic objections, I think 
these are a little quicker and easier to deal with. First, the 
death penalty is not consistent with the Christian's attitude 
of forgiveness. The death penalty is not consistent 
with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Any sort of punishment 
violates this principle. Any sort of fine, imprisonment, 
taking somebody's privileges away, any sort whatsoever violates 
this idea. The death penalty is consistent 
with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. You can forgive 
somebody that does a brutal crime against you, turn him over to 
the civil state to be executed. You can do that. I'm not suggesting 
it would be easy to do that, but you can do that in principle. 
Forgive those who've attacked you and then turn them over to 
the civil state. In fact, that man, that thief 
that was on the cross, and we indeed justly He doesn't say, 
hey, I've been saved up here. Let me off the cross. I've been 
saved. The Lord's dealt with my... No, 
no, he understood. It was just with the civil state 
to execute that man for crimes that he had committed. I think 
if a man on death row gets converted, he'll carry out what is upon 
him in terms of death row. He realizes, hey, I've got to 
go through. There's consequences to criminal 
activity. Secondly, the death penalty is 
not an expression of mercy. It's not supposed to be. It's 
an expression of retributive justice. It's an expression of 
righteousness. Of course it's not an expression 
of mercy. It was never intended to be. 
It is retributive justice, and if God commands capital punishment, 
are we trying to be more merciful than Him? If God demands the 
execution of a murderer, and we show mercy to that murderer, 
we have sinned against God. We have transgressed God. Third, 
the death penalty is used on innocent people. Well, the death 
penalty isn't really even used anymore, except in very sparse 
situations here in North America. But the biblical emphasis on 
two or three witnesses always holds. You cannot be executed 
or should not be executed without the two or three witnesses. And 
in this scientific age, DNA fingerprinting It's getting harder for the condemnation 
of innocent and just people. Now, it does happen. I'm not 
suggesting it never has or it never will. It's an imperfect 
system because men ultimately are over it. But just because 
there's a fault in the system doesn't mean we disregard the 
system. just because there's issues here 
and there should cause us again to reflect harder and further 
on this so that we don't execute innocent people. The fourth is 
the death penalty does not deter crime. Again, it's not meant 
to. There's no, you know, Genesis 
9, whoever sheds man's blood by man, his blood shall be shed 
because I want everybody to know what the consequences are if 
you shed blood. Now it's a byproduct and it's 
a corollary. And Paul says, if you do evil, 
be afraid. But it's not the purpose of the 
death penalty. Again, it's retributive justice. It is the infliction of punishment 
upon a criminal doer. Now, I suggest that if we actually 
carried it out, we would see a deterrent effect. I mean, it's 
quite simple, right? Why do you slow down in a 50 
zone? Let's say you're driving out 
to Rosedale. Over by the train tracks there, they drop the speed 
limit to like 40, and the cops all hide there. Why do you slow 
down? Because I'm a God-fearing, law-abiding 
citizen? I hope so, but more often than 
not, I don't want a ticket. They enforce that regularly, 
right? So it has a deterrent effect. 
Ecclesiastes 8.11 speaks to this 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. When the 
civil government isn't punishing criminal offenders the way they 
ought to, what does that do to the criminal element? It emboldens 
them, right? If nobody ever policed that zone, 
and it was still at 40, but you knew no one ever gets tickets 
there, the police never sit there, you'd probably keep it at 60, 
or 50, whatever your choice there is. It's the fear of punishment, 
right? When the government, the civil 
state, does not execute criminal offenders, it gives boldness 
to criminal offenders to go out and continue to push the limits. 
And then the fifth is somewhat of a theological argument. The death penalty will prohibit 
salvation. In other words, if we execute 
a criminal offender, he won't get saved. That's founded on 
bad theology. That's founded on Arminianism, 
that's not as bad, excuse me, and Pelagianism, which is really 
bad. But if in God's providence, he 
has elected somebody that's gonna commit a capital offense, between 
the time he is sentenced to die and the time he goes to die, 
God will have him saved. This is bad theology. Well, it'll 
prohibit salvation. Maybe it's the means by which 
somebody will get saved vis-a-vis the thief on the cross, right? 
He started the day off as a blaspheming wretch and ended the day going 
to heaven. So those are just some of the pragmatic objections. 
