Romans 12, 17, I'll read through Romans 13, verse 10. 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. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? 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, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due, taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For the commandments, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not covet. And if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.
Amen.
Introduction
Well, tonight, we're going to look at capital punishment. Last week, I mentioned it in passing. I hope it was a little more than in passing, but I thought we'd spend the hour tonight to expound this doctrine of capital punishment. As we've worked our way through the Book of Deuteronomy, as we've looked at various laws in the Old Testament, we have seen that there are three types of punishment in the Old Testament.
And by punishment, I mean civil or criminal sort of punishment. There is restitution or compensation which includes indentured servitude if the criminal does not have money to pay back the crime. Secondly, as we saw last week in Deuteronomy 25 verses 1 to 3, there is corporal punishment. That means that the offender would have lied down, and in the presence of supervision, would have been flogged, would have been beaten with a rod, with the amount of stripes commensurate to the crime that he had engaged in.
But as well as we have seen several times in the book of Deuteronomy, there is capital punishment, or the death penalty, where God mandates that offenders In given instances, given situations, criminal activity should be executed not by private persons but by the magistrate, by the governing authorities. The argument tonight is not that individual persons get to put people to death. It is the monopoly of the state, the government the officials, the magistrate, the judiciary, those involved in hearing and in adjudicating crimes and in ultimately bringing sentence to bear, they have the right to execute criminal offenders. Now, this isn't just some esoteric discussion.
If you've been looking at the news over the last week, there was a man who appealed to the Bible or who said that there's not one word in the Bible that forbids slavery. There was a guy who was asked to close in prayer at the inauguration of President Obama. Well, this particular man preached a sermon against homosexuality in the 1990s, and as a result, he's no longer welcomed by the tolerant Democratic Party to be able to pray at this inauguration ceremony. Well, with reference to this whole affair, Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC said the holy book she, the first lady, will be holding does not contain one word of God condemning slavery.
Not one word. Now, presumably, Mr. O'Donnell is referring to what is called chattel slavery, that sort of slavery that was seen in America when people were stolen from the continent of Africa and brought over and enslaved. Does the Bible speak to that situation?
It absolutely does. There is indentured servitude, again, that is a lawful form of slavery, whereas if I steal from Steve and I cannot pay it back, I sell myself into slavery or servitude to him until I pay the debt. But shadow slavery, where we're dealing with people as if they're property, and we're free to steal them and then sell them, is condemned in Deuteronomy 24-7. We saw this last week.
If a man is found kidnapping any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and mistreats him or sells him, then that kidnapper shall die. So he's not talking about the child taken for ransom. He's talking about slavery, chattel slavery, stealing someone from a particular continent, bringing him over to another one, and then enslaving him. The Bible does speak to that particular issue.
I'm only trying to highlight the reality that biblical law, the Bible, the law of God, is oftentimes under dispute and under debate. And so I want to shine the light upon that reality as we look at this most crucial subject concerning the punishment of criminal offenders. Real quick, because we're... Oh, absolutely.
Joseph's brothers were wrong to do what they did. They kidnapped him and they sold him. That's what Joseph says. You meant this for evil.
This wasn't legit. You meant this for evil, but God overruled it for good. So the idea here with Lawrence O'Donnell and this idea of slavery, just to illustrate that the Bible oftentimes is under-debated or disputed or just misunderstood or just neglected. For this man to say it does not contain one word of God condemning slavery Not one word is patently and demonstrably false.
Well, opponents of the death penalty often employ the same sort of faulty logic. Most often, they say, well, the death penalty was only operative in the Old Testament. So what we're going to do tonight is
Biblical Theology of Capital Punishment
what's called a biblical theology of capital punishment. Remember that biblical theology starts in Genesis and goes to Revelation and traces a particular theme through redemptive history. It differs from systematic theology. Systematic theology says, what does the Bible say about the Bible?
And then it gives us the text. What does the Bible say about God? And then it gives us the text. What does the Bible say about Christ and about man and about salvation and about the church and eschatology?
That's systematic theology. That's crucial and absolutely necessary. But right now we're doing a biblical theology. Start in Genesis and run through the Bible and we'll look at this biblical theology of capital punishment.
First, the Old Testament. Secondly, the New Testament. And then we'll conclude with some common objections to the death penalty, both biblical objections and what I'll call pragmatic objections. So biblical, meaning that the Bible says we're not to execute criminal offenders, but then pragmatism, arguments like, well, there's not a lot of mercy in the death penalty, things like that. a pragmatic objection.
