← Back to sermon library

Leviticus chapter 20. No treats this week, but there's 
still water, so you can help yourself. Leviticus 20, I'll 
read the chapter, and then we'll continue a basic biblical theology 
of the death penalty. You'll see why that is as we 
look at Leviticus chapter 20. And I'll just begin reading in 
verse one. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, 
saying, Again, you shall say to the children of Israel, Whoever 
of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in 
Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall 
surely be put to death. The people of the land shall 
stone him with stones. I will set my face against that 
man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given 
some of his descendants to Molech, to defile my sanctuary and profane 
my holy name. And if the people of the land 
should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives 
some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, then 
I will set my face against that man and against his family, and 
I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves 
with him to commit harlotry with Molech." And the person who turns 
to mediums and familiar spirits to prostitute himself with them, 
I will set my face against that person and cut him off from his 
people. Consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I 
am the Lord your God. And you shall keep my statutes 
and perform them. I am the Lord who sanctifies 
you. For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall 
surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his 
mother. His blood shall be upon him. The man who commits adultery 
with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's 
wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 
The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's 
nakedness. Both of them shall surely be 
put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man lies with 
his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. 
They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them. 
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of 
them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. 
Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and 
her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, 
both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 
"'If a man mates with an animal, "'he shall surely be put to death, 
"'and you shall kill the animal. "'If a woman approaches any animal 
and mates with it, "'you shall kill the woman and the animal. 
"'They shall surely be put to death. "'Their blood is upon 
them. "'If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter, "'or his 
mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness, "'and she sees his 
nakedness, it is a wicked thing. "'And they shall be cut off in 
the sight of their people. "'He has uncovered his sister's 
nakedness. "'He shall bear his guilt. If 
a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her 
nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the 
flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off 
from their people. You shall not uncover the nakedness 
of your mother's sister, nor of your father's sister, for 
that would uncover his near of kin. They shall bear their guilt. 
If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's 
nakedness. They shall bear their sin. They 
shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's 
wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's 
nakedness. They shall be childless. You shall therefore keep all 
my statutes and all my judgments and perform them. The land where 
I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out. And you shall 
not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out 
before you, for they commit all these things, and therefore I 
abhor them. But I have said to you, you shall 
inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a 
land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God who has 
separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore distinguish 
between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean. 
And you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, 
or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which 
I have separated from you as unclean. And you shall be holy 
to me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the 
peoples, that you should be mine. A man or a woman who is a medium 
or who has familiar spirits shall surely be put to death. They 
shall stone them with stones, their blood shall be upon them. 
Amen. So the book of Leviticus essentially 
deals with public worship or matters concerning worship in 
chapters 1 to 16. And then from 17 to the end of 
the book, we have a holiness code on how the individual Israelite 
was to be distinct from the nations around them. That obviously meant 
obedience to God's moral law. It also meant obedience to God's 
ceremonial law, so the prohibition against unclean animals. It wasn't 
so much so the case for safety, because certain foods were harmful 
for health, but it distinguished them from the heathen around 
them. Even their diet, their clothing, everything was to separate 
them as a people unto God. And so that's the emphasis in 
Leviticus 17 to the end of the book. So we've already seen many 
of these laws that are indicated here in chapter 20 rehearsed 
in chapters 18 and 19. So last time we just did a brief 
overview of chapter 20 and then started a biblical theology of 
capital punishment or the death penalty. So back to chapter 20 
for just a moment. After a brief introduction in 
verses 1, 2A, just a reminder that it's God who commands this. 
This isn't the civil government, this wasn't a social contract, 
this wasn't Moses unaided by the divine spirit, just coming 
with some thoughts in his head to share with the body politic. 
This comes from on high. God gave this law. And then he 
indicates first table offenses in verses 2b to 6. The first 
table is our duty to God, commandments 1 to 4. The second table is our 
duty to man, commandments 5 to 10. So under the first table 
offenses you see the worship of Molech and the practice of 
witchcraft. There then follows an exhortation 
in verses 7 and 8, and then second table offenses, excuse me, in 
verses 9 to 21. You have the cursing of parents 
in verse 9, the act of adultery in verse 10, the act of incest 
in verses 11 to 12, 14, 17, 19 to 21. And that was the bulk 
of Leviticus chapter 18 as well. You've got homosexuality condemned 
in verse 13, bestiality in verses 15 and 16, and then intercourse 
during menstruation in verse 18. Now we need to remember that 
these are actual acts. These are not thought crimes. 
These are not a wandering mind concerning these things. When 
it comes specifically to consider the death penalty, the death 
penalty has never been given to the government to police the 
thoughts of men. You're free to have vicious, 
vile thoughts in the body politic. Now, those vicious and vile thoughts 
are sin, and God will ultimately punish your sin. Make no mistake 
about that. But in terms of the civil government, 
the one who's been given the sword by God to carry out execution 
of criminal offenders, it is acts, it is deeds, it is conduct 
that is condemned. So if there was an Israelite 
that had those thoughts while he was in his living room, there 
was no band of secret police that would come in and take him 
out and stone him to death. We need to make sure that we 
understand that. We do not want to give the sword 
to those who would wield it against us for thinking wrong thought. 
