← Back to sermon library

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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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 will run 
through very quickly. 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. 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. 
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. 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. 
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. 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.