← Back to sermon library
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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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. 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. 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. 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, 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, 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. 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.
