Introduction and Review
We're studying the book of Deuteronomy, obviously. The last section we looked at was in chapter 25, verses 1 to 3, where that dealt with corporal punishment. And so we're taking just a couple of weeks to explain capital punishment. You'll remember the three types of punishment in the Old Testament.
The first is restitution or compensation. In other words, if I were to steal or engage in some sort of a property crime, I would need to pay it back. If I was caught, arrested, or whatever, The judges would judge in the favor of the victim, and I would need to pay him back. If I didn't have money to pay him back, then I would sell myself into indentured servitude.
I would be his servant until such time as the debt was paid. The system back then was pro-victim. Yes, Roger. Oh, I'm just giving an overview.
We're going to look at Romans 13 tonight. Actually, we're going to kind of be all over the place, but just reviewing. So restitution or compensation to include indentured servitude. As I mentioned, chapter 25, verses 1 to 3, corporal punishment.
That is where a man would be flogged, a man would be beaten for an offense. not to exceed 40 blows. It was under supervision. It was after a trial. It was proper proportion commensurate with his crime.
There was a limit imposed. It couldn't exceed 40. And it was always with the idea to maintain the man's dignity. So even the criminal suffering corporal punishment was nevertheless an image bearer and to be treated with dignity in Old Covenant Israel.
And then the third major type of punishment was capital punishment. Last week we did a biblical theology of capital punishment. We started in the Old Testament and went to the New Testament. Remember, that's what biblical theology does.
It starts from Genesis and goes through Revelation. It treats redemptive history. It treats the doctrines of Scripture. in a historical fashion. Systematic theology approaches the Bible in a logical fashion.
What does the Bible say about God and about man and about sin and about Christ? That's systematic theology. Biblical theology begin in Genesis and run through all the way to the book of Revelation, treating the scripture in that historical fashion. So last week we looked at the specific texts in the Old Testament.
Genesis chapter 9 verse 6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. Then we looked secondly at the Sinai legislation or the Mosaic economy. We saw there there was a distinction made between murder And manslaughter, not all homicide, was necessarily a capital offense. If I accidentally kill you, there's a city of refuge for me to flee to.
If I purposefully kill you, then I have committed murder and I am culpable and liable to death. Secondly, we noticed in that Sinai legislation the identification of other crimes. It wasn't simply for murder. in that section of law that men could be put to death. We saw for the case of rape and various other crimes as we run through the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Exodus were in fact capital offenses.
And then we saw in Numbers 35, the declaration of the necessity of capital punishment in the event of murder. There's no ransom payment given. You cannot just pay a fine in the case of murder, but rather you must be executed. Then we look at the New Testament, of course, the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He was capitally punished ultimately for the sins of his people. God sanctioned that form, obviously, he used that form to bring atonement to his people. The book of Acts, chapter 25, verse 11, the apostle indicates that if he has done anything worthy of death, he does not oppose the death penalty, he does not refuse to die. It's an indirect proof, it's not a text speaking to the death penalty, but it's certainly an observation that we can make.
And then Romans 13, 1-4 is the primary passage in the New Testament. I'll just read that section now. It says, 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. I'll just go ahead and read to verse 7.
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. So there we see the Apostle Paul speaks consistent with what we find in Genesis chapter 9.
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed. Verse 4 of chapter 13 says he, the civil magistrate, the government, the authority, 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 an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Remember in the larger context, chapter 12, we are told not to avenge ourselves, but rather give place to wrath. The idea seems to be that within history, within time and space, in communities like Chilliwack, do not go out and buy guns and shoot people, but rather let the civil authority, let the governing authority do what God has appointed him to do, to execute God's wrath in history.
So it is the governing authorities, it is the civil magistrate that has been entrusted with the sword in order to bring God's vengeance upon offenders. As Watson said, to kill an offender is not murder, but justice. He said, 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. So what we find here in Romans 13 1 to 4 is consistent with what we find in Genesis chapter 9. So for those who say, well, only the Old Testament taught that, well, now you know better. The Old Testament and the New Testament uphold the duty of the civil magistrate to inflict capital punishment on those who deserve it.
Objections to Capital Punishment
Now, what are some common objections? I want to break this down into two broad categories. The first are biblical objections, and the second are pragmatic objections. The first, biblical objections, and the second, pragmatic.
Pragmatic simply means practical, like a pragmatic argument is, well, it just doesn't work. Well, there has to be a little more of substance to an argument than just the idea that it just doesn't work. But we'll look at that in just a moment. But some common objections in terms of biblical objections.
I think the first one is very simple to dispose of or simple to take care of.
Objection: "You Shall Not Kill"
Exodus 20, 13, the old King James translates it, you shall not kill. And some would argue that kill there is to be taken and applied. in this vein as well. We're not supposed to kill people, the Bible says that. Well therefore, capital punishment must not be carried out.
