← Back to sermon library

Genesis chapter 9, we'll be looking 
at verses 1 to 17, the establishment of the Noahic covenant. I will 
begin reading in Genesis 8 at verse 20. Genesis chapter 8 beginning 
in verse 20, then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took 
of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered 
burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing 
aroma. Then the Lord said in his heart, 
I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although 
the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, nor will 
I again destroy every living thing as I have done. while the 
earth remains seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, 
and day and night shall not cease. So God blessed Noah and his sons 
and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 
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. They 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. But you shall not eat flesh with 
its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will 
demand a reckoning. From the hand of every beast 
I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of 
every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds 
man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. For in the image 
of God he made man. And as for you, be fruitful and 
multiply. Bring forth abundantly in the 
earth and multiply in it. Then God spoke to Noah and to 
his sons with him, saying, And as for me, behold, I establish 
my covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and 
with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, 
and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out 
of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish my covenant 
with you. Never again shall all flesh be 
cut off by the waters of the flood. Never again shall there 
be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the sign 
of the covenant which I make between me and you and every 
living creature that is with you for perpetual generations. I set my rainbow in the cloud, 
and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between me and 
the earth. It shall be when I bring a cloud over the earth that the 
rainbow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remember my 
covenant which is between me and you and every living creature 
of all flesh. The waters shall never again 
become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in 
the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting 
covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh 
that is on the earth. And God said to Noah, this is 
the sign of the covenant which I have established between me 
and all flesh that is on the earth. Amen. Well, as we have 
seen, the line of Adam through Cain in Genesis chapter 4, the 
ungodly Cainites. Then we see the line of Adam 
and the godly line of Seth in chapter 5. And then we see this 
contrast in chapter 6 between the earth that is filled with 
exceedingly corrupt people that are filling the earth with violence, 
contra Noah and his family. Remember, Noah found grace. in 
the eyes of the Lord, and that then led to Noah being a godly 
man and walking with the Lord. And then the Lord told Noah to 
build the ark. Noah and his family then occupy 
the ark, and they are the only survivors after God sends this 
worldwide flood in order to judge all mankind. So we come out of 
the ark, we see that Noah's first activity is to build an altar 
to the Lord and to worship God in remembrance of God's kindness 
and graciousness and goodness, and as well to make sure that 
public worship is in place. And now we come to Genesis 9, 
which is often referred to as the establishment of the Noahic 
covenant. There was a covenant made with 
God or made by God with Noah, as we see there in verse 8, I 
establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after 
you. As I've said many times, this is what's called a common 
grace covenant. It's not the covenant of grace 
in terms of being redemptive, but rather it provides stability 
in the created order for the preaching of God's special grace. and the things that are applied 
here and the things that are promised here, we see that it's 
universal and we see that it's perpetual. It's not simply made 
with the elect, it's not simply made with Israel, it's not simply 
made with those who believe the gospel, but it's made with every 
living creature. All of creation benefits from 
this Noahic covenant. It's a common grace covenant. It ensures that there will no 
longer or never again be a catastrophic worldwide flood. This doesn't 
mean that there cannot be localized floods. This doesn't mean that 
there cannot be hurricanes or other sorts of things like that. 
But in terms of a devastating worldwide flood, God covenants 
that He will never again do that. And so when we look at this particular 
chapter, we want to notice two things. First, the protection 
of life in the Noahic Covenant in verses 1 to 7. And then secondly, 
what is the sign of the rainbow in the Noahic Covenant? So essentially 
what you have are the stipulations or the things that will prove 
true in the midst of this Noahic Covenant, and then you have the 
sign associated with that Noahic Covenant. But there are three 
things that we ought to observe in verses 1 to 7. First, the 
propagation of life. Secondly, the provision for life. And then thirdly, the protection 
of life. But in terms of the propagation, 
you see that in verses 1 and 7. In verse 1, So God blessed 
Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, 
and fill the earth. Again, in verse 7, And as for 
you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the 
earth, and multiply in it. We have seen several parallels 
between Noah and Adam. In many respects, Noah is another 
Adam-like figure, and it is only fitting that God would command 
him to be fruitful and to multiply and fill the earth. The earth 
has been effectively depopulated through the flood and now God 
calls upon Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply and 
fill the earth. This repeats or rehearses the 
original mandate given by God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 
at verses 26 to 28. We see it also in Genesis 8 17. Bring out with you every living 
thing of all flesh that is with you birds and cattle and every 
creeping thing that creeps on the earth so that they may abound 
on the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth. So this was always the marching 
order for Noah as an Adam-like figure. Now notice, secondly, 
in terms of the provision for life, God reaffirms man's dominion 
over the animals in chapter 9, verse 2. We saw that in chapter 
1, verses 26 to 28. There is a pecking order in creation. God made man to have dominion 
over creatures. And the reason for that is that 
man bears the image of God. Man is created by God, to be 
sure, but one thing man possesses that a dog doesn't, as much as 
we love our dogs, They are not image bearers of the living God. 
That's why killing an animal is not murder. You can't murder 
something that isn't in the image of God. It's not right to just 
indiscriminately kill animals. I mean, I wouldn't ever recommend 
just go out and killing dogs and that sort of thing. It's 
certainly a barbaric activity, but it's not murder. You'll hear 
PETA say that, that meat is murder. Meat is not murder. It may not 
be your cup of tea, but it's not murder. Murder can only take 
place with image bearers and man bears the image of God and 
as a result God has given man dominion over the lower creatures. 