I think at times when we treat objections and we answer them, we then see a good apology with reference to the truth of Holy Scripture. So remember, the Bible does authorize, and we're not going to develop this, this is an operating assumption here. The Bible authorizes three instances of lawful killing. There are three times or three instances in life where you may lawfully, I'm not saying go out and do this, where you may lawfully take the life of another human being.
The first one is self-defense. The Bible recognizes that a man in his home has the right to defend himself. If a criminal breaks into your home and in the midst of your opposition to him, he dies, if it's dark, you are not held liable for the death of this particular individual. This means you may employ reasonable force to stop the man from doing harm to you or to your family.
Self-defense is legit. In fact, Matthew Henry comments on this whole issue of self-defense on the classic passage in Exodus chapter 22. Matthew Henry says, 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.
Jesus uses the assumption that a man will defend his home when he's illustrating the kingdom of darkness trying to plunder the kingdom of light. If the strong man knew that the owner of the house would be ready, he wouldn't break in at that particular time. So self-defense is authorized in the scripture. Secondly, legitimate warfare.
Legitimate warfare. When we read in Deuteronomy 7 that God commands Israel to go into Canaan and to utterly destroy everybody in war, we have to understand that God is legitimizing war. It's okay. in his stipulation. There are rules governing warfare in Deuteronomy chapter 20 verses 1 to 20.
In the book of Romans, what we just read, yes the civil government has the sword for the execution of God's wrath against criminal offenders, but hopefully that magistrate can employ that same sword to defend its citizenry against opposition from without. In other words, if an army wants to do battle in Canada, it is a legitimate application of Romans 13 for the Canadian Defence Ministry to protect its citizenry, to use that sword in a defensive posture, but in the midst of the use of that sword, as they say, at times people will die. So self-defense, legitimate war, and then the third instance of lawful killing is this issue of capital punishment.
Old Testament: Genesis 9
So turn first to Genesis chapter 9. Again, I mentioned these passages last week. We didn't develop them. in any detail, simply trying to show you what the Bible says, so that when we face the Lawrence O'Donnells of this world, or the various sorts of media that attack the scripture, or when we are dealing with non-Christians, or unfortunately when we're dealing with Christians, we understand what's going on in the scripture. You remember the context in Genesis chapter 9.
There are at least three things going on in this particular instance. God, the Lord, is speaking to the propagation of life. Remember, Noah and his family have emerged from the ark. So God tells Noah that he is to propagate life.
In many respects, Noah is another Adam. There seems to be a succession of Adams. There's the Adam the first, then there's Noah, then you've got Abraham, then you've got Israel, then you've got the last Adam, which is Christ. Well, notice in each of these instances that Adam figure is told to be fruitful and multiply.
Adam was given that mandate. Noah is given that mandate. Abraham is told that this is going to happen to him. Israel is supposed to do this.
Ultimately, Jesus is the one from whom the blessings flow. But in Genesis 9, verse 1, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And then as well in verse 7, And as for you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply in it. Secondly, what we find here is a mandate to protect life.
You need to protect life, verse 4. You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Verse 6 speaks to protecting man's blood. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man.
So the propagation of life, the protection of life, and then the sustenance of life. Verses 2 and 3. 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 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." So God is concerned here to regulate conduct after the flood in such a way as to see that life is propagated, life is protected, and life is sustained. Humanity is to continue, humanity is to increase, humanity ultimately vis-a-vis through Israel is to bring forth Messiah who will save his people from their sins. The covenant with Noah provides the common grace framework for the operation of special grace.
God promises never again to destroy the earth, and that there will be sun, and there will be rain, and there will be legitimate ability to plan and grow things for these purposes, to propagate, protect, and to sustain life. Now remember, prior to the flood, the earth was a pretty bad place. It was exceedingly corrupt and it was filled with violence. So in verse 6, God addresses a particular offense, something that was going on on the earth prior to the flood.
And that particular sin, that particular crime, is murder. Whoever sheds man's blood. That is the offense in view. The unlawful taking of another person's life.
Remember that initially Cain kills Abel. And then Cain tries to hide that particular fact. When God comes to deal with him, he says, am I my brother's keeper? Well, that very quickly deteriorates or devolves into Lamech, who celebrates blood guiltiness. who celebrates murder, he says, Ada and Zilla, hear my voice.
