Genesis chapter 9. We're going to stick with the section that we were in last week, chapter 9, verses 1 to 7. If you remember, we looked specifically at verse 6 in terms of capital punishment or the death penalty that's instituted here in the Noahic Covenant. It is therefore binding upon all men everywhere in all ages.
It's universal. It's for God's creatures, not simply for Israelites. And so I thought tonight we would deal with some of the common objections to the death penalty as we continue to think through this particular subject. But I'll begin reading in
Scripture Reading: Genesis 9:1–17
Genesis chapter 9 at verse 1. 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 water 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. So
Introduction: The Noahic Covenant
remember, the flood takes place in chapter 7, the waters abate in chapter 8, and then Noah and his family exit from the ark. And in chapter 8, verses 20 to 22, the first act that Noah engages in when he hits dry land is to worship God. He offers up burnt sacrifice, burnt offerings to the Lord, And then the Lord purposes never again to destroy the earth as he had done in this situation. And then in chapter 9, he makes what's called the Noahic Covenant.
And this is, in a sense, a new beginning. Remember that Noah is like an atom. Noah is given the command to be fruitful and multiply. Noah is told how to regulate society so that the earth does not come like it was or become like it was prior to the flood.
Prior to the flood, it was filled with violence. It was exceedingly corrupt, and as a result, God gives now the sword to the magistrate for the execution of criminal offenders. So
Structure of Genesis 9:1–7
in verses 1 to 7, we see the emphasis first on the propagation of life in verses 1 and 7. In other words, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That's stated in verse 1. It's repeated in verse 7.
We also see the provision for life in verses 2b to 4. God adds meat to the diet. He tells man that he can eat. of the animals that are on the earth. There is a prohibition, specifically in verse 4, against ingesting the blood of those animals.
And it shows us and it highlights for us what will later become obvious in the law, Leviticus specifically, where God says the life is in the blood. But we see that already here in Genesis 9, 4. You shall not eat flesh with its life. That is its blood.
So God has even the blood of animals in regard And that moves into now a concern for the blood of man. And that's verse 5. Surely for your lifeblood, this is man's lifeblood, I will demand a reckoning. From the hand of every beast I will require it.
Remember the book of Exodus contains a specific law governing the ox that gores. If an ox got out and gored a man, the ox was to be put to death. The ox was to be stoned. If the owner knew that the ox tended to gore, then the owner himself would be liable to capital punishment as well, because he didn't do anything to restrain the goring ox.
But then notice in verse 5, he says, 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. And
Genesis 9:6 and Capital Punishment
that brings us to that most foundational statement concerning capital punishment in the Bible, Genesis 9.6. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man." Again, the offense, whoever sheds man's blood, that means in an unlawful manner. The law will stipulate or make a distinction between what we call murder and manslaughter. Murder contains malice of forethought or premeditation.
There's a desire in the heart to actually terminate the life of another where manslaughter is accidental. Now, in the law, if you accidentally killed somebody, there was still a difficulty in your life. You had to leave and go live in a city of refuge for a time. So even that was to sort of de-incentivize persons from being accident-prone when it came to their neighbors' lives.
But there is that difference. Here, specifically, whoever sheds man's blood in the act of murder. The punishment, by man his blood shall be shed." In other words, the punishment must fit the crime. That's what we refer to as the law of retribution, or in Latin, it's the lex talionis.
It's somewhat foundational to biblical law. It's foundational to our law as well. We all would concede that the punishment must fit the crime. And then we see the agent by which this execution is to be carried out.
It says, by man his blood shall be shed. In other words, God doesn't suspend this execution until the eternal state when God deals with that particular offender, but rather he says, by man his blood will be shed. It was Luther who 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.
And then the theological reason for this is found at the end of the verse. For in the image of God he made man. In other words, the real horror or atrocity involved in murder is assault on the divine image. It's the divine majesty that is assaulted when a man is murdered.
And God underscores this principle by an appeal to theology. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man." So we see that as the Noahic Covenant, as we move through the material, God willing, next Wednesday night, specifically in verses 8 to 17, we will see it's universal, it's perpetual, it is for all the art dwellers and for all their posterity. In other words, it's for every man, woman, boy, and girl that would ever populate the earth. The
The Covenant's Universal Scope
Noahic Covenant has not been suspended, it has not been abrogated, it has not been done away with. It is in place. It's a common grace covenant whereby God secures and stabilizes the created order so that the covenant of grace can operate. The preaching of the gospel for the salvation of sinners.
So the covenant with Noah is not the covenant of grace, but it serves the covenant of grace, and we would refer to it as a common grace covenant. And then remember that we cannot say or argue, well, that's only in the Old Testament where the death penalty is taught. I think every believer on the face of the earth would concede that the Old Testament teaches the death penalty. In fact, this is a common objection to the death penalty that I don't even deal with because hopefully we already know better.