But it doesn't take long to get out of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 verse 13, it doesn't take long to get out of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 to see that God does in fact authorize Killing. What is prohibited in the sixth word is murder. You shall not murder. You shall not unlawfully take the life of another human being.
But you may lawfully take the life of another human being in one of three instances. If you were here Sunday night, I hope that you would be able to answer these one of three instances. There is, first of all, self-defense. The Bible does not speak ill against self-defense.
In fact, we see it put forth in Exodus 22, we see it exemplified in the case of Abraham, we see it exemplified in the case of Nehemiah and the people who were rebuilding Jerusalem, and then our Lord in Luke's Gospel in Luke chapters 11 and 12 assume that people will defend themselves. This is legit. So in the case of self-defense, we use that force necessary. We use reasonable force that is necessary to stop the person from inflicting harm upon us or upon someone near and dear to us.
So if in the midst of that we kill them, we are not legally culpable for murder. Self-defense is biblical. These gun grabs and these desires to disarm people are unbiblical. People have a right to defend themselves according to God's law.
The second instance of lawful killing is legitimate war. Again, we're in Deuteronomy. God's commanded the people to go into Canaan, to engage in war in Canaan, and to utterly dispossess the land of the Canaanites. In Deuteronomy 20, he gives principles governing warfare.
So whatever Exodus 20.13 means, it certainly doesn't mean you can't defend yourself, you can't engage in legitimate war, and based on Genesis 9 and Romans 13, it cannot mean that the government does not have the prerogative or the right to execute criminal offenders. Exodus 2013 is properly understood to prohibit murder, the unlawful taking of another human being's life. There are lawful instances to take another human being's life. In such instances, you are not engaging in murder.
When a soldier goes out on the battlefield and he fights, he is not murdering people. He's engaged in warfare. He has no malice aforethought. He hasn't premeditated.
He doesn't hate that particular soldier. He is engaged in the act of war. Murder is a different scenario, and we need to make sure we're clear on this. That's the first biblical objection.
Objection: Old Testament Only
The second biblical objection would be the teaching, well, that's the Old Testament, and here in the New Testament, things are different. This would be most closely identified with what's called dispensationalism. Now, we don't have time to develop dispensationalism, but suffice it to say it is the opposite to what we call covenant theology. Covenant theology recognizes continuity between the two testaments, continuity between the old and the new.
Dispensationalism, especially its older forms, sees radical discontinuity between the two testaments. radical discontinuity between the old and the new. In fact, some, at least older types of dispensationalists, would really see no place for the modern reading or the study of the Old Testament, other than for some moral stories or for some you know, inspiration or wisdom, but there's no binding effect of the Old Testament upon the modern Christian. And so some would say what we find in the Old Testament in terms of Moses, and in terms of war, and in terms of self-defense, and in terms of capital punishment, that's confined to a different age. That is no longer for us in this new covenant era.
But a study of Romans 13, 1 to 4, indicates just the opposite. We see continuity. We see God's plan. We see that in the Old Testament, it was always prohibited to engage in the act of murder under the threat of death.
In the New Testament, that remains unchanged. And so we are able to dispose with that argument very easily as well when we consider Romans 13.
Objection: Cain and David Not Executed
A third biblical objection. is the case of Cain and David. The case of Cain and David. The argument goes like this, and it's a legitimate one, it comes up. Cain engaged in murder, and yet he was not put to death.
David engaged in murder, and yet he was not put to death. How is it in those instances you can say it's okay for them not to be executed, but we need to execute somebody in our own generation that engages in that act? First thing, we ought to go to Genesis 4. just so we can read this in its context. Genesis chapter 4.
The idea being that since Cain and David were not capitally punished for the crime of murder, therefore, we don't need to engage in that particular activity either. Remember the instance Cain murdered Abel. And it's interesting, the way that the Lord God addresses him. the way that the text or the narrative specifically sets before us the reality that Cain murdered his brother. Verse 8, Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him.
Then the Lord said to Cain, where is Abel, your brother? Almost like Moses doesn't want us to forget the significance of the grind. He doesn't want us to miss the import. Here, this close to the creation of man, this close to that original setting of beauty and purity and holiness and righteousness, Now we have Cain murdering his brother, one near and dear to his heart.
Verse 9, Then the Lord said to Cain, Where is Abel your brother? He said, I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper? Then he said, What have you done?
The voice of your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.
And Cain said to the Lord, my punishment is greater than I can bear. Surely you have driven me this day from the face of the ground. I shall be hidden from your face. I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth.
And it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me. Interesting assumption that Cain has there, isn't it? He deserves to die. That's the first thing we ought to notice there, that Cain realizes his particular crime has put him in the sphere of culpability.