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, for I have killed a man for wounding me, even a young man for hurting me. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold. So we go from a situation where there does seem to be at least a degree of shame with Cain, wherein he's trying to hide this murder, to Lamech, who is now exalting in it. So the earth had become corrupt and exceedingly corrupt and filled with violence, so God comes to regulate in the post-flood world.
So the offense, whoever sheds man's blood. Notice the specific punishment that is in view. By man, his blood shall be shed. Very simple.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If I shed the blood of a particular man, then according to God, according to his law, according to his word, I deserve to die. That's what the Lord says. That's not what a think tank says is best.
That's not what social architects design for this particular age. It is not something that we vote into being. It is a mandate, a command from God that by man his blood shall be shed. Remember the principle of the lex talionis, the punishment must fit the crime.
Notice the agent by which this punishment is carried out. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. You see the agent there, it's by man. God says that.
God says there is a man. We will see later that it's the civil government. It is by man that that criminal is executed. That's not ungodly, it's not unrighteous, it's not unholy, but rather it is mandated by the Lord.
By man his blood shall be shed." Martin 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. Everybody got that? That's what's going on after the flood.
God is speaking to the situation. He wants to regulate society and He is saying that there is an agent that has the task of punishing criminal offenders and they are to utilize the sword to carry out that particular task. Now, with reference to the sword, we need to remember, I think John Murray captures the sentiment well. He says, the sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his authority, but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which a sword does.
It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls short of death, 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. So the sword, the reference here, involves and includes death. That is the punishment that is to be inflicted upon the murderer. Gordon Clark says, God gave the right of capital punishment to human governments.
Now, I realize this opens up a huge other debate. What if that human government's unholy? What if that human government is ungodly? What if that human government is run by Joseph Stalin?
Do we want to hand him the sword and say it's up to you, boy, on how to carry that? That's another debate, another discussion I am more than willing to have. Right now I just want us to see that God has instituted the magistrate the governing authorities as that agent by which he executes criminal offenders. So Clark says he intended the sword to be used wisely and justly, but he intended it to be used.
Abolition of the death penalty presupposes the falsity of Christian principles. That's what Clark said, and I am inclined to agree with him. If God mandates a certain penalty, then who are we, in the name of greater mercy, greater humanitarian design, to say that it is barbaric and we cannot allow it? If God the Lord has spoken, we need to listen.
And then notice finally, with reference to verse 6, the theological reason for this particular command. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Remember Pastor Barcello's preaching said that we look at that word for. For gives us a reason.
For gives us an implication. For highlights to us a specific argument. So whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. For, why?
Do we do this? For in the image of God, he made man. It is a theological reason. Again, not sociological, not ecclesiastical, not familial, but rather it is a theological justification for the infliction of the death penalty upon a murderer by a human government.
This is the word of the living God. Gerhardus Voss says, the nature of the crime is this, in life slain it is the image of God, i.e. the divine majesty that is assaulted. If we are image bearers of the living and the true God, for me to kill you or murder you is to assault that divine image. That's a no-no.
That's the theological justification, or the rationale, or the reason behind this particular command by way of God in Genesis. So in the Old Testament, Genesis 9-6 is foundational, irrespective of the Sinai legislation. If, as I've mentioned, this coincides with the Noahic Covenant. The Noahic Covenant has never been abrogated.
I don't know of any theologian, any commentator that would ever argue that the Noahic Covenant is no longer binding upon us today. The Noahic Covenant provides, as I said, the common grace. If you don't like that terminology, we can debate that another time, but I'm going to use it. The common grace framework for the operation of God's special grace in redemption of his elect.
So the
Old Testament: Mosaic Legislation
next big section with reference to the death penalty is the Mosaic legislation. And because we have spent a lot of time in the book of Deuteronomy I do not feel constrained to spend a lot of time in the Sinai legislation. We see in that particular body of law, we see a distinction made concerning homicide and murder. a distinction made between accidental homicide and murder. It's one thing if I'm driving home and a kid runs out and grabs his ball and I run him over accidentally.
According to the law of God, that is not the same as if I gun it and I chase some kid and I run him down because I can't stand him and I have malice aforethought. There is a delineation in the law or a distinction between accidental homicide and murder. So the Mosaic legislation speaks to that. As well, the Mosaic legislation identifies additional capital crimes.
Now, I believe those crimes were already seen prior to Sinai, but nevertheless, it's codified. The various crimes that receive the death penalty are seen in the Sinai legislation. Again, it predates Sinai. We see God rain hell out of heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
What does that tell us? It tells us that God does not look favorably upon homosexuality. God does not look favorably upon murder. God does not look favorably upon this host of crimes.