But we know from the New Testament that the government, the magistrate, has been given the sword by God to execute criminal offenders, and that is Romans 13. In fact, you can turn there. Again, this is by way of review, and then we'll look at these common objections to the death penalty. But
Romans 13 and the Sword of the Magistrate
in Romans chapter 13, remember that the context is broader than beginning in 13. It goes back to Romans 12. Where Paul says, 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. See, we oftentimes are led to believe that this do not avenge yourselves indicates that vengeance is bad. No, us avenging ourselves is bad.
Vengeance isn't bad because Paul goes on to say, but rather give place to wrath. In other words, leave it with God, who has the monopoly on the execution of wrath against those who assault his people. But rather, give place to wrath. Notice in verse 19, for it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Now notice 13.1.
There's no adversative. There's no but or now on another subject or I want to deal with something completely contrary to what we've been talking about. No, 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 we understand evil works. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what 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." See the connection there. 1219, beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.
The language of 13.4 is reminiscent and sounds very much like that. In other words, God utilizes the civil magistrate to execute his vengeance upon criminal offenders in a body politic. God has ordained the governing authorities and he has equipped them with the sword so that he can inflict judgment upon those criminal offenders. So Romans 13 teaches as well that there is this death penalty abiding.
Now, the sword doesn't indicate that every act of punishment meted out by the government or by the magistrate must be death, but it certainly includes death because that is what the sword is about. Now,
New Testament Confirmations
two other New Testament ideas or texts that highlight the validity of the death penalty before we look at the objections. The crucifixion of Jesus. Nowhere does Jesus say, it's absolutely untoward for you to engage in the death penalty. Now, I realize that's an argument from silence, but Christ willingly submits to the Roman state in their execution of him.
And again, I know that atonement and redemption and the plan and purpose of God and all that sort of thing are at play with the death of our Lord Jesus. But Barabbas and the other criminals that were crucified next to the Lord Jesus, there's not one whiff that the early saints were sort of protesting against the Roman Empire for their use of crucifixion or capital punishment. And then look at Acts chapter 25. Acts chapter 25, where Paul assumes or affirms the validity of capital punishment and expresses his own willingness to undergo it if, in fact, he is guilty of the crimes that they had alleged. his appeal to Caesar when he stands before Festus.
And in 2510 it says, so Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong as you very well know. For if I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. That's intriguing language.
First of all, because he affirms the validity of the death penalty. Second of all, because he does not resist the death penalty if, in fact, it is proven that he has violated crimes. But then thirdly, there does seem to be more than one crime that is punished by capital offense, if there is, or rather if he has committed anything deserving of death. He doesn't say if I have murdered.
See, there are those who affirm the death penalty only for the crime of murder. Now, I'm not one of those. I think that the Bible speaks specifically to a broader application of the death penalty, and I think this is one of the passages that I would go to to try and show that. Paul highlights those specifics with reference to capital punishment.
So I think that if we look at, and this is just a cursory review of passages, the Bible is clear from the beginning to the end that capital punishment is not just man's choice, it's not something that we've adopted as the best possible way to deal with criminal offenders, but it's God's will, it's God's mandate. Remember that passage in Numbers 35, that it was unacceptable to pay a ransom price for the crime of murder. There were crimes in Old Covenant Israel where you could pay a price or you could offer up something in order to mitigate the penalties involved with having committed that crime. You couldn't do that with murder.
If you committed murder, the only way that that could be dealt with was through execution. It wasn't suggested, it wasn't a recommendation, it was mandated for Old Covenant Israel. And I think when we look at that sort of a thing, and then we consider the sort of blood guiltiness that's upon, say, Canada with reference to abortion and euthanasia, and if the only way to atone for that judicially innocent blood is through the blood of those who spilled that blood, we are in a lot of trouble in this nation. We really ought to imbibe the prayer of the prophet when he said, in wrath, remember mercy.
Because brethren, there is a lot of blood guiltiness on the part of Canada, the part of America, the nations of the earth. And as I mentioned last week, this isn't even a part of anybody's political platform anymore. Nobody runs on criminal punishment. Nobody runs on the actual things the government is supposed to do.
The government is not supposed to be involved in probably 90% of the things they're involved in, and the two things they're supposed to do, they don't do one, and they do the other very poorly. And those two are to punish criminal offenders within society, which I would argue they don't do, having abandoned the death penalty, and then protecting society from criminal offenders or sort of terrorists from outside. They do that, but it's not always, you know, the best effort. That's why the government has the sword.