That's a bad, bad thing, and I think the scriptures indicate 
that throughout. And then there's another exhortation 
in verses 22 to 26, and again the emphasis is on, do not be 
like the heathen around you. Be separate, be holy even as 
the Lord your God is holy. And then it ends with another 
emphasis on witchcraft. No doubt, because the children 
of Israel are going into the land of Canaan, and there's going 
to be witchcraft. There's going to be soothsayers. 
There's going to be necromancers. There's going to be all kinds 
of idols. They're going to have to guard 
their hearts when it comes to worship and to seeking divine 
aid. So then we introduced the concept 
of the death penalty, and we looked first at Genesis 9. We'll 
review that in just a moment. But just by way of reminder, 
there are three instances in the Bible that authorizes killing, 
three instances of lawful homicide in the Bible. The first is self-defense. You can turn to the book of Exodus, 
Exodus chapter 22. You may not You have to, but you may kill 
somebody in the defense of yourself. You use that force that is necessary 
to make sure that you protect yourself and those who are near 
to you. So self-defense, death is not 
murder. Self-defense is lawful homicide. So notice in Exodus 22, specifically 
at verses two and three, if the thief is found breaking in and 
he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his 
bloodshed. The thief breaks into your house 
and you come down the stairs and you've got a big, you know, 
shoe horn. I happen to have a big metal 
one that if I had to wield it, I'm sure I could cave in somebody's 
head. It serves a twofold purpose, helps me with my shoe. It's also 
blunt force trauma. So if I swing that at the man 
and it's the hours of darkness and I kill him, I am not criminally 
liable for that. Now notice the qualification 
in verse 3. If the sun has risen on him, 
there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full 
restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft. The idea being that in the hours 
of daylight, I'm better able to assess the intruder's intent. If he's not there to kill me, 
to rape my family, to kill them, I don't have the right to kill 
him in that exchange. I can rebuff him, I can stop 
him, I can cry out to my neighbors, who are probably awake and alert 
because it's the hours of daylight. but the thief then still must 
make full restitution. The idea being is that the death 
penalty is not authorized for theft. So if it is the case that 
I'm defending myself in the hours of darkness, I don't know what 
his intent is. I simply wield that blunt force, 
I give him blunt force trauma and he dies, there's no guilt 
for me. But if the sun has risen on him, 
there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. One other passage 
that we need to look at in terms of self-defense. Notice in Luke's 
gospel, Luke chapter 12. This is not teaching the doctrine 
of self-defense. Let me just make that clear. 
Jesus is using an illustration, however, that has as its taproots 
the doctrine of self-defense that we find in Exodus 22 and 
elsewhere in the Bible. But notice in Luke 12, specifically 
at verse 37, Blessed are those servants whom the master, when 
he comes, will find watching. Assuredly I say to you that he 
will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come 
and serve them. And if he should come in the 
second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, 
blessed are those servants. But know this, that if the master 
of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would 
have watched, and not allowed his house to be broken into. 
It's the doctrine of self-defense, the doctrine of defending one's 
property. Our lives are attached to the 
property that we own. Therefore, when somebody intrudes 
upon that, we have the right to rebuff them. We have the right 
to send them packing. We have the right, according 
to Exodus 22, to wield an object to kill them if it is in the 
hours of darkness. And then, of course, Jesus tells 
his disciples to take swords on their journeys. Now the idea 
that those were the spiritual swords of the word of truth doesn't 
make any sense whatsoever. They took physical swords to 
defend themselves from marauders. They didn't take physical swords 
to advance the kingdom of Jesus, because Jesus isn't a Muslim. 
They took physical swords, however, to defend themselves in the event 
that somebody wanted to do them harm. So the idea that we can 
defend ourselves is in fact biblical and we are able to use that force 
necessary to make sure that we are vindicated and that we don't 
lose in that exchange. The second instance of lawful 
homicide or killing is just and necessary war. You can turn to 
Deuteronomy chapter seven. Deuteronomy chapter seven. It 
occurred to me in preparation for tonight that probably there's 
a series of messages needing to be done on the doctrine of 
war. I'm just going to give you a 
Hodge quote in just a moment that I think summarizes it well. 
But in Deuteronomy chapter 7, specifically in verses 1 to 5, 
you have the mandate to engage in holy war. So God tells the 
children of Israel, verse 1, when the Lord your God brings 
you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out 
many nations before you, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, 
and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, 
and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you. 