It has put him in the realm of punishability, and he understands that reality. But then God says in verse 15, Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold, And the Lord set a mark on him, lest anyone finding him should kill him." And then, of course, the case of King David of Israel. David was guilty. He committed adultery and murder.
He committed murder against Uriah the Hittite. It's interesting. In the genealogy in 2 Chronicles, with reference to David, it tells us that Uriah was one of David's mighty men. Isn't that interesting?
What is the chronicler doing? He's probably telling us we're looking for someone other than David. David's a great man. David's a wonderful man.
But it's David's son that is going to come and redeem his people from their sin. You see, David, as great a man as he was, nevertheless murdered one of his mighty men. Now, of course, God did not immediately put David to death. Doesn't mean there was no judgment. doesn't mean there was no redress.
There was no issues connected to David's life and family. In fact, God says, the sword will never depart from your house. I suspect that if you would have asked David 30 years later, he might have said, you know, I kind of wish I got the electric chair, you know, however many years ago. I mean, he had a tough life.
He had a lot of ramifications and a lot of issues and a lot of problems. But I just highlight those two instances to say this. When it comes to ethics, when it comes to the way that you and I operate in this world, we are to operate according to the revealed will of God. We are to operate according to what God has commanded us.
We are not to operate according to the secret things. We are not to operate according to the decretive will of God. The instance of the murder of Jesus, we know that God brought good things to pass as a result of that hideous crime. We ought never to conclude, well, since God does that sort of thing, we can murder this person.
No! The sixth word is our marching order. Genesis 9 and Romans 13 is the mandate. What God chooses to do in terms of his own personal dealings with a Cain or a David does not invalidate the revealed, written, preceptive will of God.
We'll see this in a moment when we consider another objection two from now, the woman caught in adultery. John Calvin makes this comment. He says, let us remember that while Christ forgives the sins of men, that's what Jesus does with that woman caught in adultery in John 8. Well, we are not to take that and say, therefore, there's no death penalty.
We're not to say that any rapist or child molester who stands before a judge's bench, we ought to just say, you're forgiven. Go your way. Calvin makes this very important observation. Let us remember that while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the law.
How God chooses to operate with Cain or with David or in another scenario or situation does not change the fundamental response of men. We are to do what God commands us. We are to do what God reveals to us. We need to operate according to the preceptive will.
That means the revealed will of God. The secret things belong to the Lord our God. The way he brings redemption out of the murder of Jesus Christ. The way he brings safety to Israel through the selling into slavery of Joseph.
God overrules evil for good, but we mustn't ever conclude that we can engage in evil acts Or we can engage in disobedience to the law, and then we'll just trust that God will bless us nevertheless. No, the marching order for the Christian is always to be the written word of the living God. So Exodus 20, 13, the lack of, or the discontinuity between the Testaments, or saying that it's only there in the Old Testament, the third being the lack of capital punishment in the case of Cain and David, but then,
Objection: Turn the Other Cheek
fourthly, Matthew 5, 38 to 42. You can turn there. Remember, this is an objection to capital punishment. we're dealing with the biblical objections to capital punishment. Matthew 5, 38 to 42.
This is a text that is employed to militate against or to teach against the idea that we should execute criminal offenders. Now, remember, just off the cuff, it has never been my statement to say that we execute capital punishment. the magistrate, it's the government, the church doesn't inflict capital punishment. The church is not the punisher of evildoers, but the preacher of the grace of God. The church's primary focus and function is redemptive in nature.
We are to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, engage in discipline for the well-ordering of Christ's church, so that we may preach the gospel of saving grace to needy sinners. The government's job is not to be the healer of the nation. The government's job is not to be the purveyor of the grace of God. The government is not to come and to redeem.
The government is there, in the language of Machen, and I think reflecting accurately, Romans 13, for the repression of evildoers and the protection of individual liberty. That's what your government ought to be doing for you. So it's never been my argument, I don't think it's the biblical, well, it's not the biblical argument, that private individuals engage in capital punishment. Rather, it is the sole function of the governing authorities, those appointed by God, according to Romans 13.
So let's look at Matthew 5, 38 to 42. You have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him too. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away." So at first glance, this might seem to give some credence to no death penalty, right? I mean, how could you ever, you know, begin to think that somebody ought to sit in an electric chair and have that little thing put on his head and water placed there for a conductor and him essentially be fried to death in light of Matthew 5, 38 to 42?
That's barbaric. How could you ever advocate that somebody stand before a firing line with a hood on and get shot to death. I mean, in light of Jesus' statement here, turn the other cheek, it just doesn't make sense, does it? Does it?
Has anybody ever heard this? People oftentimes use this passage to say that it's not the prerogative of the government to engage in capital punishment. We are to turn the other cheek. Jesus says, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
I'll give a dollar to anybody who tells me what the Latin phrase is for that statement. I said it on Sunday. And here we are at Wednesday. What is it?