There's others, I'm sure, that we can add. I just want to close 
with a few thoughts. First, the death penalty and 
the civil government. As I mentioned last week, it's 
been eliminated in Canada since 1963. Gordon Clark, he was a 
Christian philosopher in the 20th century, he says, God gave 
the right of capital punishment to human governments. He intended 
it to be used wisely and justly. And again, I think there's great 
onus on the voters to make sure that we're electing people that 
don't just give us stuff, that just, you know, oh, well, there's 
this break, or there's that, you know, money, or there's this 
program, or there's this thing. No, no, no. They're going to 
give us justice. That's what we should want. So he intended 
it to be used wisely and justly, but he intended it to be used. 
Abolition of the death penalty presupposes the falsity of Christian 
principles. And then Thomas Watson, who was 
a Puritan, 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. The magistrate ought not to let 
the sword of justice rust in the scabbard. I think that's 
very powerful. I think it's very important. 
And then the death penalty and the believer. The believer must 
embrace the entirety of God's word, even those things which 
sort of rub against the grain in modern society. I mean, to 
espouse love for Jesus and the necessity of the civil state 
to execute criminal offenders. I mean, most people just think, 
what, you're nuts. That's not pro-life. We might 
want to modify that. Pro-judicially innocent life. 
not pro-criminal life, pro-murderer life, they should be executed 
according to Genesis 9 and Romans 13. Robert Haldane comments on 
Romans 13, this refutes the opinion of those who think that it is 
sinful, nay, that it is murder to put criminals to death. God 
here sanctions the practice, and if it is right in the civil 
magistrate to punish with death the violators of the fundamental 
laws of society, it is right in Christians to countenance 
and cooperate with the magistrate in effecting such punishments." 
In other words, if it's right, and God's ordained it to be right, 
we can't shrink back from declaring the rightness of it. Oh, well, 
it's going to offend these people. Okay, then offend those people. That's the bottom line. The believer 
here as well must recognize the enormity of the problem of evil. 
I mean, murder is such, because they're in the image of God, 
that God demands the execution of the murderer. Sin and crime 
are bad things as far as God is concerned. The believer must 
realize as well the consistency of God's holy nature. Sin will 
always be punished by God. External acts of crime must be 
punished through God's agent, which is the civil government, 
that avenger to execute his wrath that has been armed with the 
sword for that purpose, according to Romans 13, 3 and 4. And I would suggest the believer 
must appreciate the wisdom of biblical ethics. You know, for 
opponents of the death penalty, tell me where the Bible sanctions 
life in prison. Life in prison? I would prefer 
the death penalty if I was a criminal than life in prison. life in 
prison, the stripping away of every jot and tittle of your 
liberty, of your dignity, victimizing you to criminal elements within 
a particular prison. I doubt those are nice, happy 
places where they get together and strum guitars and sing kumbaya. That's not what's happening there. 
It's brutal. It's wretched. You search old 
covenant law, and guess what you don't find? You don't find 
a prison system. Now, there were probably temporary 
holding cells for people on trial, but life in prison? That's somehow 
okay? That's somehow nurturing and 
merciful? I don't see it that way at all. 
We need to appreciate biblical ethics in the way that God says 
we ought to govern ourselves. And then I would suggest the 
death penalty and the unbeliever. The death penalty is biblical, 
but it's not gospel. It's law. It's punishment for 
the violation of law. And I think that if persons understood 
that, they might see that God takes the sin problem seriously. And that opens the door for us 
to preach the gospel of free and sovereign grace. Go to John 
8, show him the mercy of Jesus Christ. Show him that he upholds 
the law of Moses, but he exercises compassion, kindness, and mercy 
to this woman and sends her on her way. So it's not the gospel, 
but it does often make way for us to proclaim the gospel in 
terms of righteousness and justice and the reality that Jesus Christ 
paid the debt on the cross, capital punishment, which we could never 
pay. And as a result, all those who 
believe in him will be saved. Well, let us pray. Our Father 
in heaven, thank you for your word. Thank you for the consistency 
that we find in the Old and New Testaments, and for the goodness 
of God as revealed in scripture. We know that you are our pro-image 
bearer, and we know that you have given these things to protect 
people. And we pray that you would have mercy upon our civil 
government. We pray that they would come back to this place 
where righteousness and justice are the main emphases with reference 
to their office We pray that you would have mercy upon this 
land. It's a blood guilty land. We know that there is so much 
that goes unpunished, so much that goes undealt with, so much 
that is sanctioned and even encouraged. And we pray have mercy, bless 
the preaching of your gospel in this land and bring many, 
many people to our Lord Jesus Christ. And we pray in his most 
blessed name. Amen.