And when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer 
them and utterly destroy them. Now this is a just and necessary 
war. When God commands the children 
of Israel to go in and take that land, He commands them to engage 
in holy war. And then when you trace through 
the Old Testament, you have to be a fool to not see war there. You have to be a fool to not 
see that God, and I'm not saying this in a wicked way, is at least 
to some degree pro-war. When his people are attacked, 
he expects them to defend themselves. When his people are attacked, 
he expects them to launch counter-offensive. When his people are attacked, 
he expects them to defend their property and to go against those 
foreign invaders. And then the sword given to the 
civil magistrate, we're going to see that in a bit later, in 
Romans 13, it's for the execution of the death penalty upon criminal 
offenders within the body politic, but it's also to protect from 
foreign invaders. It's to protect the body politic 
from people that would come in and do us harm and hurt us. I've said it before, the problem 
with the government isn't that they kill people, it's that they 
kill the wrong people. They kill babies, they kill the 
elderly, they're going to start killing drug addicts, they're 
killing the mentally ill. It won't be long before they 
kill people like you and I, who are pro-life and actually confess 
saving faith in Jesus Christ. Who should they be killing? murderers, 
rapists, pedophiles, and anybody that would come over our border 
with the intention to do us harm. That's the proper, and I would 
argue about the only function that the government has. It is 
to protect the civil polity. not to legislate every act of 
our lives, not to rule over us from cradle to grave, not to 
create some dependence upon them by everything that they do. No, their task is very simple. I've got it later in my notes. 
I'll just read it right now. Listen to J. Gresson Machen. 
The state exists for the repression of evildoers and the protection 
of individual liberty. Wow, you mean not give us school, 
not give us abortion, not give us euthanasia, not give us a 
universal basic income, not price control our grocery store? You 
mean that's it? Yeah, that's it. The state exists 
for the repression of evildoers and the protection of individual 
liberty. That's it, brethren. When you 
search the scriptures, you don't come up with a laundry list of 
everything that should be done. I just read today that there's 
this promise of a billion dollars for some new industry to build 
batteries, I think, here in BC. Where's this billion dollars 
coming from? It's coming out of our pockets, 
brethren. I don't agree to that. I wouldn't 
say yes to that. Machen goes on to say, the civil 
government, quote, is not intended to produce blessedness or happiness. I agree with that. I don't want 
Justin watching my back. Whenever he does, it costs me 
more money and hurts me. The government is not intended 
to produce blessedness or happiness. That's not their job. We want 
to make your life wonderful. We want to make sure you have 
everything. No, just leave us alone. That should be the Christian 
mindset. He goes on to say, but they are 
intended to prevent blessedness or happiness from being interfered 
with by wicked men. So don't make me blessed or happy, 
just protect me insofar as I can pursue my own blessedness and 
happiness without wicked men trying to kill me, without wicked 
men trying to steal from me. That's their function, brethren. 
That's about it. So the next time you vote, don't 
vote based on, well, what are these guys going to give me? 
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. So self-defense, 
just and necessary war. And under that head, I mentioned 
a Hodge quote. Because the question, I think, 
is in the statement. What's a just and necessary war? 
I mean, come on, we got three of them going on right now that 
we know of. We got Myanmar, we've got the Middle East, and we've 
got the Ukraine. Now, again, this isn't going 
to answer everything, but I think it puts you in the arena of reformed 
ethics in terms of things to think about when it comes to 
just and necessary war. Hodge says, no plea of honor, 
glory, or aggrandizement, policy, or profit can excuse, much less 
justify, war. Imagine that. You mean you don't 
go to war for profit? Well, probably we'd see the end 
of a lot of wars if that was upheld. He goes on to say, nothing 
short of necessity to the end of the preservation of national 
existence. In order to make a war right 
in God's sight, it is not only necessary that our enemy should 
aim to do us a wrong, but also, one, that the wrong he attempts 
should directly or remotely threaten the national life, and two, that 
war be the only means to avert it. Again, we need to think about 
these things as people who subscribe to Holy Scripture. We love the 
Bible, we love the Word of God, but there's a lot of fuzzy thinking 
out there when it comes to self-defense, just and necessary war, and certainly 
when it comes to the death penalty. I remember a pastor in my office, 
this was many years ago, and I asked him, do you ever preach 
on the death penalty? Well, you know, it's kind of 
a And I asked him, do you ever preach on abortion? Well, you 
know, that's kind of a controversial subject. You know, it kind of 
bothers people. And I said, what about the death 
penalty? Well, you know, I know the Old Testament had it, but 
Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. And I'm thinking, you're 
a pastor and you don't know what the Bible says about the death 
penalty? Go back to Sunday school. You should learn your ABCs before 
you stand in a pulpit and tell people what God's Word doesn't 
say. Or tell people something that 
God's Word, you know, doesn't mean. So when it comes to the 
Bible and the death penalty, turn back to Genesis 9. Just 
a quick reminder, a quick refresher on what we've seen thus far. Sometimes you'll hear people 
say, well, that's the Old Testament. Well, you might be able to make 
that argument about the Mosaic Covenant or the Old Covenant, 
but you can't make that about the Noahic Covenant. This is 
the covenant God made with Noah. And prior to the flood, the earth 
was exceedingly corrupt. It was filled with violence. 
So, of course, God sanitizes the earth. He floods the earth. 
He spares Noah and his family. And then he makes this covenant 
with Noah. And it's not a redemptive covenant. It's called a common grace covenant. 