It's to protect us from rapists and to protect us from ISIS. Beyond that, They don't need to be doing 90% of the other stuff they're doing. So we've got big problems in terms of politics and whatnot. Now, having said all that, I'm not an Anabaptist.
I'm not going to run to the hills and hide and start my own island and that sort of thing. It is what it is, and we trust God to bring even straight things out of crooked things. We ought to vote on Saturday. We ought to be involved.
We ought to be civic-minded. We ought to be prayerful. Paul bids us, 1 Timothy 2, to pray for kings and all who are in authority. So we need to remember that.
So I'm not advocating that we run and passively hide, but rather we realize what the Bible says concerning these things. Now,
Biblical Objections to Capital Punishment
in terms of the common objections, I have two categories. First, the biblical, and then second, the pragmatic. Now, the biblical, I'm sure there are more. I've just sort of picked out the three biggies.
Objection: 'You Shall Not Kill'
The first is Exodus 20.13. You can turn to Exodus 20.13. This is an argument against the death penalty. Exodus 20.13. and I will translate it from the King James.
You shall not kill. You shall not kill. I think the New King James translates it better where it says, you shall not murder. Kaiser says, while Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here appears only 47 times in the Old Testament.
If any one of the seven words could signify murder, where factors of premeditation and intentionality are present, this is the verb. In other words, kill is not a good translation. Murder is what's in view, premeditation or intentionality. Malice, a forethought, the hiding behind the bush, waiting for your neighbor to come home, so you can bury your axe head in his head.
That's murder, and that is unlawful. The Bible does not prohibit killing in three specific instances. I'd like to turn this off tonight and have, you know, dialogue and interaction. I really enjoy that sort of thing, but I don't want to cut anybody off at, you know, 17 minutes in.
So those three lawful acts of killing are the death penalty. We've just established that. We see it in Genesis. We see it in Romans.
Those are the two main pillars upon which the doctrine hangs. The other is self-defense. Self-defense is assumed by the Bible. This is a part of loving your neighbor as yourself.
The Bible envisions that the people that God made are going to defend themselves from pain and torture and suffering and death. They're just going to do that. It's a reflexive action. We are built, we are made in the image of God, and self-defense is there.
Exodus 22 deals specifically with self-defense. Matthew Henry comments, a man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it. He that assaults it does so at his own peril. I think Matthew Henry is absolutely, positively correct.
He who assaults it does so at his own peril. So the legitimacy of the death penalty, the legitimacy of self-defense, and then the legitimacy of just war. As I mentioned last week, as I referred to that, the definition of just war would take us far afield from our study tonight. Just suffice to say there must be such a thing out there as just war.
Have we known it in our own lifetime? I'm not sure at this particular point, but the Bible does mandate that this is a reality. Holy war in Deuteronomy 7 was just when God said to the Israelites to go in and to dispossess the land of the Canaanites by killing them. That was lawful homicide.
As well, the function of the magistrate, not only in the execution of criminal offenders within society, but as well to defend from those enemies that are foreign. there ought to be that realization that from time to time there will be war. Turretin said, from the very fact that Christ did not take away but confirmed the authority of the magistrate, he also approved of the right of carrying on war since it pertains to the magistrate to defend his subjects against unjust violence, which certainly cannot sometimes be done without war. So, those are three instances that the Bible authorizes killing in. Self-defense, legitimate war, and capital punishment.
So, Exodus 20.13 cannot be made to teach that God is not pro-death penalty. That is an inaccurate translation. It's not even inaccurate. It's an accurate translation provided we have half a brain to be able to interpret the data.
Because God does authorize killing and you cannot miss that when you read scripture. Again, I've said it in the past. I'll say it again. I don't know how anybody comes away from the Bible and maintains what's called pacifism.
I don't know how anybody can come away from Scripture, and I don't mean just the Old Testament, but from the Bible and maintain pacifism. Jesus speaks favorably concerning military soldiers. The Bible sees soldiers as legitimate. Christ doesn't say you need to turn in your gun, you need to hang up your shield, and you need to, you know, Go make baskets.
That's not what the instruction is. When the Baptist is reproving the people of his own day and the soldiers come up, what does he tell them? He doesn't tell them to turn in their weapons and stop soldiering. He says, don't be brutes and don't take money from people, essentially.
So we need to understand the Bible is not against killing. The Bible is against unlawful killing. Now I guess, I get that we don't typically talk in these sorts of categories and we don't want to sound like we're big meanies and we don't want to sound like we've got, you know, all of these strange ideas that don't jive with the crowd that just wants to you know, talk about Jesus and lift up their hands and that. Brethren, we need to think God's thoughts after Him.
And God's thoughts are that the civil magistrate is to execute criminal offenders. That there is not to be murderers getting out after eight years. There should be no such thing as somebody going to prison for life to begin with, and then to actually get out less than life for good behavior. There's no such thing as a murderer doing good behavior.