The lex? Talionis, very good. Now you get $0.50, because you got half of it. The law of retribution.
Jesus says, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And such it was. It was said that. It is said that everywhere in the Old Testament law.
But here what Jesus is speaking to is that civil law, or that criminal law, or that judicial law, And what we have done, or what these people are doing, is taking that and applying it in everyday scenarios in their interpersonal relationships. When he says in verse 39, I tell you not to resist an evil person, does he mean that universally? Does he mean we are never to resist an evil person? No, he doesn't mean that.
Later on in Matthew 18, he's going to say, if your brother sins against you, don't resist him. No, go to him and rebuke him. If he hears you, you've won your brother. If he doesn't hear you, take two or three witnesses.
If he doesn't hear them, then tell it to the church. That doesn't sound like do not resist an evil person. It sounds like deal with the sins of an evil person in the context of the local church. We've already seen in Romans 13.
Does Paul say that the governing authorities are to take this posture of never resisting an evil person? When that child molester comes before your bench, judge, don't resist him. Pat him on the head. Send him on his way.
Tell him where the next school is. so he can find more children? This is not a universal statement. It is very much confined in the Sermon on the Mount. Remember that Jesus says in verses 13 and following in Matthew 5, you are the salt of the earth.
Then he says in verse 14, you are the light of the world. The city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. He then expounds the law of God and how we are to function in our interpersonal relationships. Matthew 5, 38 to 42 has nothing to do with the civil government executing criminal offenders.
It has everything to do with the way that you and I conduct ourselves on a daily basis with the people we come into contact with. Now, if somebody rapes you, or somebody molests your child, or somebody takes out a knife and stabs you, Jesus' statement here, I tell you, not to resist an evil person, does not apply. You turn them over to the authorities. You turn them over to the governing authorities.
You turn them over to the police department. And then you pray that they will be punished according as the law makes known. We are not being told here to let people abuse us or trample all our rights and that we never have a right to appeal to the police for assistance or to the magistrate for redress. Consider the idea that you're driving home one day and you see some guy on the side of the road punching his girlfriend.
You have any duty whatsoever to maybe stop and help the guy or do you let... This man, carry on under the guise of Matthew 539, roll your window down and tell this poor woman, you know, don't resist an evil person. He smacked you on the one side. Turn the other cheek.
You see, if the argument against capital punishment is grounded here, this text teaches way too much than anyone would ever be satisfied with. It is not dealing with matters of criminal offense. It's dealing with matters of a personal disposition. Notice the specific illustrations that Jesus gives us.
Verse 39. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. I do not believe this has to do with a man who lays in wait and who mugs you when you're on your way home from work. The slap here is probably an insult.
It's probably a sign of insult. I mean, if you really want to do damage to somebody, you don't slap them, do you? I mean, if I was a robber and I wanted to steal somebody's money, I don't think I'd slap them. I would punch them and try to hurt them.
He's not dealing with a criminal offense in terms of somebody mugging another person. He's dealing with personal insult, personal offense, or some sort of a thing that makes you lose face. That is the context. It's not, if you get mugged, tell everybody where you're going to be tomorrow so that they can mug you also.
Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Don't always be insistent upon your vindication. Don't always be the person that has to be right. Don't always be the person that has to vindicate themselves so that everybody always knows how wonderful you are.
I actually think that Jesus is speaking to us here to tell us there are instances and seasons in our lives, maybe not always, but instances and seasons in our lives where it's better to just bear some indignity, to fall on our sword, and to let things go. personally, in terms of our relationship with others. If you're the kind of person that has to always be right, if you're the kind of person that cannot ever have their reputation damaged, if you're the kind of person that is so sensitive and so easily offended and so outraged that anybody might ever look at you in a way that isn't fully pleasing to you, listen to what Jesus says. Whoever slaps you on your right cheek Turn the other to him also. Do not insist upon your rights all the time.
If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. It's not worth it in the final analysis. It's not worth the court case. It's not worth the edit.
It's not worth the hassle. Go buy another tunic. Let the guy have your cloak. See, Jesus is speaking to interpersonal relationships, the way that we relate to people on an individual basis.
If we applied the lex talionis in every instance, every day, with everyone who we dealt with, Could you imagine how tedious that would be? Oh, you looked at me in an evil way. I'm going to look at you in an evil way. You said this in a way that wasn't pleasing to me.
I'm going to say this in a way that's not... No, no, no, no. Just chill out. Lighten up.
You're a light. You're supposed to shine as a light. You're supposed to be the kind of person that demonstrates kingdom ethics. And kingdom ethics means, at times, you do not insist upon your own way upon your own rights.