In other words, it provides for stability in the created order 
such that the preaching of special grace, redemptive grace, can 
happen. God promises never again to destroy 
the earth. God promises to keep things going 
in terms of seed time and harvest and all that sort of thing. The 
Noahic Covenant is universal in scope. It's not been abrogated. 
It's not been rescinded. It's not been done away with. 
It's still practiced or it's still in practice for today. 
So of course, one of the problems that obtained prior to the flood 
was violence in the earth. What's one of the means that 
God gives to redress that problem in Genesis 9? We'll notice in 
verse 6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall 
be shed. For in the image of God he made 
man. So basically, in the context, you've got the propagation of 
life, verses 1 and 7, the provision for life in verses 2, B, and 
3, and then the protection of life, both from animal and from 
human animal. So whoever sheds man's blood, 
that's the offense. Now, subsequent revelation will 
make it clear that this is murder. Whoever sheds man's blood with 
malice aforethought, with premeditation, with wickedness in his heart. 
Remember the Mosaic legislation further identifies or distinguishes 
between a manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter almost sounds rougher 
to me than does murder, but manslaughter is when it's accidental. You 
don't mean to actually slaughter that man. You're swinging your 
axe, and the axe head flies off, and it finds its way into your 
neighbor's head. You didn't mean that. There was 
no malice aforethought. There was no premeditation. There 
was no hatred in your heart. So that's manslaughter. That's 
not murder. Murder is when you hide in your 
neighbor's bush because he did bad things to you and you jump 
out with an axe and you bury it in his head. So whoever sheds 
man's blood, the crime of murder, notice the redress, notice the 
penalty. By man his blood shall be shed. 
Notice the agent there. It's man. Man wields the sword 
against his fellow man if his fellow man is guilty of, in this 
instance, the crime of murder. And then the theological rationale 
is given, for in the image of God he made man. Why do we execute 
somebody that commits murder? Because he has assaulted the 
image of God. Because he is a wretch. But as 
well, why does man serve or function as the agent to wield that sword 
to execute the criminal offender? Because he's an image bearer 
of God. And God instituted civil government. In fact, Luther said 
this was the first command having reference to the temporal sword. 
By these words, temporal government was established, and the sword 
placed in its hand by God." So Genesis 9-6 grounds the idea 
of capital punishment, specifically for the crime of murder, in the 
reality that man is an image bearer of God. When you move 
through the Old Covenant, you get to the Old Covenant specifically, 
You've got, as I said, the distinction between accidental homicide and 
murder. You can see that in Exodus 21, 
12 to 14, Numbers 35, 9 to 34, Deuteronomy 19, 1 to 13. And then the identification 
of additional capital crimes. many of which are in our passage 
here in Leviticus chapter 20. So you've got murder for sure, 
you've got adultery and sexual immorality, bestiality, homosexuality, 
rape, incest, incorrigible son, Sabbath breaking, kidnapping, 
solicitation to apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension 
to prophecy, and blasphemy. And then one final note, you 
can turn to Numbers 35. Numbers 35, specifically with 
reference to the crime of murder, The death penalty is the only 
redress. The death penalty is the only 
response. The death penalty is the only 
authorized sanction by the living God. Notice in Numbers 35, specifically 
in verse 33. So you shall not pollute the 
land where you are, for blood defiles the land, and no atonement 
can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, 
except by the blood of him who shed it. That's it. No ransom 
payment is paid. No plea bargain. No 12 years with good behavior. The criminal that murders another 
human being is supposed to be executed by the civil state. That is a given. That is a non-negotiable. So when we look at a land like 
ours that suspended the death penalty, I think it was back 
in 1967, think of the blood guiltiness of a land like Canada. Think 
of the blood guiltiness of a land like America. Think about the 
various communist nations and the blood guiltiness there. It 
is an absolutely wretched and horrific situation. Now having 
said all that, perhaps it is in the wisdom of God right now 
that Justin doesn't wield the sword, that the liberal party 
doesn't wield the sword because they might just come after us. 
So that might be a blessing in disguise. Now when we turn to 
the pages of the New Testament, you can turn to Acts 25. Acts 
25, in terms of the New Testament doctrine of the death penalty. 