That is reaffirmed and in some sense extended in verse 2 in 
Genesis 9. 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." So there is that reaffirmation of dominion, and 
certainly that dominion is seen in what we see following here. God includes meat in the diet 
of Noah and his family and everybody following. Notice at the end 
of verse 2, they are given into your hand. Now that's not just 
in the act of dominion over them, that doesn't just mean in terms 
of the packing order you'll be over them, but this is further 
amplified in verse 3. So they are given into your hand, 
at the end of verse 2, and then verse 3, every moving thing that 
lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things even 
as the green herbs. Now some suggest that they ate 
meat even prior to that. I don't have the time or the 
ability to get into all of that, but we certainly see at this 
particular vantage point that God gives Noah the command that 
he can go ahead and eat meat. And then notice, the animals 
are food for man, And when it says every moving thing, I think 
this sort of foreshadows what will be later appended in the 
law. That if there was an animal that 
died on its own, you weren't supposed to eat it. You were 
not supposed to eat something that was torn to death by dogs 
or if it died on its own. You had to have hunted it. and 
you had to have killed it yourself. I think that's probably to ensure 
cleanliness and to ensure that, you know, who knows why it would 
have died. If you stumble upon an animal and you don't know 
how it died, it's probably not a bright thing to eat that animal. It may have some sort of a disease. 
And so the law specifies later on, in Exodus 22, Leviticus 22, 
Deuteronomy 14, and then as well in Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 
17, that you were not supposed to eat an animal that died of 
natural causes or died at the hands of another animal. But 
notice that God goes on to make this qualification in terms of 
eating animals. It says in verse 3, every moving 
thing that lives shall be food for you, I have given you all 
things, even as the green herbs." And then verse four, but you 
shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood. So there is this prohibition 
against ingesting blood. In fact, the clearest passage 
is Leviticus chapter 17. You can turn there to Leviticus 
chapter 17, specifically verses 10 to 16. Typically, it's here people say, 
well, does this mean I can't have a rare steak? I'm not going 
to get into how rare your steaks can be, but God prohibits the 
ingestion of blood. I think there's specific reasons 
for that, but just notice what we find in Leviticus 17.10. And 
whatever man of the house of Israel or of the strangers who 
dwell among you who eats any blood, I will set my face against 
that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his 
people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given 
it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for 
it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said 
to the children of Israel, no one among you shall eat blood, 
nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood." So there 
is this prohibition. We see its tap roots here in 
this shift in terms of diet with reference to Noah. Noah is given 
permission to eat animals, but that qualification or stipulation 
is built into it. But you shall not eat flesh with 
its life, that is its blood. John Gill explains it this way. He says, the design of this was 
to restrain cruelty in men. He's looking at the original 
intent. I think that for atonement reasons and for symbolism reasons 
and for the significance of blood as blood, I think that's why 
the prohibition is primarily in place in Leviticus 17. But here specifically, Gill is 
looking at this sort of beginning, new beginning, in terms of repopulating 
the earth, adding animals to the diet, and seeking to counteract 
the sorts of things that were present before the flood. So 
he says, the design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and 
particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might 
be led into were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces 
and feed upon their raw flesh and the blood in it." In other 
words, it was a safety check on man so that he doesn't turn 
from that to even further bloodshed. Because remember, that's what 
the problem was prior to the Flood. The earth was filled with 
violence and it was exceedingly corrupt. And as we move through 
this particular passage, one of the acts of violence that 
it seems that was prevalent was the crime of murder. But notice 
in verse 4, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is 
its blood. So that's not only a prohibition 
against ingesting blood, but it highlights even the value 
of animal blood. Again, animals aren't created 
in the image of God, but God builds into this, this allowance 
for eating animals, this nevertheless prohibition against ingesting 
their blood. So it shows the value even of 
animal blood, and then that plays alongside of this emphasis on 
human blood in verses 5 and 6. Now, Gordon 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 where we're moving. We're 
going from this, go ahead and eat meat, in verse 3, to qualification 
in verse 4, don't eat the animal blood, and into man's blood in 
verses 5 and 6. So if animal blood, on the one 
hand, is precious, and it is because it's representative of 
life, man's blood is even more precious because man is created 
in the image of God. Bruce Waltke says, if animal 
life is sacred, how much more human life that bears God's image? 
No sanction against the offender is stated for violating animal 
life. It doesn't say if a man ingests 
blood, he's going to be cut off to the third generation. Now, 
certainly there's punishment appended to it later on in the 
law, but here specifically, I think Waltke's point holds. No sanction 
against the offender is stated for violating animal life. But 
with respect to the taking of human life, the threefold repetition 
of this phrase, I will demand a reckoning, brings emphatic 
attention to the value God bestows on it. Animal blood may be shed 
for food, but human blood may not be shed at all except to 
compensate for homicide. In other words, what he is saying 
is that we have a bit of a gradation here. We move from the preciousness 
of animal blood to the preciousness of human blood. And note verse 
5, Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning from 
the hand of every beast, I will require it, and from the hand 
of man. From the hand of every man's 
brother I will require the life of man." We enter in here to 
the protection of life. So we've seen the propagation 
of life, verses 1 and 7, the provision for life, verses 2b 
to 4, and now we have the protection of life in verses 5 to 6. And 
we come to what's called the death penalty, or capital punishment. Now, I realize that this is a 
bit of a controversial subject, so I want to spend a little bit 
of time on this, because I think it's absolutely crucial that 
we understand the biblical teaching on this doctrine of capital punishment. Now, maybe it's just an American 
thing versus a Canadian thing, but when I moved to Canada, I 
was pretty shocked with how many people who profess faith in Jesus 
Christ didn't imbibe or didn't agree with or didn't hold to 
the biblical doctrine of the death penalty. It was absolutely 
mind-blowing to me that there were people that said, yes, I 
believe on the Lord Jesus, and yes, I believe in the Bible as 
the inspired Word of God, but no, I don't think that capital 
punishment is legit. Now, if that describes you tonight, 
then I just ask you to pay attention and look and see what God's Word 
has to say concerning this. But notice, with reference to 
this protection of human life, there is a reckoning with reference 
to beasts. Notice in verse 5, "...surely 
for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning." Now we've moved 
from animal blood that is precious in its own right to human blood. And with reference to human blood, 
he says, "...surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning." 