Spurgeon said it this way. When the lex talionis came to be the rule of daily life, it fostered revenge and our Savior would not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals. Good law in court may be very bad custom in common society. He's not dealing with rapists in this passage.
He's not dealing with child molesters in this passage. He's not dealing with robbers in this passage. He is dealing with the ins and outs of daily lives and the way that we bump into one another. Notice his other example in verse 41.
Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. This was the custom of the Roman soldier being able to conscript a citizen and say, I want you to carry my burden for a mile. You know, the Christian shouldn't be, okay, we've gone 5,280 feet. I've done my mile.
Here's your burden back. Go with him another mile. You might be able to talk to him about the gospel. He might say, why aren't you a whiner like every other citizen in Rome?
Why aren't you grumbling and complaining and moaning? Because I'm a Christian. I love Jesus. I want to help you with your burden.
You see the ethic here? It's not the law court. It's not the magistrate. It's not the turn the other cheek to the mugger.
The mugger mugs you, you have a right to defend yourself and to try to keep your property. Well, there might be some wisdom in just giving the mugger your money, especially if he's going to shoot you. Yes, give him your money by all means. But this is not the context.
To take Matthew 5, 38 to 42 and make it this sort of universal law that in every bad situation that a Christian ever undergoes, you must turn the other cheek. That's simply not biblical. It's simply not what Jesus did, and it's simply not what Paul did either. We'll see that in just a moment.
Then verse 42, Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, Do not turn away. You see, that individual personalized ethic sounds very much like what we're finding throughout the book of Deuteronomy. Within the covenant community, you are to be large-hearted, you're to be compassionate, you're to be kind, you're to be loving. You're not to say to your brother, you know, I dropped these grains or I dropped these grapes, take only that or I'm going to get...
No, no, no. Be generous, be compassionate, be full of mercy, be full of love. This passage does not militate against capital punishment whatsoever. It jives specifically with Romans 12.
Remember last week I spent, you might think, a painfully long time trying to set up the context for Romans 13. Romans 12, verses 17 to 21, is parallel to what Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, 38 to 42. Notice in Romans 12, 17. Repay no one evil for evil.
Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves. Don't be the lex talionis guy.
Don't be the personal vendetta guy. Don't be the self-vindication guy. But rather give place to wrath. For it is written, vengeance is mine I will repay, says the Lord.
A Christian who carries around a vengeful spirit in interpersonal relationships is really a dishonor to their Lord. There's nothing wrong with being those saints under the altar in Revelation 6. crying out, How long, O Lord, until you pour out your wrath on those who murder your people? There's nothing wrong with that fourfold hallelujah in Revelation 19, when the whore is judged and Babylon is fallen. There is nothing wrong with the Apostle's statement, 1 Corinthians 16.22, If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus, let it be anathema.
There's nothing wrong with Paul's sentiment in 2 Timothy chapter 4, Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm, may the Lord repay him. There's nothing wrong with that sentiment in those contexts. But when you've got a problem with your wife, or you've got a problem with your husband, or you've got a problem with your parent, or you've got a problem with your child, or you've got a problem with a brother in the church, and there's a vengeful, spiteful attitude, that is not honoring the Lord. That betrays Matthew 5, 38 to 42, and Romans 12, 17 to 21.
It doesn't argue against the place of the civil magistrate there. to execute murderers, to execute rapists, to execute criminal offenders of God's law. That does not get removed or taken away from. But within the life of the Christian and our personal dealings, we need to lighten up. That's the point of Matthew 538 to 42.
It has no bearing on what the governing authorities do in terms of the execution of God's wrath in history. It has to do with you and I on how we deal with each other on a daily basis. That's what Matthew 538 to 42 has to deal with. So when anybody says, oh, how could you believe in capital punishment?
Jesus says we're to turn the other cheek. Ask them, does that mean you don't lock your doors at night? Do you not use banks? You just put your money on, you know, your windowsill.
You don't even try to hide it. I mean, is that what turn the other cheek means, doesn't it? We're not going to resist an evil person. Why resist any evil person?
Why not just put our money on the front grass and let whoever evil person wants to just grab it? I mean, isn't that what it means to turn the other cheek? You see, that's a reductio ad absurdum. That's when you take an argument and you reduce it to absurdity.
Nobody thinks that. Nobody teaches that turn the other cheek means don't lock your car. It's just a matter of, you know, it's unfortunate that Christians get caught up in this sort of thing. You know, the Bible says turn the other cheek.
It sure does. I'm not saying it doesn't. But what's the context? What's the point?
You have to understand context. You have to understand to whom is the author speaking. You have to understand categories, there is individual, there is family, there is society, there is government, there is church, there's these various spheres of authority in God's world. And we don't just sort of lump it all together and say that the Supreme Court justice turns the other cheek in light of a vicious and a heinous crime.