He has offered up his life. I mean, that's just it. He shouldn't be given this sort of benefit and privilege. So Exodus 20, 13 cannot be utilized to argue against the death penalty.
Objection: Turn the Other Cheek
A second one is Matthew 5, and you can turn there. Remember, biblical objections to the death penalty. Matthew chapter 5, I think this is another biggie, verses 38 to 42. You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
That's the lex talionis. That's the law of retribution or retaliation. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 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." Now, that seems pretty cut and dry, doesn't it?
Jesus says, you have heard that it was said, like Stallionis, but I say to you, let people smack you. Give them your cloak. Go two miles. I mean, it's obvious.
This is an in the bag. The death penalty is no more, if we are to believe sort of the common misinterpretation of this passage. Well, I would like to remind you that what Jesus is dealing here specifically with is our sort of personal ethics, the way that we relate to persons on a day-to-day sort of basis. Now, when he says, I tell you not to resist an evil person, I think it's good for us to ask the question, never?
Ever? Is that what Jesus means? Never resist an evil person? Let evil people do whatever it is they want, whenever it is they want, at whatever cost to you they want?
We don't resist an evil person who comes to our door at two in the morning and he has a gun and he says, I want to take your women folk? We don't resist Him. We allow Him to do that. We cannot admit that that's what Jesus is saying.
I tell you not to resist an evil person. The New Testament will not allow us to interpret this as a universal statement. I tell you not to resist an evil person. That's not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally.
What's Jesus saying in Matthew 18? If your brother sins against you, tell him to do it again? He doesn't say that. If your brother sins against you, go to him, tell him his fault between you and him, and if he hears you, you've won your brother.
We don't just allow people to do whatever it is they want to do at all times to us. This isn't a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in the church. Matthew 18, if he doesn't listen to you, he doesn't listen to two or three witnesses, then tell it to the church. If he doesn't listen to the church, then the church will brand him as a heathen and a tax collector.
So it cannot mean but I tell you not to resist an evil person ever, without qualification ever, and it certainly can't apply to the civil state if the death penalty is biblical, and I hope that I've shown that it is in this brief sketch, if it's biblical, then we cannot think for a moment that a judge listens to somebody argue against the guilt of a particular person, and then the judge say, well, go ahead and go, because we're not supposed to resist evil people. No, I can't mean that. You've got to understand that what Jesus is dealing with in the Sermon on the Mount is personal, day-to-day ethics one to another. And what Jesus is discouraging by introducing the lex talionis is us utilizing the lex talionis in our day-to-day operations with one another.
In other words, we're not the Pharisees, we're not the scribes, we're not the religious leaders of Israel that acted that way, that saw everything in epic terms. And if somebody wronged them, they wanted to exact a pound of flesh. Jesus says, no, you're not supposed to be that way. If somebody slaps you, let them slap your other cheek.
Somebody takes your cloak, give them your other one. If somebody calls you to walk a mile, walk another mile. As a Christian functioning in this capacity, seek to be that kind of person. In fact, the parallel is Romans chapter 12, where Paul says, do not avenge yourselves.
Be at peace with all men as far as you are able. Don't be the kind of person that's always petty and always looking to get paid back and always making sure that anybody who's ever wronged you is corrected. No, you need to be able to let things slide in your day-to-day life. That's the emphasis.
Not civil ethics, not if somebody robbed from you, you can't call the police. Not somebody, you know, bruised your head so you can't call. No, that's not it at all. C.H.
Spurgeon says, when the Lex Talionis, this law of retribution, came to be the rule of daily life, it fostered revenge and our Savior would not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals. It's an ethic applied by the state with reference to the law of retribution. Not if somebody took the bigger piece of whatever delightful treat Mrs. Jones brought.
You took the biggest one. How did, no, that's, Talionis doesn't apply. Sometimes you get shorted and you don't get the biggest piece. You just got a deal.
We're not gonna convene court for that. This is not gonna happen. He says, good law, this is the crux. If you're not getting it in my explanation, listen to Spurgeon.
Good law in court may be very bad custom in common society. That's the point. It's not, you know, no criminal courts, no police. I mean, if we take the misinterpretation, then we ought not to have locks on our doors.
We ought not to have dogs. I mean, if they're only pets, but for guard dogs, we shouldn't have fences. We shouldn't have guns. We shouldn't have any alarm system.
Why would we even lock the doors here? I mean, we're not supposed to resist an evil person. If evil people want to come in and tear up the hymn books and, you know, defecate on the pews, we should just allow them, right? You cannot make the text say that because then it says too much.