In other words, I will demand payment. I demand recompense. I demand judgment, is what God 
says concerning the shed blood of man. Notice, surely for your 
lifeblood I will demand a reckoning, from the hand of every beast 
I will require it. You might say, that's a bit of 
an odd law. We'll look at Exodus chapter 
21. Exodus chapter 21, to see this reckoning from beasts who 
shed the blood of men. Exodus 21, specifically verses 
28 and 29. If an ox gores a man or a woman 
to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall 
not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But 
if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it 
has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined 
so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned 
and its owner also shall be put to death. You see, the protection 
of God over the life of man. If an ox were to kill a man, 
but the owner of the ox had no inkling whatsoever that the ox 
tended to gore, well then the ox would be stoned to death, 
but the owner would not be responsible. But if the owner knew that the 
ox tended to gore, if the owner knew that he had a problem with 
his ox, and that ox went out and killed somebody, the ox and 
the owner are held liable. The ox is stoned and so is the 
owner. He is put to death for his culpability 
in the situation. So going back to Genesis 9.5, 
Genesis 9.5a demands the life of a beast who sheds the blood 
of a man. And then it goes on to indicate 
that God requires the life of a man who sheds the blood of 
another man. And from the hand of man, from 
the hand of every man's brother, I will require the life of man. And that leads us to this foundational 
text in Genesis 6. Now, one of the reasons we know 
that Genesis 9-6 applies today is because of what's called the 
Noahic Covenant. You've probably heard me use 
the words universal and perpetual. Well, the stipulations or the 
things associated with the Noahic covenant are in play as long 
as there's a created order. In other words, God establishes 
this covenant with all flesh, and all the things that are stipulated 
here are binding upon all flesh until such time as we enter into 
the new heavens and the new earth. It's made with all of Noah, Noah 
and his family, and then his descendants, which includes all 
men, right? Everybody coming from Noah is 
part of this Noahic covenant. As well, it's not just man, but 
it's also creatures, or it's animals, it's beasts. So, it's 
a perpetual and a universal thing, and Genesis 9-6 is universal 
and perpetual as well. Now, note the specific offense 
highlighted. whoever sheds man's blood. That's the offense. Now the law 
will go in to make a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Here I would say we need to understand 
it as murder. Murder is when there is malice 
of forethought. Murder involves premeditation. The classic example in the scripture 
to highlight the difference between murder and manslaughter is if 
a man lies in wait for his neighbor and he takes an axe and he murders 
his neighbor with it. Manslaughter, however, is if 
you're in the backyard chopping wood and the axe head flies off 
accidentally, and it finds its way into your neighbor's head, 
and he dies, there was no malice aforethought, there was no premeditation, 
it was not born out of hatred, it was an accidental homicide. 
And in that instance, there were still repercussions. For your 
carelessness, and for your not making sure that that axe head 
was securely fastened, you had to leave your home and go live 
in a city of refuge for a period of time. So, there were problems 
associated with manslaughter, but you are not liable to execution 
the way that you were when it came to murder. So, when we see 
this passage and it says, whoever sheds man's blood, we need to 
understand it has to do with murder. Now, this was the problem 
of the antediluvians. That means the people who lived 
on the earth prior to the flood. If you go back to Genesis 6 at 
verse 5, it says, Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man 
was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts 
of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he 
had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart. 
So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from 
the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and 
birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. And then 
dropping down to 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 you see, in this post-flood 
situation, God's not only telling them to propagate life, and God's 
not only providing for them meat to sustain life, but God is also 
arming the civil government with the sword for the protection 
of life. In other words, what happened 
prior to the flood ought not to obtain in this post-flood 
situation. The flood couldn't cleanse the 
heart of man, but the laws in a post-flood situation could 
restrain the wicked hands of men. And so God mandates that 
whoever sheds man's blood, that's the offense, notice the punishment 
that he will be required. By man, his blood shall be shed." 
Now, you say, well, God says you can't shed blood, but then 
he says, by man, his blood shall be shed. Don't miss that, by 
man, not by God. God doesn't say take him down 
to the city square and everybody run and hide and God will send 
a lightning bolt out and kill the offender. No, it's by man. And I would suggest that this 
is the first inkling of civil government that has been given 
the sword for the execution of criminal offenders. But by man 
his blood will be shed. So, when we look at this passage, 
we see, even built into it, there's a difference between murder and 
justifiable homicide. There are three instances of 
justifiable homicide that the Bible sets forth. One is capital 
punishment. God says, by man, his blood will 
be shed. That's definitely authorized 
here. Everybody see that? You're seeing 
that, right? A second one is legitimate war. In fact, if you go to Deuteronomy 
chapter 7, God tells Israel that they're supposed to go into the 
land and they're supposed to dispossess the land of the Canaanites. They weren't doing that with 
written invitations and with Facebook statuses. They were 
doing that with the sword. They were doing that with violence. 