While you're turning there, I would just remind you of the life and 
death of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Jews were crying, away 
with him, away with him, crucify him. Now this is an argument 
of silence, but Jesus didn't boycott the death penalty. Jesus 
didn't say, you Jews don't know what you're doing, Pilate, you're 
wrong, you shouldn't be executing people. No, Jesus knew this, 
Jesus understood this, and Jesus went through this for us men 
and for our salvation. It was a practiced situation 
in his day and age. But notice Paul in chapter 25 
of the book of Acts as he stands before Festus. He appeals to 
Caesar, because as a Roman citizen, he had that right. Paul's an 
interesting case study in citizenship. There are times where he invokes 
his citizenship if it means advancement for the gospel. In other words, 
when he's about to be arrested and beaten without any charges, 
he says, are you beating a Roman citizen? The fellow's like, well, 
I didn't know you were Roman. Yeah, I am a Roman citizen. You're 
not supposed to do that. When Paul gets wind in chapter 
23 from his nephew that there's a conspiracy to commit murder 
against him, he goes to the civil authority and he asks for protection 
and he gets that protection because he's a Roman citizen. So again, 
he's not doing it to save his own bacon. He's not doing it 
just to extend his life so he can golf more. He's doing it 
in terms of gospel advance. So now he's before Festus. He's making this appeal to Caesar. And let's just back up a little 
bit. Look at verse 7. When he had 
come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and 
laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could 
not prove while he answered for himself. Neither against the 
law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar 
have I offended in anything at all." Notice the basis covered 
there. It's not just Jewish law, it's 
not just temple law, but it's Roman law as well. Neither against 
the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar 
have I offended in anything at all. In other words, it's not 
just a religious thing, but it's also a civil thing. I'm not guilty 
of any violation of these things. Now notice in verse 9, But Thustis, 
wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul, and said, Are 
you willing to go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged before me 
concerning these things? So Paul said, I stand at Caesar's 
judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have 
done no wrong, as you very well know. Now look at what he says 
in verse 11. For if I am an offender or have 
committed anything deserving of death. Seems to expand on 
just the crime of murder, because that always comes up in death 
penalty discussion. Well, do you think the death 
penalty for crimes beyond just murder? Yeah, I do, for sure. That's another argument, but 
Paul seems to as well. For if I am an offender or have 
committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to 
dying. But if there is nothing in these 
things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to 
them. I appeal to Caesar." So under 
Jewish law, under Roman law, as a Roman citizen, as a Jewish 
rabbi, the Apostle Paul says, I do not oppose. I am not opposed 
to being executed if I'm guilty. Brethren, that's a strong argument 
in favor of the abidingness of the death penalty. But then we 
have Romans 13. You can turn there. Romans chapter 
13, probably the clearest passage, 
at least from our New Covenant vantage point, concerning the 
death penalty. Now, look at how 13.1 begins. Notice there's no what's called 
adversative there. So there's no but, or there's 
no on the other hand. There's no sort of thing that 
would disconnect it from chapter 12. In other words, the versification 
came later. If you didn't have a big 13 right 
before Romans 13 1, and you didn't have that kind of guidance, you 
might just be inclined to read Romans 12 and 13. You'd be better 
served in your understanding of Romans 13 if you got what 
was going on in Romans 12. In fact, you can go back there 
for just a moment. So chapter 13 continues Paul's 
argument in 12, 17 to 19, and it specifically qualifies verse 
19. So notice in chapter 12, verse 
17, Repay no one evil for evil, have regard for good things in 
the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as 
depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not 
avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is 
written." Now, in something that's not altogether disconnected, 
look at that. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves. That's the emphasis. When I was 
a kid growing up, there was a Charles Bronson movie called Death Wish, 
and he played a vigilante, and he went out with big guns and 
shot everybody on the city streets. And there was a certain sense 
where you rooted for that because these weren't people that were 
upstanding citizens. They got what was coming to them. 
But you're not supposed to engage in vigilantism. That's not an 
authorized thing from God. And that's the point. Do not 
avenge yourselves. But note these next few words, 
but rather give place to wrath? What do you think he means? Well, 
he means that there is a sense where you should be outraged 
and you should be incensed with the savagery and the wickedness 
and the brutality of men in this world. And when he says, give 
place to wrath, he makes way for the one who inflicts wrath, 
namely God. But before we look at that, consider 
the imprecatory Psalms. Isn't that a way to give place 
to wrath when we sing God's judgment upon God's enemies? Isn't that 
a vehicle by which we can actually obey Paul there, but rather give 
place to wrath? Do we ever do that? I'm not saying 
you don't get mad and have a temper tantrum because somebody upset. 
I'm talking about the righteous anger that is consistent with 
an honoring of the Lord Jesus Christ and the law of God and 
to see his word rejected and despised. There ought to be that 
in us. to cry out with the psalmist, 
to sing with the psalmist, that God would bring vindication to 
his church, that he would bring justice and judgment upon the 
heads of his enemies. So give place, he's not saying 
wrath is bad. That's the point I think I'm 
trying to make here. He says it's bad for you to avenge yourselves. It's bad for you to go get a 
big gun and walk down Main Street in Chilliwack like you're the 
king of the roost there and shooting people. That's what's wrong. 
So 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." You've got to think about 
this passage in light of Matthew 5. I'll make the connection later. 
But when Jesus is talking about turning the other cheek, He's 
not calling down the civil magistrate from executing a rapist. He's 
telling you how to live your daily life. He's telling you 
not to be a Pharisee that is, you know, judgmental and hypocritical 
and always out to exact a pound of flesh over every little thing. 
The Sermon on the Mount parallel is right here. If your enemy 
is hungry, feed him. If the Roman soldier asks you 
to walk a mile, then go with him two miles. If somebody slaps 
you on the face, then let them slap the other side of your face. 
It's a slap. It's an indignity. It's not an 
assault. It's not an attempted murder. 