That is not biblical interpretation. That is unfortunately an abuse of the biblical text. So what we find in Matthew 5 is not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally. Of course we're to oppose it personally.
Wickedness. It's not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in the church. It's not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in society.
Christ and Paul Resist Evil
Turn to John 18 for a moment. John 18. Just to see the one who spoke Matthew 5, 38 to 42. John 18, 22.
And when he had said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Do you answer the high priest like that? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why do you strike me? Notice what Jesus doesn't do.
Jesus does not say, here's the other cheek, smack it too. Jesus reproves him. Jesus chides him. Jesus says, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why do you strike me?
It was not righteous. Jesus, in effect, is resisting this particular evil person. Again, it's not on the level of individual personal dealings on a daily basis. He is on a trial.
He is standing before an authority. This authority has abused his authority. Jesus doesn't turn the other cheek, but rather Jesus says, you better proffer some evidence that what you're doing is legit and what you're doing is right. Paul appeals for civil justice.
Paul rebukes a high priest when he is struck on the mouth. Paul uses military protection upon hearing a threat on his life. We saw that in Acts 23 in our scripture reading. Paul's nephew finds out there's a conspiracy to murder Paul.
What does Paul say? Well, I'll just turn the other cheek. I'll let them kill me. No, he tells the magistrate, he tells the authority, they then provide an armed guard to see to it that Paul gets to where he's supposed to be going.
It's a different context. Paul will bear with a lot of indignity, Paul will bear with a lot of suffering on the interpersonal relationship. But when these Jews conspire together to kill him to keep him from preaching the gospel, he will use his Roman citizenship to invoke protection so that he may go to where he is supposed to go. Matthew 5.38 to 42 is not a universal law. to never ever resist anybody ever.
It has to do with the way you function in your daily life. Don't be one of those petty people like the Pharisees. Don't be like those people that apply the lex talionis to every instance, every day, every job. Isn't that terrible, dealing with people like that?
Isn't it horrible dealing with people that want to make this federal case out of everything? Lighten up, man. In the family, in the church, lighten up a little bit. That's the point in Matthew 5, 38 to 42.
Lighten up. Not don't do the death penalty. You see? Two hugely different things.
Objection: Woman Caught in Adultery
And the last biblical objection is the woman caught in adultery in John 8. John chapter eight, there's a lot going on in this. Well, there's not a lot going on in this passage. It's pretty cut and dry.
The offense, a woman was caught in adultery, right? That's a capital offense. They were right. They were right.
The law of God, the law of Moses prohibited adultery. We have seen this in our studies in the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy chapter 22, specifically verses 21 to 23, deals with adultery. If adultery takes place, then what happens?
Then what? She gets stoned, but what else? He gets stung, okay? Notice that they come to Jesus and say, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
That's interesting, isn't it? Where's he? How could she be caught in the very act of adultery without a partner? There's no way.
Right? Well, John tells us what their endgame is. John tells us what they are trying to do. Notice in verse 6, this they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him.
So you see, they have sought to put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. The horns of a dilemma is when you set up a logical situation where you cannot win. If he lets her go, he doesn't care about the law of Moses. If he says she ought to be executed in accordance with the law of Moses, then he really doesn't care about sinners.
So you see, either he's an antinomian, or he just doesn't care whatsoever about the people whom he supposedly come to save. They are not pursuing justice. Their whole idea here to say in verse 5, now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. They are not concerned about what Moses said in the law.
They don't care one bit about what Moses said in the law. They are concerned only to try and catch Jesus, to put him on either side of this dilemma, to make him look like he's an antinomian. That means he's against the law. He disagrees with Moses.
Or to show that if he does agree with Moses, then he doesn't really love sinners. He hates adulterous women, and he wants to see them die, like all of the religious leaders of the time. So that's the case, that's the scenario, that's what is going on here. Now we need to understand that in this particular situation, Jesus is not the man to go to.
Jesus is not a church leader. I mean, he was a rabbi in terms of being a teacher, but he wasn't an officially sanctioned Pharisee or Sadducee. He had no ecclesiastical authority, nor did he have any civil authority. You understand?
He wasn't a magistrate. At this point, Jesus was a normal, regular, everyday man. He wasn't an ecclesiastical official. He wasn't a civil official.
So really, he's not the man to bring a guilty criminal to. But what Jesus does, instead of getting hung up on these horns of a dilemma, is that Jesus actually holds to the law and exercises compassion. It's a beautiful thing. What does Jesus do?
He calls for witnesses. Isn't that what's specified in the Law of Moses? Isn't that what is commanded? This appeal to, or first off, when it says, Jesus stooped down and he wrote on the ground with his finger as though he did not hear.