If the idea is we never resist an evil person in anything, then yeah, no locks, No alarms, no dogs, no guns, no nothing. It's a hippie society where everything goes and that's not what the Lord Jesus is calling us to. John Murray said, the Lex Talionis was part of the order of public justice and not private revenge. That's what the Pharisees were about, private revenge, exacting justice.
Greg Bonson said the Pharisees were wont to appeal to the Old Testament principle of equitable punishment in civil court to justify personal revenge and vindictiveness. Christ is speaking to the situation of interpersonal relations and prohibited the exacting of due punishment for wrong suffer. You see that? In your own daily life, you ought to be able to put up with a whole lot.
You ought not to be the guy that's always whining and grumbling and complaining. If you were 10 and your brother was 10, you wouldn't be the kid that's always complaining to mom. Mom, he got this. He got the bigger piece.
No, no, no. Just chill out. You've got to be able to deal with life. Life isn't always fair. that this has no bearing on whether a rapist goes undealt with, or whether somebody can walk into your house and steal everything you have in the name of, we're not supposed to resist an evil person.
That is a foolhardy application of this verse. And unfortunately, it's cited as sort of the end all with reference to discussions on the death penalty. Martin Lloyd-Jones made this beautiful observation in the Sermon on the Mount. And this is me, I'm kind of filling in the backdrop.
In discussing man's relation to the state and whether a young man ought to join the military, Martin Lloyd-Jones says that we must seek our answers from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Brilliant. Brilliant. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 deal with the place of the civil magistrate.
Guess what doesn't? Matthew 5, 38 to 42. Now, this is a direct quote of Lloyd-Jones on this passage. This is only concerned about my personal relationships.
And yet, how often when a man's duty towards the state is being considered, this passage is quoted. I suggest it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. He's right. I'm going to tell you flat out, Matthew 5, 38 to 42 has nothing to do with the death penalty.
It has everything to do with you living your life in such a way that you're not petty, vindictive, and the kind of kid that's always running the mom every time his brother gets a little bit more than he does. Don't be that person. Chill out, grow a thicker skin and deal with life in this world. But this has nothing to do whether somebody abuses your family or steals from you.
You can call the police. You see, if we press this, there's times when we interpret a passage where we can make it say more than it should say. And if we press this passage the way they want to, then yeah, no locks, no alarms, no dogs for any kind of assistance against criminal doers. Notice that in John 18, 22, and 23.
Turn there. Just so you can see, there is a difference between your day-to-day operations and other sorts of things. But just to show you some things that cannot jive with that misinterpretation. Notice in John 18, 22.
And when he had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand saying, do you answer the high priest like that? Excuse me, Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why do you strike me? He doesn't turn the other cheek, does he? He asks a question as to why he just got a slap on the face.
Now, if Jesus is saying we're never to resist an evil person, then why didn't Jesus just turn the other cheek in this instance? Because in Matthew 5, 38 to 42, he doesn't mean what those people mean, or they think he means. He doesn't mean your personal day-to-day life, or he means your personal day-to-day life, but here he's standing before a civil magistrate, and there's an issue of honesty at play. In Acts 16, verse 37, Paul appeals for civil justice.
In Acts 23, 2 to 5, Paul rebukes the high priest. He calls him a whitewashed wall. You imagine that? Well, Paul, you're not supposed to resist an evil person.
Paul called him a whitewashed wall. Now, there's some who interpret it and say, well, he's not really saying that. I think he is. I think he knows specifically.
Some try to evade what Paul is saying there. In fact, you can turn to Acts chapter 23. Acts chapter 23. We'll get to it someday in our Sunday morning services.
But notice in Acts 23 verse 1, So what should have been Paul's response based on Matthew 5.38? He should have just turned the other cheek, right? He should have just turned the other cheek. But he doesn't do that because it's a different scenario.
See, there's actually context and scenarios that we need to respect when it comes to either personal or civic ethics. The high priest, Ananias, commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Verse 3, then Paul said to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall, for you sit to judge me according to the law. And do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?
And those who stood by said, Do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest. For it is written, You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. Now people want to evade the thrust of this by saying, Well, you know, it's quite possible that Paul had malaria.
We know he had problems with his eyes. Galatians, he tells them, you would have given me your own eyes. I think I pointed that out in the scripture reading not long ago. The last part of Galatians, he says, see with what large letters I have written in my own hand.
Paul did have bad eyes. So some say, well, it's because he had bad eyes, he didn't know it was the high priest. I think that's a faulty interpretation. When he says, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest, it should be understood, because he's not acting like the high priest.
In other words, I didn't know it, because he's acting like a wretch. And therefore, I said what I said, and I stand by it, even though the law says you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. Paul knew that law. He knew he was culpable.