It's a slap. It's an embarrassment. So that's 
what corresponds. So context here is don't avenge 
yourselves, but give place to wrath. Now, is there a mechanism 
in history where God executes His wrath? Because we read Romans 
12, we say, give place to wrath. Okay, God come and get your enemies 
and let them have it. And we typically think or suspend 
that to the great day of judgment. Well, the day of judgment, and 
we can suspend every, you know, wrong that's ever been done and 
hasn't been requited. Everything's going to be paid 
back on that day of judgment, but not all things. So so so 
when it comes to, you know, this idea of God avenging himself, 
is it just the day of judgment? Is that all that the Christian 
believer has to look forward to? No. God instituted the civil 
government as the one who executes his wrath in history. Look at what Paul says, verse 
1 of chapter 13. The civil government is not out 
to punish your sin. The civil government is not out 
there to punish your lustful thoughts. The civil government 
is out there to punish your rape, to punish your child molestation, 
to punish whatever crime you engage in. So rulers are not 
a terror to good works, but to evil works. Do you want to be 
unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will 
have praise from the same. Now notice verse 4. For he is 
God's minister. We see that word used in ecclesiastical 
contexts. We use it for the diaconate. 
It's, I think, used to Paul as a minister. It's the ecclesiastical 
deacon, but in the context of the civil government, he's God's 
minister to you for good. Now, notice the rest of verse 
4, "...but if you do evil, be afraid. For he does not bear 
the sword in vain, for he is God's minister and avenger." 
Notice the next few words, "...to execute wrath on him who practices 
evil." We were just told, beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but 
rather give place to what? Wrath. So the means is God's 
day of judgment when he destroys all of his enemies. But in history, 
in the temporal sphere, God has placed the sword in the hand 
of the civil magistrate to carry out his wrath, to execute his 
wrath in a civil polity for his glory and for the well-being 
of that civil polity. So basically what you have is 
that the Apostle Paul underscores the abiding reality and applicability 
of the death penalty. So we've seen the context. Notice 
the duty to submit. Verse 1, let every soul be subject 
to the governing authorities. Why? For there is no authority 
except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 
Christ speaking His wisdom in the book of Proverbs says, by 
me, kings reign. 1 Timothy 2, verses 1-4, we pray 
for kings and all who are in authority. Titus 3, 1 Peter 2, 
we see this emphasis on souls being subject to the governing 
authorities. And then, again, the reason for 
the command is found in, first, verse 1b, the origin of civil 
government, and then, two, the function of civil government 
in verses 3 and 4. So the origin, there is no authority 
except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. The magistrate, now we need to 
make sure we understand something. When we went through COVID, this 
was a text that was used to try to bludgeon people that kept 
their churches open. Well, Romans 13, Romans 13 tells 
you you got to be subject to the governing authority. Not 
when the governing authority is wrong. They're not God, brethren. They're 
under God and over men, but accountable to men. And when you've got a 
particular law in your land that everybody's supposed to navigate 
according to, and the higher-ups break that law, they're the problem. Not the persons that say, no, 
we're going to follow the law of the land. So this is not a 
bludgeon to bang over the heads of people that resist tyrants, 
okay? When a government engages in 
tyranny, they have then tried to become as God. So the magistrate 
is subject to God and accountable to man. We mustn't ever forget 
that. These are not our lords. These 
are not our kings. These are not our elites in the 
sense that we must bow to them. We pay their salaries. We have gone far astray in terms 
of our response to civil government in terms of the Christian world. 
Listen to 2nd London, Chapter 25, Paragraph 1. God the Supreme 
Lord and King of all the world hath ordained civil magistrates 
to be under him, over the people for his own glory and what? The 
public good. It wasn't our good to be told 
we couldn't worship God on a Sunday. It wasn't our good when the government 
threatened to close us down for that sort of a thing. It goes 
on to say, and to this end, hath armed them with the power of 
the sword for defense and encouragement of them that do good and for 
the punishment of evildoers. Listen to John Gill with reference 
to a lawfully constituted and a lawfully abiding to that law 
magistrate. He says, this is not to be understood 
as if magistrates were above the laws. Why'd we forget this? Why in the last couple of years 
did we say, oh, they can do whatever it is they want, sure. Brethren, 
that's never been true. You've got a history in the scripture 
of men disobeying civil government. Think about Moses in Egypt. Let 
my people go, Pharaoh. Did we forget that? Think about 
Elijah and Ahab in 1 Kings 18, when old Ahab says, oh, there's 
the troubler of Israel. Elijah's, what, me? Troubler of Israel? You're the 
one who co-opted Baal worship and brought it into Samaria. 
This is the history of our people. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego 
in Daniel 3, and I love that bit. where they have confidence 
in God to vindicate and deliver them. And they say, but even 
if he doesn't, we're not gonna renege. Even if he doesn't get 
us out of this fix, we're not gonna renege because God commanded 
it. Daniel in the lion's den, the 
apostles, we must obey God rather than men. Again, when did we 
forget these very crucial things? If you think that governments 
cannot go astray, I don't know what to tell you. I don't know 
how to communicate. I mean, look at the Old Testament. 