They were breaking things and killing people in order to get 
them out of the land of Canaan. We get into the New Testament, 
the sword is born by the civil magistrate And I would argue 
there, not only for the punishment of criminal offenders, but also 
for the protection of a civil polity from foreign invaders. In other words, the magistrate 
bears the sword to make sure that murderers are punished within 
a society, but to make sure the likes of ISIS are kept out of 
a society. So just war. Now, that gets into 
a huge question. as to what is a just war. I mean, 
have the various wars that have been fought in the U.S. over 
the last several years been just wars? Y'all can figure that out, 
and we can talk at coffee another time. But in terms of justifiable 
homicide, you have capital punishment, you have a just war, and you 
have self-defense. Self-defense. Now, the Bible 
doesn't say if somebody tries to, you know, steal your wallet, 
you get to cut their throat. No, but the Bible does give a 
particular scenario in Exodus 22, verses 2 and 3, where if 
a man is found breaking into somebody's house at night, if 
in the midst of that exchange, the criminal offender dies, the 
homeowner is not liable to punishment. But if it's daytime hours and 
the man who's breaking in is killed, the homeowner may be 
held liable. I think the simple logic is this. During daylight hours, you're 
better able to assess the particular threat. You don't know if he's 
just there to steal your silverware or he's there to rape your wife. 
But if it's dark and you don't know and you can't assess that 
threat accurately, then you kill him in the midst of that, you're 
not liable. Self-defense. Jesus assumes self-defense 
when he speaks concerning the binding of the strongman. If 
the strongman knew at what hour, or the homeowner knew at what 
hour the intruder was going to come, he would have watched and 
kept him from coming, right? He wouldn't open the door for 
the intruder and say, come on in and take the silverware, take 
my wife, take my... No, he wouldn't do that. He would 
stop him. So you need to understand when 
it comes to biblical ethics, this idea that turning the other 
cheek means that there's no place for the sword in civil society 
is a faulty interpretation of both turning the other cheek 
and what the sword's purpose is under God in terms of civil 
society. So those are three occasions 
where homicide is acceptable. Capital punishment, self-defense, 
now again, doesn't mean you always have the right to kill somebody 
who menaces you or who does anything to you, but it's certainly included 
there, and then just war. So this is an instance authorized 
by God. So the offense is murder, and 
the punishment is execution, and the punishment is execution 
by man, by man his blood will be shed. Luther said 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. See, that's what's happening 
here. Remember, Noahic Covenant is perpetual, it's universal. 
Most everybody who affirms the death penalty affirms it always 
for murder based on Genesis 9-6. Now, we need to affirm that as 
well. Murder ought to be punished Now, 
I realize that's probably a subversive statement, and agents from the 
government could show up and haul me off, but when you look 
at Numbers 35, for instance, God says it is required. There's no ransom price. There's 
no payment that can be paid to satisfy the wrath of God with 
reference to the crime of murder. Now, I suggest that when we actually 
ponder what God's Word says when it comes to such things, and 
we reflect for just a moment on the blood guiltiness of the 
land in which we live, we ought to be terrified at the wrath 
and fury and judgment of God. If God says He will accept no 
payment for the punishment of murder, and we murder 100,000 
plus babies a year and increasingly are murdering elderly folk and 
sick folk via euthanasia, this is blood guiltiness that is saturating 
our land. And never do we hear politicians 
say, we think that the death penalty ought to be introduced 
as legislation for consideration. It's like a no-brainer. Anybody 
at all familiar with biblical ethics will tell you that capital 
punishment is like your basic starting point. It's not supposed 
to be, you know, in a society that actually is doing... No, 
it's just the bottom line. I mean, look at the language 
here. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. 
You could feasibly go out and shed somebody's blood in an act 
of murder and be out of jail in eight years nowadays. That's 
unconscionable. You should be executed. You should 
be put to death. That's what God's Word says, 
and I think that this is a test case with reference to the people 
of God, because I think we get a little nervous affirming what 
God's actually affirming here. but we need to affirm what God 
actually affirms. Calvin says, 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. You see, that's what happened 
prior to the flood, isn't it? The earth was corrupt and it 
was filled with violence. You have Lamech basically rejoicing 
in his bloodlust. You have Lamech basically celebrating 
the kinds of murderous mayhem that he engaged in. So that was 
the world prior to the flood. So man coming off the ark is 
given the sword by God and he's told, this is how you're supposed 
to protect life. Now you'll hear the argument, 
well, it doesn't really effectively deter. It always deters the person 
executed. I guarantee you. It always deters 
the person executed, without fail. And from what Paul tells 
us, it's a deterrent on everybody. He tells us, specifically in 
Romans chapter 13, that we should be afraid. In other words, if 
you do what's right, you shouldn't worry about life. But if you 
do what is evil, then be afraid, for he is God's minister and 
avenger to execute God's wrath in history. So this is God's 
means for the protection of life in the post-flood world. So, really, we could preach a 
sermon on the death penalty as an argument for the sanctity 
of life. See, most people think, oh, you 
can't be that way, you can't say that, you can't be against 
abortion and pro-death penalty. You absolutely, positively can 
be, and according to Scripture, you must be. Because God Most 
High abominates hands that shed innocent blood, according to 
Proverbs 6. And God Most High has entrusted 
to the civil magistrate the sword for the execution of God's vengeance 
in society on those who shed blood, innocent blood. Death 
penalty as an argument for the sanctity of life. I think that's 
exactly what Genesis 9 and 6 is telling us. Now note the reason 
appended. For whoever sheds man's blood, 
by man his blood shall be shed. Now note the reason. For in the 
image of God he made man. Now some argue that this explains 
why man is the agent of execution. In other words, this is a high 
calling. Notice verse 6, whoever sheds 
man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. So some argue 
that the for in the image of God he has made man is the validation 
for the agency of execution being man. In other words, you're given 
the sword to execute vengeance upon this criminal offender because 
you bear the image of God. I think that's a legitimate interpretation 
or a legitimate way to go, but I think it's better to understand 
it as the reason for the death penalty itself. In other words, 
you are to execute the man who sheds man's blood because the 
man whose blood has been shed is created in the image of God. 