And so the mosaic economy identifies additional capital crimes. We've seen that. Murder, obviously, and most people that affirm the death penalty all agree that murder, for sure. Now it's the additional crimes that becomes debatable.
But just for the sake of argument tonight, what we have seen or what we do see when we turn to the Sinai legislation, we see the capital punishment for adultery and unchastity. We see it for bestiality, homosexuality, rape, incest, the incorrigible son, Sabbath breaking, kidnapping, solicitation to apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension to prophecy, and blasphemy. So those are additional pieces, or additional crimes. In fact, I think if you look at it, every one of the Ten Commandments, save do not covet, is punishable by death.
The Eighth Commandment, you shall not steal. If we apply that to man stealing, if we apply that to kidnapping, as we've seen in Deuteronomy 24, 7, it then becomes a capital offense. So just all this to say that within the Sinai legislation, we not only see distinction made between accidental homicide and murder, but we also see the identification of additional capital crimes. But then in the Sinai legislation, we also see a declaration given concerning the necessity of the death penalty.
Numbers 35 and the Necessity of the Death Penalty
You can turn to Numbers 35 for just a moment. Numbers 35. Verse 31, moreover, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. This is in the context of the cities of refuge.
This is in the context of a distinction being made between accidental homicide and murder. So if a man accidentally commits, accidentally kills somebody, if he's swinging his axe and the head flies off and hits his neighbor and he dies, but it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't with malice aforethought, then he can flee to the city of refuge. So in the context, this is what's going on. But highlighting the gravity of the crime of murder, this is what the specification is.
Verse 31, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. You shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. So you shall not pollute the land where you are for blood defiles the land and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit in the midst of which I dwell for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.
Now again We have seen. We are not living under the theocracy that Old Covenant Israel found themselves under in the land of Canaan. There are some differences. There is some redemptive historical shift.
All I want us to appreciate at this particular time is that as we trace through the Bible, we see foundational Genesis 9-6. We see in the Mosaic economy distinction, identification, and declaration. And then when we turn to the New Testament, We see the same things. The
New Testament Evidence
first line of evidence with reference to the death penalty or capital punishment is in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ. God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. The Lord God most high in bringing justice to bear in terms of his death blow to sin is pleased to crush the son of his love on a Roman cross.
Jesus doesn't ever object to that form of punishment. Jesus is not a pacifist. He doesn't tell Pilate. He doesn't tell Herod.
He doesn't tell the unbelieving Jews that you can't send me to that Roman cross because it is unconstitutional. It is barbaric. It is the throwback to an earlier generation. It is assumed, and the Lord Christ goes to his death as the punishment for sin.
The Apostle Paul, as he is brought up on charges, makes an interesting statement in Acts 25. In Acts 25, when Paul makes his appeal to Caesar, Notice in Acts 25 verse 10, 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.
You see, he doesn't say the death penalty is cruel. He doesn't say God abrogated the death penalty. He doesn't say the death penalty ceased with the Mosaic economy. He does not say that.
He is under trial. The Jews have offered or proffered evidence or false evidence against him for being a criminal and an offender. And I take in this statement more than just murder in view. He says, if I have committed anything deserving of death, seems to imply there's a plurality of crimes that the apostle agrees are worthy of punishment by death.
Again, this isn't direct teaching on the death penalty. Paul is not saying here, here, I want to weigh in on this issue of the death penalty so that in the 21st century, they can have a word and figure it out. I'm just making illustration or observations at this particular point. Remember, we start in Genesis.
We're sort of flying over the scripture. And we're looking at various places. Paul affirms the existence of the death penalty and does not refuse it if, in fact, he is guilty and deserving of it.
Romans 13: The Sword of the Magistrate
But the classic passage is found in Romans 13. Romans chapter 13. This is teaching specifically on the death penalty. And it's important that we understand that Romans 13 follows Romans 12.
That's not simply a mathematical observation. I don't want to teach you how to count tonight. But notice, when you get to Romans 13, verse 1, there's no adversative. There's no indication whatsoever that there's a new argument in view.
You know, oftentimes the chapter breaks indicate a new theme, a new subject. In this case, if there was no chapter break in 13.1, which, by the way, came later, you're not to interpret chapter breaks and verses and those sorts of things as being the infallible word of God. there are some poor choices in terms of chapter breaks and verse breaks in the Bible. But if you didn't have this chapter break and you kept reading verses 1 and following of chapter 13, it goes right along with that section beginning in Romans chapter 12.