People wonder what he wrote with his finger. I have no clue what he wrote with his finger. You know, people say he's writing the Ten Commandments. He was writing the Seventh Commandment.
Who knows? I don't know. I have no idea. I mean, I guess it would preach well.
Yeah, he's right. And you shall not commit adultery. I don't know. Verse seven.
So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. Now, when he says without sin, I don't think he means someone who is sinlessly perfect. Because then we'd never have magistrates judge people. I think he means he who is without this particular sin among you.
When he tells this woman, go and sin no more, Jesus doesn't side with John Wesley. Jesus isn't a perfectionist. I mean, he is a perfectionist because he's Jesus, and he always does what is perfect. But when he says to this woman, go and sin no more, he doesn't believe that she can actually always perpetually keep the law of God.
He probably means, go and commit adultery no more. Don't engage in this act of sin. anymore. So when he says, he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. I think what he is doing is appealing to the law, and he is calling for witnesses.
He wants the witnesses to say that, in fact, this is the deal, to take up the stone and to throw it at them first. Remember that law of witnesses. Remember that a false witness was in a really bad spot. Deuteronomy 19, if you were a false witness and it was determined that you were a false witness, then you would be executed or you would get the punishment that the crime deserved.
So the fact that he says, he who is without sin among you, he's probably appealing to this sin of adultery. This sin that they themselves were guilty of. This sin that they themselves knew all too well. Did you notice none of them stayed?
None of them picked up a stone. None of them actually obeyed the Sanctia. Because they were guilty. They were in the category of false witness.
It would have been wrong for them. If it turned out that it could be proven that they themselves were guilty of adultery, then they would be culpable for the very same thing. So you see, this appeal to the witness taking up stone to stone her first is an appeal to the law of Moses. He is saying, in essence, I believe what is written.
Verse 8, again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest, even to the last. Some of the Bible commentators says it was very common for the religious leaders to have their girlfriends on the side. I don't, you know, I'm not there, I trust these men's scholarship, but this much we do know, those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one.
So when Jesus says He was without sin, they knew they were not. They knew that they were false witnesses, so none of them did it. And so Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst, when Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?
She said, no one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. So you see, in this horns of a dilemma, Jesus runs right through and upholds both.
He is, at the one and the same time, holding allegiance to the law, specifying witnesses, specifying the witnesses, throw the stone first. But on the other hand, he is exercising that compassion. and that mercy and that forgiveness and that grace. So this text does not militate against the governing authorities executing criminal offenders of the law. Does everybody get that?
This is not a text that is contrary to the death penalty. Again, Calvin's comments are important here. Let us remember that while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws. He's Jesus, he upholds the law, he forgives sin.
It's a wonderful, excellent expression of the kindness and mercy of Christ and of his brilliance and of his ingenuity. I mean, these guys were testing him. You know, if they tested me like that, I'd fail one way or the other. Yeah, stoner.
No, don't stoner. I'd be hung up. Jesus fulfills this. He exercises this wisdom in navigating between these two contraries, and he does so in accordance with God's holy law.
So those are some biblical objections. I'm sure there's others. Those are some of the sort of the the more prevalent ones.
Pragmatic Objections
Pragmatic objections will run through very quickly.
Objection: Inconsistent with Forgiveness
First, capital punishment is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Capital punishment is so beneath you Christians. It's terrible. I thought you were a forgiving people.
You're horrible, that you actually think that that rapist or that murderer should be executed by the state. Where is your compassion? This is an unfortunate one because I think, again, people glom everything together. Didn't Jesus die for sinners?
Yes. It has nothing to do with the reality that this person raped a little girl and she died. It's two different things, apples and oranges. That's not to say Jesus can't forgive that man.
Not at all. He can forgive him. But the Christian's attitude of forgiveness is compromised with any type of punishment. If we say you should pay back the money you stole from me, well, where's your forgiveness, man?
If I say I think you should go to jail for running that child over and backing over him 1,000 times, where's your forgiveness? You see, any punishment at all is inconsistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Again, what does the Bible say? The Bible says, execute criminal offenders.
Objection: Not an Expression of Mercy
Secondly, capital punishment is not an expression of mercy. Capital punishment is not an expression of mercy. It's interesting how oftentimes in these pragmatic objections, we forget the lack of mercy that was shown to the victim of a violent crime. We want all kinds of mercy to go to the criminal, the perpetrator of a violent crime, but no one really cares about the mercy that was not given to the victim of that violent crime.
Again. Execution of a criminal offender is not an expression of mercy. I own that. It's not supposed to be an expression of mercy.
It is an expression of justice. You see, the same Bible that enjoins upon us the necessity of forgiveness and the necessity of mercy is the same Bible that says we ought to pursue justice. We ought to pursue righteousness.