In other words, God so values the image of God that the only 
way to properly deal with somebody who murders the image of God 
is by their execution. So, it's the theological rationale 
or justification for the death penalty. Gerhardus Vos says, 
in life slain, it is the image of God, i.e., the divine majesty 
that is assaulted. That's something we need to come 
to grips with. Do we want there to be no drive-by 
shootings or targeted shootings? And why don't we want abortion 
and euthanasia? These are image bearers of the 
living and true God. These are people that bear God's 
image, and therefore, it is wrong to murder them. It is wrong to 
get rid of them. The Geneva Bible has, therefore, 
to kill a man is to deface God's image. And so injury is not only 
done to man, but also to God. You have to appreciate that. When a human is murdered, it's 
an assault upon the divine image. And that's the reason appended 
to this death penalty command. Whoever sheds man's blood by 
man, his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made 
man. Now, when you get further along in the law of God, you 
get to what's called the Old Covenant or the Mosaic Covenant 
or the Sinai Covenant, whatever you want to call that sort of 
situation that obtains at the time of Moses, there's further 
sort of delineation made in terms of the death penalty. As I've 
said, there's that distinction between murder and homicide or 
murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter almost sounds worse, 
doesn't it? slaughtering a man. That just 
sounds, you know, brutal, worse than even murder. But manslaughter 
is typically that which is done that's accidental. Again, the 
axe head flies off. Your life is going to be disrupted 
as a result, but you're not going to be executed. But murder is 
with malice aforethought. It is with predetermination. 
If you want to look at those passages, it's Exodus 21, 12 
to 14. Numbers 35, 9 to 34, and then 
Deuteronomy 19, 1 to 13. That specifies or makes a distinction 
between murder and manslaughter. As well, there are several other 
capital crimes identified at the time of the Mosaic economy. 
Now, from my search and my reflection, murder is certainly covered, 
adultery and sexual immorality, bestiality, homosexuality, rape, 
incest, the incorrigible son, Sabbath breaking, kidnapping, 
solicitation to apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension 
to prophecy, and blasphemy. were all capital offenses in 
the mosaic economy. Now, I know the question will 
arise, are those things to be executable today? Well, I think 
the work ahead of us, just to get people to affirm the death 
penalty for murder, is probably going to occupy a whole host 
of our time and effort and energy. People need to agree with that, 
but I would certainly argue that there's more than just murder 
that ought to be punishable in this way. And then the Declaration 
Concerning Its Necessity. I've referred to this. You can 
turn to Numbers 35. Numbers 35. Verse 29, and these things shall 
be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generation and 
all your dwellings. Whoever kills a person, the murderer 
shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses, but one 
witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death 
penalty. See, this always happens. You talk about the death penalty. 
and you talk about capital punishment and you get people inevitably 
flipping out and saying, well, then the rivers are going to 
flow with blood. Everybody's going to be executed. 
There is such a commitment to due process in Old Covenant law. There is such a commitment to 
judicial process and procedure, even in the situation... In fact, 
turn, just so we can see that commitment to judicial process. Turn to Deuteronomy 25 for just 
a moment. Deuteronomy 25, and this is just 
a horrific illustration to modern man because it deals with what's 
called corporal punishment. In other words, a man who violates 
the law gets caned. He gets whacked in some way, 
shape, or form. But even in this, you have to 
appreciate there is strict procedure going on. Notice in Deuteronomy 
25.1, if there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, 
that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous 
and condemn the wicked, then it shall be, if the wicked man 
deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down 
and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with 
a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him, 
and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows 
above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight." 
Now, again, I know that just sounds offensive to us, the thought 
of somebody having committed a crime, being dragged out into 
the city square, laid down and beaten corporally, just blows 
our mind. But just stop and think about 
what's being said here. There has to be a proper trial. I really think we could learn 
a lot from these Old Testament passages if we just paid attention. 