Romans 12 and Personal Non-Vengeance
Notice in Romans 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." Who is he speaking to here? He is speaking to individual Christians who make up the Church of Jesus Christ.
He is highlighting here in Romans 12, beginning in verse 17, the Christian's personal responsibility, his personal disposition, his personal ethical response to the various contentions, the various issues that face him in this world. sock it away for later, one of the biblical objections we're going to look at is Jesus teaching in Matthew 5. When Jesus says, turn the other cheek, go with them another mile, I suggest that that section parallels what Paul is doing here in Romans 12, verses 17 to 21. Anyways, let's just look at this. So if it is possible, verse 18, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
Notice the contingency. If it is possible, as much as depends on you. If you go over to your neighbor's house and he punches you in the mouth every single day, don't go over there anymore. I've got to win my neighbor as much as it depends on you.
God's not calling you to get punched in the mouth every single day. As much as it depends on you. If you've done the best you can to make peace with somebody who's hard-headed, You can't keep going on. There's a place and a point and a time where we go too far.
The Proverbs speak to these issues. Do not go with an angry man. Do not surround yourself with fools. They rage against all wisdom.
So if it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved. Again, notice who he's addressing here. Beloved.
Not civil magistrate. Not army. Not Navy, not Marines, not Air Force. He says, beloved individual Christians who make up the Church of Christ, beloved, do not avenge yourselves.
He's saying, don't go by a 38 and shoot your next door neighbor because he punched you in the mouth. Do not avenge yourselves. Now, Christians take that. as a call to never ever want vengeance. No, it is a call for us not to take vengeance ourselves.
But look at the next phrase, but rather give place to wrath. What is he suggesting? It is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. It is right for God to repay, it is wrong for you to repay.
It's not wrong for you to want them to be repaid someday. If they don't repent, if they don't forsake, if they don't come to Christ, then may God indeed deal with them. Doesn't Paul say this in 2 Timothy 4? Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm.
May the Lord repay him. Do not the saints in heaven engage in a fourfold hallelujah when the great harlot is judged. Absolutely. The infliction of God's wrath upon his enemies is a cause for rejoicing to the people of God.
The Proverbs speak to this issue. The Bible speaks to this issue. So we are told, beloved, do not avenge yourselves. Now notice this very important phrase.
But rather give place to wrath. For it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, here's your personal code of conduct. 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. Do not become like them.
Do not become vindictive. Do not become pharisaical. Do not become little or small or vengeful, but rather do not avenge yourselves, but give place to the wrath of God. Now note how the context goes.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.
Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise for this. from the same. Now notice, this links us back to the previous context. Verse 4, 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. In the previous context we're told not to avenge ourselves but to give place for wrath. And in Romans 13, 1 to 4, God says, in history. See, this giving place to wrath doesn't just mean the lake of fire in the future.
It may mean capital punishment in history by virtue of God's ordained servant, namely the civil government. You see, we're not to avenge ourselves, but we are certainly to hope that we have a functioning magistrate that does serve as God's minister of wrath his avenger of wrath to execute God's judgment in history. You see, there's connection. Do not take vengeance for yourselves, rather give place to God's vengeance.
One of the places we see God's vengeance meted out is through the civil magistrate in time, in space, and in history. Does everybody see that? I think it's important that we understand that. The very concepts are repeated here.
Vengeance is mine. Rather give place to wrath, verse 19, Ford has written, vengeance is mine. And then God stipulates in verse 4 of chapter 13 that he has a means by which he gives out wrath in history. It's not just an eschatological concept.
There is a temporal concept of God's wrath inflicted upon criminals in the here and the now. So, putting this all into perspective, if somebody comes to do harm to you, it is legit for you to defend yourself, it is legit as well to report that person to the authorities so that he may be punished. Right? That is legitimate.
You know, some of the arguments against the death penalty get rid of any form of penalty. Well, there's no mercy in the death penalty. And there's mercy in prison? There's mercy in a fine?
There's mercy in whatever the case may be. You see, if we take the logic of the no death penalty people, we have no penalty whatsoever. God doesn't operate that way. God says that he has appointed a minister in time and space, a minister for good.
Now let's focus in on this a little bit. They just wanted to get us in the context. The individual Christian is not to take vengeance because God has ordained the magistrate to execute his vengeance in time and in history. Turretin says blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, but private revenge.
Blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, but private revenge, this attitude, this spirit, this vigilantism, that's what's being dealt with in that context. But notice, the duty to submit, again, this opens up a lot of questions. And what about Pol Pot? And what about Hitler?
And what about Stalin? And what about? You know, we could name any number of men that were abusive in power. That's another issue.
It's correlated, but we don't have time for that right now. Here we need to understand,
Duty to Submit to Authority
let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. That is the Word of God. That's what God says. We are to be subject to the governing authorities.
That is the marching order of the Christian. The Christian is to be subject. The Christian is to be a good citizen. The Christian is to conduct him or herself in a manner that is consistent with the scripture.
Peter repeats the same thing in 1 Peter chapter 2, therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king of supreme or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." Now remember, these were not especially gracious times in the lives of people. The Roman Empire was not known for its kindness and mercy. Nero especially was not known for his kindness and mercy. Now, arguably, Nero was better when Paul wrote Romans than he would later become.
But at this particular time, as Paul is penning Romans, Nero is the emperor. OK? Just so you get a flavor. Paul's not sitting in the new heavens and the new earth saying, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
He is not living in the Bahamas under a benevolent dictator who makes all things you know, peaceable and lovely. Paul is living at a time with an oppressive government. But, that's the duty. Submit.
Secondly, the reason for submission. There is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Psalm 82 tells us this. Proverbs 8, Christ speaking his wisdom, says, by me kings reign.
Nebuchadnezzar recognized this reality, that God Most High raises men up. God Most High raises up Manasseh. God Most High raises up Ahab. God Most High raises up Omri.
God Most High raises men up. And God Most High puts them down. This is Paul's logic. 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. Notice what he says is a sin. Therefore, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Now it's at this point that we get all these what ifs. What if Nazis are at our door and they're looking for Jews. Do we have the right to lie to them if there's Jews underneath our floor? That's another discussion for another time.
I just want to give us the bare bones of what the Apostle is stipulating in this particular passage. All things being equal, if your government is not commanding you to sin, you are not to resist that. When they command you to sin, you may resist that. We see this principle in Acts 5.29, when Peter and John and the apostles are forbidden to preach the gospel.
Peter says, we must obey God rather than man. In this case where the people tell you you can't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, we must obey God rather than men. Now we need to make sure we don't make that principle really elastic. What do you mean I can't have 15 ounces of chocolate in my refrigerator?
I must, you know, obey God rather than men. God hasn't commanded me. to have 15 ounces of chocolate. So we need to make sure we're not real elastic with some of these principles. And I believe God gives wisdom, God gives grace.
If we are in a situation where Nazis are knocking at our door, I actually believe the Spirit will guide and lead and help and all that sort of thing. But just giving you the framework, what Paul is bringing his argument to. Now notice, Verse 3, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. I think we should supply their evil works.
The ESV has conduct, or bad conduct. I think that is legit. I don't think Paul is suggesting that the civil authority is a terror to evil. The civil authority cannot deal with thought crime.
The civil authority does not have omniscience. The civil authority cannot police minds. God will deal with sin in the mind. The magistrate deals with evil works.
If you take that sinful mind and you go into the public marketplace and there you inflict mass murder, it is at that point that the magistrate is to be involved and to punish that evil work. If it sits in your mind and it's never fleshed out, God will deal with that sin. Everybody see that? We're not Orwellian.
This is not thought grind. This magistrate does not police ideas. That is a crime in and of itself when the government wants to police our ideas, when they don't want us to think a certain way. That's not what Paul is specifying here.
Rulers are not a terror to good words, but to evil works. In old covenant Israel, if you entertained in your mind, if you entertained in your heart, bail worship, and you never acted upon it, or no one ever knew, you wouldn't be put to death by the magistrate. You will be judged by God for sinning in your mind, but the civil government cannot police the thoughts of men. So it is necessary that we understand verse 3 to say that 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. Drive the speed limit and you don't have to worry about the cop. It's that simple.
That's the logic. Do what you're supposed to do, and you shouldn't be put in jail. Shouldn't. Again, there's bad government, there's oppression, there's sin in that realm, and we need to deal with that to be sure.
But in this context, this is what Paul is saying. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do it as good, you will have praise from the same. The praise from the same doesn't mean they take you to five corners and and give you medals and say what a great guy or great girl you are.