But this man was not functioning like the high priest. But all that to say, Paul didn't turn the other cheek. And then turn to Romans 12, just to see, again, the parallel. I think what Jesus is doing in Matthew 5, 38-42 is consistent with what Paul is doing in Romans 12, 17-21.
It's the same sort of thing in your personal life. Do not be the kind of person that's always exacting vengeance on everybody else. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him.
If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. So you see that personal relationships, personal life in Romans 12 in verses 17 to 21.
That doesn't mitigate against the role of the magistrate in Romans 13, 1 to 4. Factoratin says blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, but private revenge. That's the emphasis. And then one final text.
Time is getting away from us. I want to make sure we get all this done.
Objection: The Woman Caught in Adultery
John 8, John chapter 8, you can turn there. The woman caught in adultery is used or utilized as an argument for the abrogation of the death penalty. Which argument should be obvious because Jesus didn't mandate that she be executed, therefore the death penalty is no longer valid or obligatory upon civil government. Well, hopefully We don't understand the passage that way, because that's not the way the passage is supposed to be understood.
John 8, beginning in verse 1, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning, He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him and sat down and taught them, or He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery in the very act.
Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?" You see, they try to put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. Give him two bad options and see how he functions there. Moses says execute.
What do you say? What's your answer? If he says execute, then he's not the gracious, compassionate Savior that's bouncing around the streets of Jerusalem and Galilee and doing wonderful things. If he says, well, Moses was wrong, well, then they got him for that.
You see, two equally bad positions for the Savior to navigate. Now, the way through the horns of a dilemma is to find the third option, and that's precisely what Jesus does. Now notice 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." Now, we're not going to get into what he wrote.
I have no idea what he wrote. People speculate on what he wrote. There's no way of knowing what he wrote. 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.
And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 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?" And she said, or she said, no one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. Now, the offense, a woman caught in adultery.
It was indeed a capital offense according to Leviticus 20.10 and Deuteronomy 22.21-24. Now, some suggest the issue hinges on the stoning. The Old Covenant didn't demand stoning, but strangling. I don't think that's the issue.
I think the bottom line is it was, in fact, a capital offense, and they wanted Jesus' adjudication of the matter. Now, in terms of the specifics involved, John tells us what's at play. Notice in verse 5, now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?
There's the rub. Moses, you. We want to catch you by pitting you against Moses. Now John tells us as much in verse 6.
This they said, testing him that they might have something of which to accuse him. So these persons were not concerned one bit with justice. They were not concerned about this woman caught in adultery. Kind of like, you know, these people today lecturing everybody on virtue that are absolutely non-virtuous.
It just rings so hollow and it rings so untrue. You shaking their fingers at all of us unvirtuous ones. Well, they're hypocritical wretches. This they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him.
So the religious leaders are testing him, and not only are they testing him, but then as well, think of this, Jesus is not an ecclesiastical nor a civil leader. He has no authority. Now, we know Jesus is the Messiah. We know He's prophet, priest, and king, right?
We know He's King of kings and Lord of lords and God of God and true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things are made. We know all that. But in terms of the earthly ministry, Jesus was raised a carpenter, and at about 30 got baptized and He went out and started preaching.
Nobody ever ordained him to the ministry. He was not an ecclesiastical ruler. He wasn't a part of the Sanhedrin. And he certainly hadn't been deputized by the Roman Empire to function, you know, in an adjudicatory sort of manner within the Empire.
He had no authority whatsoever to make a ruling on this particular subject. Why does nobody care about that? Why does that never come into play if Jesus had no authority to say yea or nay in terms of executing this criminal? It wasn't His call.
It wasn't His decision. And then to further highlight that they really didn't care about justice, notice what we see in verse 4. And they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery in the very act. I'm sorry, where's the guy?
Because if she was in the very act, she wasn't by herself. And if you're really concerned with justice, you're not going to exploit the wickedness of this woman without the man next to her. You don't care one bit about the woman. You don't care about the man.
You certainly don't care about the law of Moses. All you care about is trying to exploit Jesus and show him to be a fake and a fraud. That's what's happening. It's a kangaroo court.
That's what's going on. Now, notice Christ's response. Now, I will submit to you that Jesus does the amazing thing here. He upholds the law of Moses and exercises compassion.
They put him on the horns of a dilemma, he upholds the one, and he does the other. It's incredible. Notice what he says in 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.
That's beautiful. Now, we should understand it this way. He who is without this particular sin. Jesus is not mandating that any sort of criminal punishment must come from a perfect being.
Because then there would never be criminal punishment. You can only speak to a criminal if you're sinless. No, no. He who is without this sin.