There has to be a proper trial. It has to be properly supervised. There has to be proper proportion 
in terms of the amount of stripes that you give this particular 
man. There's always a limit. It cannot exceed 40. And there 
is dignity afforded even to the guy that's being punished. You 
see, this is not barbarism. Due process yields justice and 
fairness and rightness even to criminals. Right? We shouldn't 
want to be in a situation where, you know, oh, he's a criminal, 
we can do whatever it is that we want. No. God regulates even 
the amount of punishment that a criminal who deserves punishment 
is to get. It's not a free-for-all. This 
does distinguish us from the animals. This is something that 
is unique to image-bearers. Due process. The thought of losing 
due process ought to make all of us lose our minds, at least, 
you know, conceiving of such a day when we might not have 
recourse to justice. Bible is full of it. Now go back 
to Numbers 35. That was just a sideline note 
on this whole idea of the death penalty. It's not the case that 
the rivers are going to flow with blood. And you know what 
else is built into the biblical law? There is built into biblical 
law a prescription against litigiousness. You know what litigiousness is, 
right? Everybody sues everybody. At least in America, I mean, 
10, 20, 30 years ago, people were suing, you know, he fell 
down in the mall, so he sued the mall and he got, you know, 
a great big settlement. I mean, crooks were suing homeowners 
because when they were in burglarizing their homes, they hurt themselves 
and they would win. I mean, that's just incredible. A guy breaks into my house and 
he stubs his toe and then sues me and I have to pay? I mean, 
talk about, you know, no justice. But litigiousness is that idea 
where we can just sue for anything and everything. You know what's 
built into biblical law? is if I come before a judge and 
I say that so-and-so did such and such, and I'm shown to be 
false, I receive the punishment that he would have gotten if 
he was guilty. Think about that. What's that 
going to do to you when it comes to a frivolous lawsuit? If you 
know there's a good chance that I'm going to be sniffed out as 
a fake and a fraud, and whatever I was hoping he'd get in terms 
of punishment is going to be meted out to me. I know I'm not 
the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I know I'm going to think 
twice about going for that. Okay, so when we get these ideas 
about what biblical law and biblical ethics are, you hear a lot of 
misrepresentation and a lot of caricature, but when you actually 
investigate the text themselves, due process, the necessity of 
witnesses, evidence, corroboration, all those sorts of things, we 
really should take for granted as Bible believers. Now, back 
to Numbers. We'll get there eventually. Numbers 
3530, whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to 
death on the testimony of witnesses, but one witness is not sufficient 
testimony against a person for the death penalty. 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. See, 
there's other laws and other types of punishment where you 
may demand a lesser form. You can plea bargain. That's 
probably what's in view here. You can argue for a lesser punishment 
to just get everything done and everybody go on their way, but 
not in the crime of murder. There's not supposed to be a 
plea bargain. There's not supposed to be a 
reduction in terms of the punishment. There's not supposed to be the 
payment of a payment price. Verse 32, 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. Therefore, 
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, arguably, it's a theocratic society. It's a specific polity. God is ruling and dwelling in 
the midst of Israel in a way that he doesn't with Canada today. The principle holds, whoever 
sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed. It's not 
the case that you can accept a payment for murder. The only 
payment that is commensurate with the crime is execution. And you see that throughout the 
Mosaic economy. Now turn to the book of Romans, 
Romans chapter 13. Romans chapter 13, because you 
get this sometimes. Well, that was the Old Testament. 
Remember the Noahic Covenant. You cannot just say, well, that's 
the Old Testament. You can do that with the Old 
Covenant, because there are certain things about the covenant that 
God made with Moses and Israel that do not obtain in the modern 
situation. We're not under the mandate of 
Deuteronomy 7. There is no call for the Christian 
today to engage in holy war. Chilliwackians are not told to 
go to Abbotsford and utterly demolish all of the idols in 
that city. Holy war is not for the new covenant 
Christian. Now we'll spiritualize it and 
say, well, yeah, we're in a holy war. Yeah, we fight against the 
world. and the flesh and the devil, and certainly there's 
that parallel. But Deuteronomy 7 spoke of holy 
war vis-a-vis go in to the land, break things, and kill people. 
Get them out of the land, take their land, and live there and 
live there happily ever after. So that's not for us. You can't 
do that with the Noahic Covenant. The Noahic is perpetual. The 
Noahic is universal. Whatever is true in Genesis 9 
is always true. There are some things in Leviticus 
and Deuteronomy, things that are conditioned by the Old Covenant, 
such as you can't eat bacon. You can eat bacon today. But 
you couldn't if you lived at the time of Moses. I mean, you 
could, but you would have been thought of as an uncircumcised 
Gentile. But if you were a Jew, you couldn't 
eat bacon. Well, brethren, if you're committed 
to not eating bacon and you have a supply, you can gladly turn 
it over to me because I feel like I have liberty under the 
New Covenant to eat bacon. So you see there were certain 
things that obtained in those sections in Leviticus and Deuteronomy 
that are not absolutely applicable today. But the Noahic Covenant 
is not one of those. Now in Romans 13, we see the 
death penalty taught. But we need to really appreciate 
Paul's argument. If you go back to Romans 12, 
this is where it begins. Romans 12, 17. If you look at 
Romans 13, there's not some big conjunction, there's not some 
big adversative, there's not some big contrast. It's not that 
he leaves one sphere and jumps into a brand new sphere altogether. In fact, chapter divisions and 
verse numbers were all added a lot later. I think that if 
you did not read Romans 12, 17 into Romans 13, if you just read 
it as one big, you know, massive text, it would make better sense. But if you look at 12, 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, says the Lord." It's one 
of those passages that is grossly misunderstood. We're told, don't 
avenge yourselves, and we're told that accurately. We're not 
supposed to avenge ourselves. Does that mean no vengeance? 
No, it just means we're not supposed to be the ones to carry it out. 
We leave it with God, who's actually really good at carrying out vengeance. And one of the means by which 
God carries out his vengeance is through the civil government 
wielding the sword against criminal offenders within a body politic. That's the context. Notice. Beloved, 
verse 19, 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. You have to make the distinction 
with Paul and with Jesus between what a person does as a person 
versus what the civil government does as civil government. The ethics in the Sermon on the 
Mount have to do with we as individual people. If we're smacked, give 
them your other cheek. But that doesn't mean there's 
no place for the civil government to execute repeated rapists or 
serial murderers. Do you get that? And just because 
we have this distinction between what the civil magistrate does 
as magistrate and what individuals do as individuals, doesn't mean 
the individual can't actually go to the magistrate and say, 
so-and-so did this horrific thing against me, and you, as an avenger 
of God's wrath in society, I'd like to see you pursue that with 
this particular person. Brethren, that's legit, and that's 
what Paul is dealing with in this section. Verse 21, do not 
be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 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. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? it is good, and you will have praise from the 
same. 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." Where have we recently heard about 
an avenger executing wrath? Oh yeah, back in chapter 12. 