It just means I think they'll leave you alone. That's the best praise you can get from your government, is to let you be. There is no greater praise that you should want from your government than to be left alone. Just leave me alone.
That's all the praise I want from my government. That's, I think, the point. I don't think he means that Nero's gonna have a special celebration for you because you've done what is good for 365 days of the year. No, the idea is simple.
Do what is good, you'll have grace from the saint, you'll be able to conduct yourself and live without molestation from the government. Now, verse 4.
The Magistrate as God's Minister of Wrath
Four, this is the magistrate, the government, the one appointed by God, the one who has been planted by God, the one who we are not to resist, for he is God's minister. It's the same Greek word that in the church is translated deacon. God has his deacon or his servant or his minister in the church as a minister of mercy. He has a deacon in the government and in this instance he is not ministering mercy, rather he is ministering justice.
Verse 4, he is God's minister to you for good. If you do what you're supposed to do, he should leave you alone. You shouldn't get thrown into jail if you don't do anything wrong. That's the way it ought to be.
Again, it's not always that way. I understand that. I'm not, you know, this isn't Pollyanna. I understand reality.
Just sticking to this particular passage, though, in Paul's argument. For he is God's minister to you for good, but, here it comes, if you do, do evil. Yeah, not think it. not contemplate it, not have a thought, but if you do evil, and I think supplying works, is legit, for he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil works, be afraid.
Why? 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. So if you do not see in here the legitimacy of the death penalty in light of the rest of the biblical data, it would be very difficult to try and convince anyone of anything. This is what Paul is saying.
The governing authorities appointed by God has been given or have been given as a primary piece of equipment this sword. And with this sword, he is God's minister. And he is an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. So the purposes of God through the magistrate, it is to function as a terror to evil works.
It is to function in such a way as to promote fear. Remember that concept on the plains of Moab. How many times after God stipulates that you put this person to death, he then says, all Israel shall hear, and what? Fear, right?
You should be afraid to engage in criminal activity. The child in your home ought to be afraid to do things that are wrong. Not because you're going to capitally punish him, but because you're going to punish him, right? Isn't this the consistent testimony of scripture?
The magistrate is to function in such a way so that people who do good are left alone. But people who engage in evil works are punished. And they are punished in such a way that everybody else hears and fears. They say, hey, did you see what happened to Billy?
He went in and he engaged in this activity and he was put to death. I'm sure not going to go do that same thing. So people will say, well, it's not a deterrent. I argue that's not its purpose.
That's a blessed corollary. You should be afraid. But the purpose of capital punishment isn't first and foremost for everybody else. The
Purpose: Retribution, Not Rehabilitation
purpose of capital punishment is not remedial. The purpose of capital punishment is retributive. It is punishment, just like that incorrigible son. The proverbs are filled with remedial training.
I believe those parents of the incorrigible son engaged in remedial training. They gave him the rod. They gave him reproof. They tried to break his will.
They tried to harness that aggression. They tried to rein him in. They tried to pull him back. But when it came time to turn him over to the elders of the city, and he was executed with stones, there was no remedy involved.
There was no rehabilitation involved. It was retribution. It was punishment. That is the primary purpose of capital punishment.
So when people say, well, it doesn't deter crime, that's not the point. The point is to punish crime. That's why I think so many Christians struggle with the atonement of Christ. We have no concept of justice.
We have no concept of punishment. There's no concept of retribution. That's why so many Christians struggle with the concept of hell. Oh, it seems barbaric.
No, it's retribution. It's punishment. In a moral universe, when you offend God Most High, there's punishment. In a moral home, if you offend the parents, there's punishment.
You get spanked. You get deprived. You get things taken away from you. So the apostle is very clear here.
But there is, in effect, a deterrent. If you do evil, be afraid. So for people that say, well, there's no deterrent effect, there most certainly is. If capital punishment was being carried out faithfully, I suspect that more people would be afraid to do the sorts of things people get away with constantly.
Ecclesiastes. We're going to not give them the objections tonight. Ecclesiastes 8.11. Don't think we're going for an all-nighter here.
Ecclesiastes 8.11. Here's what I think is indicative of our generation. The preacher said, because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. If there is no punishment, if there is no retribution, if there is no payback, if there is no eye for eye, if there is no lex talionis, they don't fear anything.
It's the worst thing you can have as a criminal without fear. Not in Paul's world, not in Paul's mind, not in Paul's language. 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. So God Almighty has his purposes in capital punishment.