Look at the kings of the Northern Kingdom. To a man, they were 
bad. The kings in the Southern Kingdom, not all of them were 
bad, but most of them were bad. Many of them co-opted, as I said, 
idolatry. They took their own children 
and threw them into the arms of Molech. And then the beast 
in Revelation chapter 13. Again, whatever your eschatological 
position, most people see the two beasts there. One's a religious 
authority and one is a political authority. What's the political 
authority doing? It's dominating. It is controlling. It is making sure you have the 
proper mark so that you can engage in commerce in that part of the 
world. Brethren, if you think that the government is only ever 
good, and I'm not endorsing subversion. I'm not telling you, you know, 
go get a C4 vest and march downtown. I'm not saying that. But I'm 
saying we need to think biblically because if the last three years 
taught us anything, it may possibly have taught us there might be 
some more on the horizon. And if we're not thinking clearly, 
and if we're not thinking biblically, and if we don't have answers 
for the things that we engage in, We're gonna be in big trouble. 
Back to Gill. This is not to be understood 
as if magistrates were above the laws and had a lawless power 
to do as they will without opposition. He's right brethren. We shouldn't 
even have to make this an issue. We shouldn't even have to debate 
this. The churches to a church should have just stayed open. 
No, we're gonna do what God commands and what actually our charter 
secures for us. He goes on to say, For they are 
under the law, and liable to the penalty of it, in case of 
disobedience as others. And when they make their own 
will a law, or exercise a lawless tyrannical power, in defiance 
of the laws of God and of the land, to the endangering of the 
lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted. Now brethren, John Gill wasn't 
a Christian nationalist, he wasn't a theonomist, he wasn't a Reconstructionist, 
he was a basic Bible-believing Reformed theologian. This used 
to be commonplace, that this quote shouldn't go, wow, I can't 
believe somebody has the goal. This is common in our history. in our tradition. And again, 
we see it right there in the Bible. We must obey God rather 
than men when men tell us to do something that is contrary 
to God's Word. It's really that simple. So the 
resistance is sin when the magistrate is functioning lawfully. If he 
doesn't command you to sin, and this is problematic for me, he 
doesn't command me to sin, but I still don't like it, but I'm 
not supposed to resist. The resistance is said when the 
magistrate is functioning lawfully. That's the point. The resistance 
is not said when the magistrate is functioning unlawfully, and 
again, There was a time when everybody just recognized that. 
Well, you don't have the authority to command that. You don't have 
the right to command that. You don't have the ability to 
command that. Well, if they keep pushing, then 
you take whatever consequences are coming your way. This is 
called passive obedience. This was our particular mindset 
when we went through the COVID situation. Passive obedience 
is typically referred to the dying of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
It's active, it's life of obedience. Passive obedience is death upon 
the cross. There's a doctrine of passive 
obedience where persons disobey the governing authorities fully 
prepared to deal with the consequences. fully prepared to go to the gulag, 
fully prepared to pay the fines, fully prepared to do whatever 
is necessary to resist and to take their stand. That is, again, 
part of the history of our Reformed tradition, but what we find in 
the Bible. Daniel knew good and well that 
if he didn't bow to that image, if he went into his room, if 
he opened the windows and he faced Jerusalem and prayed, he 
knew exactly what was going to happen. He was a bright guy. He was very wise. He could interpret 
dreams. The spirit of Yahweh was upon 
him. Of course he knew. Same with anybody in the history 
of resistance knows the consequences. I just think people don't want 
to deal with the consequences. Obedience is better than anything 
else. Even the difficult consequences 
shouldn't argue us out of it. And then notice the function 
of civil government in verses 3 to 4. They are there to punish 
evil works. Verse three, rulers are not a 
terror to good works. That's what they become when 
they close churches. That's what they become when 
they tell you you must do something contrary to the word of God. 
So again, whether Paul's speaking prescriptively the way it ought 
to be or descriptively the way that it is, the principle holds. Rulers are not a terror to good 
works. When you do good things, you 
shouldn't be molested by your civil government. When you go 
to church, when you pray outside an abortion clinic, when you 
do those things that aren't criminal activities, they're good things, 
you shouldn't hear from your government. So rulers are not 
a terror to good works, but to evil works. Now, people will 
say, and we'll deal with this probably next week, we'll deal 
with objections to the death penalty. But notice the next 
statement there in verse 3. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good, and you will 
have praise from the same. Now the praise there, I don't 
think it means they take you through the city streets and 
throw crowns on you. I think it means they leave you 
alone. Wouldn't you feel praised by your government if they just 
left you alone? I sure would. If I didn't have 
every waking thought about government, I would feel praised by them. 