Don't avenge yourselves, but give place to wrath. One of the 
ways we give place to wrath is to recognize the legitimacy of 
civil government that's armed with the sword to execute God's 
vengeance in history. You've got to appreciate that 
the context sort of flows together here. In terms of the actual 
teaching of the passage, believers are supposed to be subject to 
the governing authorities. In other words, as long as they're 
not telling us to sin, and we've seen that sort of exception in 
Acts 4, and we'll see it again in Acts 5. If the magistrate 
does not command you to sin, then you're supposed to do what 
he says. That's Paul. I'm not telling 
you, go out and be this because I have a vested interest in controlling 
you vis-a-vis civil." No, Paul says that. Let every soul be 
subject to the governing authorities. In other words, Christians ought 
to be good citizens. I think that's probably one of 
the reasons why Constantine was favorable toward Christianity. 
Yes, we know he saw the sword during battle and and underwent 
some sort of a conversion. But we also know that Christians 
pay their taxes. They cut their grass. They clean 
their house. They show up at work on time. They're good citizens. I think 
we mentioned that on Saturday morning. Any civil leader that 
had half a brain would court the Christian sort of support. 
Because Christians, definitionally, are supposed to toe the line 
and be good citizens. In fact, Paul goes on in the 
passage to say, pay your taxes. Now, if I'm a civil leader, I 
want those people to be a part of my party. I like those kinds 
of people, right? Perhaps that's one of the reasons 
why the empire, as well, grew increasingly favorable towards 
these believers. Then notice the reason for the 
command. Why does Paul say to be subject 
to the governing authorities? Because there is no authority 
except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 
I think that really kind of levels everything when it comes to elections. Yes, we pray. Yes, we vote. Yes, we participate. Yes, we 
do what we're supposed to do. But ultimately, we hear Christ 
speaking as wisdom in the book of Proverbs. And he says, by 
me, kings reign. And I think that provides hope 
and comfort and stability to the people of God. Because even 
a terrible leader is put there by God, and it's there for a 
reason, for God's reason. We may not be able to sort it 
all out, we may not be able to answer all the particular details, 
but we know that God causes all things to work for good to those 
who love Him, to those who are called according to His purpose. 
even terrible political leaders. So that's Paul's reasoning. Be 
subject, for there is no authority except from God. And then notice 
the sin of resistance in verse 2. Therefore whoever resists 
the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. In other words, don't do things 
wrong, because you're not supposed to. Now John Gill makes this 
valid observation. He says this is not to be understood 
as if magistrates were above the laws. We need to understand 
that as well. And certainly as voters and as 
ones who write and Twitter, Tweeters and Facebookers and all, we can 
make our voices heard. We have that benefit and that 
prerogative and we really should utilize it and we should pray 
God raise men up that have the fear of God in their hearts. 
That's a good thing. And we ought to see that government 
overreach is bad. That's contrary to the will of 
God. God doesn't want government to be doing the sorts of things 
they're doing when they restrict your ability to preach the gospel, 
or when they restrict your ability to worship the true and living 
God. So Gill says, 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. Now, that's something that's 
pretty big in reformed civil ethics, the whole idea of lawful 
rebellion against a constituted authority. That would take us 
far afield. But you look at the United States 
of America. Was the revolution legit? Was that legitimate for God-fearing 
people to undertake? As you might expect, there are 
strong opinions on either side of that particular question. 
But that's a huge topic for debate. Is it ever right for a body politic 
to resist their civil government or to rebel against them? Again, 
we don't have the time or the prerogative or the desire to 
jump into that particular question right now, but realize that that's 
out there. It's debated, and it's wondered 
about, and it's written about. I would suggest, if you're interested, 
you shouldn't ever think about doing anything until you read, 
at least as a minimum, Calvin's Institute's Book 4, where he 
deals with matters of civil polity and civil government. That ought 
to be, you know, after reading Romans 13, you should read John 
Calvin. Before you even start tweeting or Facebooking about 
the resistance and how we're going to, you know, I don't even 
remember exactly where he came down. I just remember reading 
it saying every Reformed believer who thinks about these things 
ought to at least read Calvin before they jump into the fray. 
That's just my shameless plug for John Calvin tonight. But 
then notice the purpose of God in verses 3 and 4. And this brings 
us back to our subject. Notice verse 3. For rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to evil. This is most crucial 
in discussions concerning the death penalty. For rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to evil. It should be works. That's how we should understand 
it. It's evil works, not evil thoughts. You don't want the 
government executing people for thoughts. You don't want the 
government charging into your home and saying, you had a bad 
thought. No, they publish evil works. In other words, criminal 
activity. You don't want the government 
punishing, you shall not covet. If the government ever gets the 
sword on those with reference to, you shall not covet, the 
rivers will run red with blood. So Paul's argument here is rulers 
are not a terror to good works, but they are a terror to evil 
works. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good. I think I've 
shared before, anytime I preach on this, whenever there's a police 
car behind me, I get nervous, even if I'm going the speed limit. 