In Romans 13, it is to serve as a terror to evil works. It is to serve as punishment, retribution. It is to be a deterrent, or again, that's just the byproduct. You are afraid, and ultimately that criminal is deterred.
That murderer or that rapist isn't going to do it again if he is capitally punished. Many times people are repeat offenders, not if capital punishment is their end. And then this is an expression of the execution of God's wrath in history.
Hebrews 2 and Just Reward
One other New Testament passage is in Hebrews chapter 2. Again, this is an indirect passage. It isn't a statement concerning capital punishment per se. Here's how you ought to deal with criminal offenders in society.
It is indirect, but it does illustrate something that is contrary to much of modern evangelicalism. Notice in Hebrews 2.1, Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience, notice, received a just reward. It's not unjust.
It's not barbaric. That old covenant legislation isn't vicious, it isn't cruel, it isn't unusual. According to the Apostle, when these transgressions and these acts of disobedience occurred, it received a just reward. Be very careful about reading the Sinai legislation and saying, wow, that seems a bit odd, or that seems a bit over the top, or that seems a bit too much.
Who are we dealing with there? We're not dealing with Moses the man. We're dealing with God who spoke through Moses. If God says it's legit to execute a false prophet, then it's legit to execute a false prophet.
Now again, theocracy, current modern day situation. I have some thoughts and views about how we apply that. But again, another time. So
Application and Conclusion
that is a brief biblical theology of capital punishment. Start in the old and finish in the new. We've seen Genesis 9 foundational. I think Genesis 9 and Romans 13 are the two classic passages, Old and New Testaments, that speak to this same issue of the use of the sword given by God through man as his agent of punishment to punish those who engage in criminal activity.
In the Mosaic economy, distinction between accidental homicide and murder, identification of additional crimes, and the declaration given concerning its necessity. I'll close with a quote by Thomas Watson, And then, God willing, we'll take up the common objections next week. I don't think Jesus is going to come back before next week. I don't feel any sort of constraint to finish Deuteronomy.
I don't think we're in a running race. There's nothing I have found in my Bible that says, Jim, you've got to be finished with Deuteronomy by, you know, December 2013. So I think we will be finished with Deuteronomy by December 2013. But if we're not, I don't know that I'll go to hell for that.
I hope I don't go to hell for that. Anyways, so I won't go to hell believing in Jesus. So no, I'm just kind of speaking tongue in cheek. Here's what Watson says.
Here's what Watson says. Remember the context of Romans 13. We as private individuals are prohibited from avenging ourselves, okay? But we are rather to give place to wrath.
How does one give place to wrath? I think the imprecatory Psalms are helpful at this point. That's the ones where David calls down God's wrath upon God's enemies. That's legit.
Not somebody who cut you off on Wellington, God kill that person, make their car break, die, and they roll off a cliff. No, no, no. God's enemies. Okay?
In Precatory Psalms, we find that repeated in the New Testament. I already mentioned Paul in 2 Timothy 4. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him.
That's a form of prayer. 1 Corinthians 16, 22. If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. That is an imprecatory prayer. So we give place to the wrath of God by praying to God to either save that wretch or to deal with that wretch as he sees fit.
But we as well give place to the wrath of God by realizing the role, the function, and the duty of the governing authorities. He is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath. There's nothing wrong. with somebody calling the police, seeing a criminal arrested, testifying against that person in the court, and then being there witnessing his execution. That's not barbarism.
It's not unholy. It's not ungodly. I would even argue, well, I don't want to go that far. But here's what Watson says.
He says, to kill an offender is not murder, but justice. He says, a private person sins if he draws the sword. A public person sins if he puts up the sword. A magistrate ought not to let the sword of justice rust in the scabbard.
It's wrong for a private individual to take up the sword. It's wrong for a public person to put up the sword and not use that primary piece that God has given to clothe them with reference to their task. Well, let's pray.
Closing Prayer
Father, thank you for your word. Thank you for its clarity on this issue. We pray that you would give us the mind of Christ as we think through these issues. God, these are relevant.
These are oftentimes hot topics, reasons that unbelievers have a problem with the scripture, and even so many Christians have problems with these passages. I pray that you would cause us to approach these things with humility. Forgive me, Lord, for my sin. I don't want to be proud or arrogant or think that I have all The answer is God.
I pray that you would cleanse me in the blood. And yet, Father, I pray that we would see what the scriptures so clearly state concerning civil justice. I pray that you would go with us now and watch over us in the remainder of this week. And we pray through Christ our Lord.
Amen.