In other words, those of you that I'm speaking to, those who are not adulterers, you are the ones that should throw a stone at her first. Now, when he says, throw a stone at her first, if this was off, I would ask you what text he's appealing to. And I would then tell you, if you did not know, Deuteronomy 17. Deuteronomy 17 and Deuteronomy 19 are both texts that call for witnesses in capital punishment hearings.
But specifically, listen to Deuteronomy 17, 6 and 7. 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. Now listen, 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." Jesus says, he who is without sin among you, this sin, let him throw a stone at her first. Deuteronomy 17, the hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death. Now, there's a heavy responsibility involved in this. If you're the one that must first cast the stone, you better have your act together.
You yourself better not be guilty of the very crime that you're throwing a stone at her with reference to. As well, that law was designed so that witnesses would count the cost before they would make an allegation. I mentioned that last week. Deuteronomy 19 stipulates that if I, say, allege that Don Mars committed a crime and I bring her to court and it turns out she's innocent, whatever the punishment for that crime was would be on me.
So if I alleged she murdered, and she didn't murder, then I would be executed. So Deuteronomy 19 would weigh on somebody, and they would think, wait a minute, if I don't present my case properly, I'm going to be executed. Well, Deuteronomy 17 weighed on somebody as well. If you were a witness that had the first responsibility to cast a stone, these are people you live with.
These are people in your community. These are people you shock and jive with. You better be sure on this particular matter. So Christ calls for the law of witnesses with reference to this particular crime.
Verses 8 and 9. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. They were guilty, too.
They were adulterers, too. They were those who had the sorts of sins that they were saying that this woman was guilty of. And so, one by one, they start to fall away. They know that they're weak, and they know that their own conscience is bothering them.
For them to pick up a stone and launch first at this woman would be an act of hypocrisy. At least they recognized that. If they lived today, they'd have picked it right up and thrown it at her. I mean, that's how diabolical the people are today that live in that kind of hypocrisy.
But at least these people still had some shred of sanity and a degree of consciousness, and they were convicted. And then, notice, 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. How could he possibly uphold the death penalty without two or three witnesses? He's not saying no death penalty for adultery. He's saying, give me the witnesses.
You see that? He's upholding the death penalty for adultery. Now, Jesus knows all things. Jesus knows that she's guilty because Jesus says, go and sin no more.
Again, I think it's probably go and do not do this particular sin anymore. Now, obviously, generally, we should not sin. But a woman who was caught in the very act of adultery, probably Jesus is saying, don't commit adultery anymore. So Jesus knew this.
Jesus was going to exercise compassion and kindness to her, but he doesn't mitigate against the death penalty for the sin of adultery, the crime of adultery. He upholds the reality that there needs to be two or three witnesses. Can I say it? Jesus isn't a Democrat.
He needs corroborating evidence. He will not allow something without two or three witnesses. That's what he does here, and he exercises compassion. So he upholds the law of Moses, and he exercises compassion upon this woman.
So they give him the horns of a dilemma, and he navigates beautifully right through it. Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. John 8 is not an argument against the death penalty.
Now,
Pragmatic Objections to Capital Punishment
in terms of the pragmatic, we can do these quick. First, capital punishment is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. People say this. Capital punishment is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness.
Well, then no punishment would be consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Is life imprisonment consistent with a Christian's attitude of forgiveness? No, that's terrible. Is a $100,000 fine consistent with a Christian's attitude of forgiveness?
No, it's terrible. This is not a legitimate thing. I can forgive somebody for a heinous thing, but that doesn't mitigate the reality that there are consequences for that terrible thing. They have to pay.
That's God's will for mankind, whether persons like it or not. Secondly, capital punishment is not an expression of mercy. Again, the very language would tell us it's not supposed to be capital punishment. Wherein would you actually think there should be mercy?
And why in the discussions concerning the death penalty do we never consider mercy for the victims or for their families? Why is it that we're so concerned, at least in America, with lethal injection that we don't want it to hurt at all? What about the victims who they hurt? What about the families who are continually hurting at the loss of their babies that were brutalized by people?
We don't want to have any suffering. We're capitally punishing them. I'm sorry, but when you rape and you murder and you destroy, you invite a certain degree of punishment and mayhem and pain right upon your head. We need to think in terms of mercy for people.
We need to think in terms of mercy for victims and for victims' families. Not people that act like animals but are worse because animals do what they do because they're animals. Human beings are not supposed to do the sorts of things that they do. Again, I don't know how many of you regularly read the news.
I mentioned on Sunday, there's crimes and things that in a mixed society or a mixed context on a Sunday morning, they're terrible to even speak of. But I mean, within the last week or two, I'm sure you probably saw it. The two guys who raped a nine-month-old and videotaped it? Now, I'm sorry.