Always when I'm going to, I shouldn't say that, when I'm going to space, 
it's just something comes upon me, right? There's just that 
fear, they're gonna get me, I've done something wrong. Or going 
through the border, I always feel like I got a bomb or cocaine 
in my trunk when I go to talk to those people. I mean, I go 
and I fetch one book and I come back through and I feel like 
they're gonna get me on something, you know? But notice Paul's logic. Do what is good, and you will 
have praise from the same. Now, the praise from the same 
there isn't, you know, on Thursday, you're going to be paraded downtown, 
and you're going to get to wear a laurel wreath, and they're 
all going to say what a great guy you are. You know what I 
think praise from the same is? They're going to leave you alone. 
It's the best thing your government can do for you, is to leave you 
alone. That's the praise from the saints. So you see his argument. 
Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good. 
You don't want to panic when there's a policeman behind you. 
Just drive the speed limit. Wear your seatbelt. Don't talk 
on your cell phone. But if you do what is bad, then 
he is God's minister. Notice in verse 4. This is the 
same word we use for deacon. He is God's deacon. You have 
deacons in the ecclesiastical realm, deacons who serve the 
table of the Lord, the table of the poor, and the table of 
the minister. That's a deacon ecclesiastically. But a deacon in the civil realm 
is one who wields the sword, for he is God's minister or deacon 
to you for good. But if you do evil, again, evil 
works. Not having evil thoughts because 
the magistrate's not supposed to police your thoughts. But 
if you do evil works, be afraid. You see, there is a deterrent 
here. Whether the studies or the evidence or the statistics 
say that the death penalty is a deterrent or not, Paul says 
it is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and we need 
to listen to Paul versus the statistics. For he is God's minister 
to you for good, but if you do evil works, 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. Now John Murray speaks concerning 
the sword. He says, the sword which the 
magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment 
is 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. It's 
not the case that the magistrate puts everybody to death. If you 
do talk on your cell phone when you're driving, you shouldn't 
be executed for that. Now, I guess if you kill somebody 
while you do it, that puts you into the owner of the ox that 
tended the gore category. So we might have to sort of further 
parse that out. But there are crimes that are 
not worthy of execution. But he goes on to say, 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. This is the chief piece of his 
equipment. And to say that he cannot inflict 
it is to simply argue against everything that God's Word holds 
forth. Paul assumes that this practice 
is going on, and Paul supports it. Now, I shouldn't have to 
remind you who the particular authority was at the time that 
Paul wrote. He was Nero. Now, Paul wrote 
Romans in about the mid-50s, and they say that Nero wasn't 
nearly as far gone in the mid-50s as he was later on. Nero went 
nuts. Nero lost it in the early 60s. But in the mid-50s, he had some 
pretty decent people that surrounded him, that kept him in check, 
and hedged him in. But nevertheless, he wasn't, 
you know, Saint Nero. He wasn't godly King Nero. He was still Nero. And so Paul 
is saying that what I'm writing obtains in the Roman Empire under 
Nero. And if that's the case, then 
it obtains for us as well, and we need to take heed to this. 
Now, I want to bring this to a quick conclusion. because we 
are getting close to the end of our time here. But Calvin 
makes this observation. He says, magistrates may hence 
learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for 
their own interest. I just read a line in Japanese, 
because it's so foreign. We don't even think of politicians 
this way anymore, do we? We don't even think of them as 
doing what they do for the good of the people. That's not even 
a thought anymore, is it? Do we actually think that so-and-so 
is going to get elected because he really wants to help us? No, 
we typically think, okay, he's the least of the worst of them, 
so I'll cast my vote his way. But Calvin says magistrates may 
hence learn what their... And if I sound like I'm sort 
of biased against the present political system, yeah, you caught 
me. I'm sorry. But 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 two 
final thoughts with reference to the death penalty. Gordon 
Clark, a 20th century Christian philosopher, said, God gave the 
right of capital punishment to human governments. 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. We need to get back to that type 
of Christian ethic, where there's not this mamby-pamby, well, you 
know, I think, no, what does God's say on the subject, and 
if God's Word says this on the subject, we must affirm it, and 
dare I say, pray that somebody somewhere along the line will 
actually recognize that it's a prerogative and a responsibility 
of civil government to actually do this. See, we want them to 
do all this other stuff and they're not doing the very thing they're 
supposed to do. They're supposed to wield the 
sword to punish criminal offenders and to protect us from any foreign 
intruders. Not everything else they do. 
Brethren, I suggest that our prayer lives ought to reflect 
such when it comes to civil government. And then Thomas Watson, in his 
exposition of the Ten Commandments, 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. Well, I hope that 
Genesis 9, 16 and that Romans 13, 1 to 4 carry your conscience 
and that you will see this is a consistent position in the 
scripture. The demands or the stipulations 
or the elements involved in the Noahic covenant are universal 
and they are perpetual. and therefore they are binding 
upon us today. So whatever else we might say 
in terms of those additional crimes that were capital in the 
Mosaic legislation, we must insist on execution for murder. Well, 
let's close in a word of prayer. Father, we thank you for your 
word and we thank you for its sufficiency in all matters of 
faith and practice. Help us, God, to understand the 
scriptures and help us, God, to pray in terms of scripture 
with reference to civil government and with reference to crime and 
punishment and the sorts of things that we witness on a regular 
basis. And grant us grace to take seriously Romans 13, to 
be subject to governing authority, to realize there is no authority 
except from you, Lord God. and help us to glorify you in 
our civil life, help us to glorify you in all areas of our lives. 
And we ask in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.