But the way it is, everything is political at this point. So 
do what is good and you will have praise from the same. But 
then notice this, for he is God's minister to you for good, but 
if you do evil, be afraid. You'll hear the argument, the 
objection, well, the death penalty doesn't deter anybody. Well, 
it deters at least one person, okay? Let's just be honest. You 
commit murder and we execute you, you're not gonna commit 
murder again. There is a 100% success rate in the matter of 
deterrence. But guess what? If I'm thinking 
about going out and killing somebody, I may possibly be deterred as 
well. Right? Because I know that my 
government means business, and if I get caught, they're going 
to chop my head off, just like my friend or my fellow. But God's Word says it. If you 
do evil works, be afraid. That's the deterrent. You should 
be afraid. The penal sanctions in a given 
civil polity ought to be enough to keep people in check. You 
ought to be afraid to go in and steal from the store. You ought 
to be afraid to go and vandalize. You've just seen the note I got 
on our door when I came to church this afternoon. It was horrible. People should be afraid of that. 
I texted Rick Horst. I shared it with him. He said, 
do you report it to the police? Why? They don't care, and they're 
not going to do anything. The only things I report now 
are actual vandalism or arson, because if the morons burn the 
building down, I'm sure the insurance agents are going to say, well, 
did you report it to the police? There needs to be that deterrent 
effect. When people see there's no consequences 
for criminal activity, guess what? They're going to engage 
in criminal activity. So notice then, verse 4 summarizes 
the whole, Now with reference to the sword, now that can mean 
that there's penalties and and sanctions that are less than 
the death penalty, but we cannot negate what the sword stands 
for. John Murray, in his commentary 
on Romans, made the observation, the sword which the magistrate 
carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not 
merely the sign of his authority, but of his right to wield it 
in the infliction of that which a sword does. It can be wielded 
to execute punishment that falls short of death, but to exclude 
the right of the death penalty when the nature of the crime 
calls for such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies 
and executes." Not an accident that Paul chose that language 
in terms of what the civil government wields for criminal sanctions 
upon evildoers. Well, God willing, we'll look 
at the objections next week. I'll close in prayer, and if 
there's any questions, we can deal with those. Our gracious 
God and Father, we thank you for your word. I pray that you'd 
help us, not only in this room, but us as the church in Canada, 
us as the church throughout this world, to think your thoughts 
after you, certainly the gospel of our salvation, the blessedness 
of life in Jesus Christ, but also that good and holy law of 
God Almighty. to see its applicability in our 
own generation, in our own age, as well give us clear thinking 
when it comes to the role of civil government, and just cause 
us as faithful Christians, faithful believers, to be those who hold 
to scripture, every jot and tittle, and to bring glory and honor 
to you. And we ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. 
Any questions or comments? Yes, sir. When is the most recent 
word on that court case? I feel like it's been a couple 
of months. He's going to plead. These are 
pastors. They're not billionaires. Give him a break. Yeah. First of all, publicly apologize 
for taking the credibility. Excuse me, I almost choked here. 
Uh, no, no, no, no, no. And I recall that you were trying 
to challenge some people to public debates. I take it that that 
didn't happen. Never tried to defend themselves 
publicly. No, no. Yeah. Yes, sir. That's right. That's right. No, no, that God is free to suspend 
the death penalty in instances like that, but that is not a 
precedent setter. I think that, you know, I mean, 
one of the arguments against the death penalty is, well, then 
that that center can't be saved. That's Arminian and Pelagian. 
He can be saved. Usually, in any state that I 
know of that has the death penalty, the last person that that criminal 
sees is his chaplain. It's a pastor. It's somebody 
pointing him to the Savior. Can that man repent and believe 
the gospel? Absolutely, positively, he can. 
The thief on the cross probably wasn't just a thief who stole 
things from Walmart. He was an insurrectionist and 
a terrorist alongside of Barabbas. So there was forgiveness for 
him. I'm convinced if somebody is on death row and they repent 
and believe the gospel, they will not fight their sentence, 
they will not fight their sanction, they will not fight the punishment 
that is due for them. I mean the same thief on the 
cross. We're up here justly. We're up here because we were 
wrong. He's not. I'm thinking that David's 
example, that's more of a crime of state, as it were, as opposed 
to something personal, deliberate. It's not like he was like a highwayman 
or a marauder, personally and individually, specifically killing. 
Well, I mean, he should have been executed. But yeah, that's 
a tough one. When you're the king, you tend 
to get away with a lot. That's why our politicians all 
fancy themselves that way. But the Lord took life for life 
from his child. Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's definitely 
that. And then there's, yeah, the sword 
never did depart from his hand. Yeah, and you got all the life 
stuff. But as far as, like, it's not typical, but you know it 
was life for life and the death of his firstborn. That's right. 
Yeah. Yes, sir. My wife and I were listening 
to this documentary. I can't remember exactly where 
she found it, but this Canadian war vet, injured in service, 
paralyzed and stuff, in a wheelchair. And the government's not getting 
a wheelchair around to her house. Oh, yeah. But they're like, we 
can get you a maze. Yeah, I know. I'm like, wow. She wants a wheelchair around, 
and we'll give you a shot. So if you're going up and down 
the stairs, it's like, with a wheelchair. I don't know. It seems like they 
are pretty easy to get them out.