I think the very last concern with reference to these two men ought to be mercy. I think punishment and the sword of the magistrate coming swiftly upon them. Once they are two or three witnesses, the DNA's been checked, it's been vetted and they're guilty, let it be swift and let it be severe. That's what God's law says with reference to these things.
Capital punishment is used on innocent people. Thanks to Isaac, I was made aware that just this month, not even a week ago, a week tomorrow, Washington State Supreme Court unanimously struck down the death penalty there as unconstitutional and racially biased, a ruling that makes it the latest in a string of states to abandon capital punishment in recent years. Now, this is oftentimes cited as a reason against capital punishment. Statistically, more blacks are executed than are whites.
How about we fix that problem? If the blacks are innocent, then we fix that. If the whites are guilty, we fix that. But you don't get rid of the punishment, right?
And as we move on in society, and forensic science being what it is, and DNA sort of testing being what it is, it's getting harder and harder to not be able, with absolute certainty, tell who is at a crime scene and who is responsible for such a thing. So you don't get rid of the punishment, you fix the process if there is. Now, again, there's data on both sides, it would need to be reviewed, but the bottom line is you need to deal with the process, don't eliminate the punishment. We don't say, you know, cars bump into people, so let's get rid of cars.
No, how about we drive the cars in a safer manner? You know, alcohol. People get hammered and they do horrible things. How about people drink alcohol responsibly?
The Bible always deals with the heart and deal with that. It's a liberal mindset that says take everything away. Take everything off the shelf so that people don't hurt themselves. Get rid of the death penalty because some innocent person might get it.
Now, again, I'm not suggesting that we willy-nilly kill innocent people. I would never say that. But I would suggest that we don't get rid of the punishment. We fix the process.
We fix the courts. We fix the way in which we get to that particular end. But just to say, you know, innocent people get it. Therefore, we can't do it.
Fourth, capital punishment does not deter crime. That's a book I was reviewing or looking at today. The fellow took a list of names of various serial killers. He put their names.
He put the number of murders that they had conducted or had done, and then the day they were executed, and then how many murders they had done after that. So he went from 30 to 0. And he says, in every instance, 100% they were deterred. Now, again, that doesn't carry the conscience of most people.
It carries mine. Somebody's murdered 15 people and we take them out the way God says to, we can know that that guy's crime has been deterred. But beyond that, the Bible says it is a deterrent. If it's actually practiced, you see, this is the problem.
When the execution of righteousness is not carried out speedily against offenders, then madness fills the hearts of men. That's what Solomon says in Ecclesiastes 8. If punishment is not carried out speedily, then everybody goes nuts. But Paul says, if you do evil, be afraid.
Be afraid if you do evil. Why? For he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. You have to concede that if you knew you were going to do something, most likely you would be caught and executed.
I have to think that would be, I know it would deter me. I mean, that's why, you know, not why, but I try to go the speed limit, but there's police behind me, I really try to go the speed limit, right? You know, I really try. There's a deterrent, and Paul sees that.
Be afraid if you do evil, because he is God's minister, and he wields that sword to execute God's wrath. He is his avenger, so be afraid. So the Bible tells us that it's a deterrent. And then finally, this comes from the Christians,
Objection: Capital Punishment Prevents Conversion
capital punishment will prohibit salvation of sinners. That's Arminian and Pelagian hogwash. Calvinists know and are assured with full persuasion that if God has purpose to save a sinner, God will save that sinner. And if it's in the 11th hour before he's about to get dosed with a lethal injection, then God will save him.
Arminians and Pelagians notwithstanding, somebody commits a heinous offense and they are sentenced to die, we have biblical proof that God can save them in the 11th hour. That thief on the cross went to be with Jesus in paradise after having been an insurrectionist, most likely a murderer, a terrorist, and a rebel in the city. He was one of Barabbas' buddies. He was one of Barabbas's cohorts, and we can see without a doubt that God is able to save in the 11th hour.
So those are some objections. I hope they don't carry weight or influence with you, and I hope that you will imbibe what God says in the Noahic Covenant and what He upholds throughout the Scriptures. Well, let's close in a word of prayer.
Closing Prayer
Father, thank You for Your Word and thank You for its clarity on this subject, this matter. God, help us to think clearly concerning these things as well. We pray You'd put it in the hearts of political leaders, those in lawmakers, those tasked with such decisions and thoughts and things. We pray, God, that there would be a turning, that there would be a desire to do what You say in Your Word. in these matters of jurisprudence, these matters of penology.
God, we know that this nation, we know the nations of the earth are filled with criminal activity and unrequited blood. And we know, Father, that you have said, you've ordained, you've mandated that there is no payment price except the blood of those who shed it. We ask that you would, in fact, be merciful. We pray that you would help us. to be faithful in our spheres of influence and help us to bring glory and honor to you.
And we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.