Objection: Executing the Innocent
Thirdly, capital punishment is used on innocent people. Some of the literature suggests that blacks are far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites. We should certainly oppose a misuse. We should certainly oppose an abuse.
We should certainly oppose any sort of racial profiling that would indicate that certain demographics or certain people groups get more capital punishment because they happen to be a different color. But remember the biblical necessity. It is on the basis of two or three witnesses that a capital punishment is inflicted. With the advancements in DNA fingerprinting and all that sort of a thing, it is possible to say with certainty that we have a guilty offender.
That being the case, he should be punished as the law prescribes. Now, we should fight, labor, champion, and truly try to protect innocent people. But because of the fact that we are not infallible, should not militate against or argue against the application of something that God has appointed. Whoever sheds man's blood By imperfect man, his blood will be shed.
We ought to pursue righteousness. We ought to pursue. We must pursue. There must be two or three witnesses in the execution of capital punishment.
Objection: Does Not Deter Crime
Fourthly, capital punishment does not deter crime. We dealt with this last week. That's not its purpose. Capital punishment punishes crime.
That's its purpose. It's retribution. It is remuneration. It is payback.
When we get to that incorrigible son in Deuteronomy 21, his parents have chastised him, his parents have pleaded with him, his parents have exercised pressure upon him, his parents have tried to remedy his state. When they turn him over to the elders, When they level the charges against him, when the trial is conducted and the sentence is handed down, and the city people throw stones at this young man, it's not remedial in nature. It is punishment. It is retribution.
So when someone says, well, the death penalty doesn't deter anyone, you can happily answer them, that's not the point. The point is it punishes the criminal. Now Paul says in Romans 13, there is a deterrent effect. There is a corollary.
Be afraid. He doesn't bear the sword in vain. You ought to be afraid of being capitally punished.
Objection: Cuts Off Chance of Salvation
And then fifthly and finally, this is really an Arminian objection, or a Pelagian objection, or one based on a faulty understanding of the sovereignty of God. And interestingly enough, is contradicted just the opposite in the scripture. Some say capital punishment will prohibit a sinner from being saved. In other words, if we say you are being sentenced to death, we are cutting this person off from the chance of salvation.
Now, in God's sovereignty, if that criminal receives the death sentence, he can and most assuredly will be, if it is God's purpose, be converted on death row. Now, in America, for instance, in those states that still practice capital punishment, there is an automatic 12-year appeal process. So if you get guilty, sentenced to death, you've got about 12 years to appeal this process. So it's not like they take you out back and let you go.
But some people are concerned that if we engage in capital punishment, that sinner is being cut off from the chance of everlasting life. Now, God is sovereign. If somebody engages in a capital offense, they are sentenced to capital punishment, then certainly God in his ordination, God in his decree, has purpose to save that particular individual. It's interesting.
On death row, or in the last minutes of a man's life, who do they let speak to him? A minister. Right? That guy doesn't need Rick Warren trying to help him figure out his purpose in life at that point.
He needs gospel. He needs to hear about the blood. He needs atonement. But, you know, there is an instance where a man was sentenced to capital punishment.
And far from keeping him from the kingdom, it ushered him into the kingdom. Remember that thief on the cross? He was subject to capital punishment. I can hear the Armenians now.
Oh, but he'll never get saved. He happened to be on the cross right next to the Savior himself. And the Savior himself says, today you will be with me in paradise. Do not think for a moment that the sentence of capital punishment will cut a sinner off from the saving purposes of God.
If God has purpose to save a sinner, even if that sinner is to be capitally punished, God will save him. He'll get the gospel. in the 11th hour, and he'll live with Jesus forever and ever. So those are some pragmatic objections. I'm sure there are many, many others, but those are just some to sort of scratch the surface.
God willing, we'll get into the remainder of Chapter 25 in Deuteronomy next week, where we will see the one instance of punitive amputation. The one instance I'm aware of in the Old Testament of punitive amputation, that is when the woman seizes the genitals of the man fighting her husband, the word of God says, cut off her hand. So might be an interesting one next week. If you don't have plans, I invite you to be here.
Todd thought I was afraid of moving on in chapter 25. Good one, yeah, he'll give me a hand.
Closing Prayer
Okay, well let's close in prayer. Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for its clarity. We thank you for its consistency.
We thank you for its sufficiency. And God, give us wisdom as we approach these subjects. Give us grace, God, in our generation to think biblically when so many things around us would argue against your word, so many within the church even argue against your word. We pray that you would help us with humility to insist upon a proper understanding of your truth, to be prayerful concerning these things, and God help us to put into practice the law of God, and help us to take to heart Matthew 5.38-42, and see it doesn't argue against capital punishment, it certainly argues for us though, to be long-suffering and to be forebearing with one another.
We pray now that you would go with us and watch over us, and we ask in Jesus' name, Amen.