← Back to sermon library

We launched off from Leviticus 
chapter 20, where there are several capital crimes in view there, 
and then have done a bit of a biblical theology of the death penalty. So we looked at, as I said, chapter 
20 in the book of Leviticus. It deals with first table offenses, 
the worship of Molech and the practice of witchcraft, and then 
second table offenses, the cursing appearance, various forms of 
sexual transgression, And then it ends again on witchcraft. 
So all of those were capital offenses. So after looking at 
Leviticus chapter 20, we did a bit in the Old Testament, Genesis 
9. Specifically, whoever sheds man's 
blood, by man his blood will be shed, for in the image of 
God he made man. And then we considered the Mosaic 
or the Old Covenant. with the additional capital crimes, 
and then the clarification between manslaughter and murder. As far 
as the New Testament, we consider the crucifixion of Jesus. He 
didn't boycott the death sentence that he received. He took it 
according to his humanity, suffered on our behalf for us and for 
our salvation. We saw that bit in the Apostle 
Paul in his defense before Festus, In Acts 25 at verse 11, he does 
not reject or resist death if in fact he is guilty, for if 
I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death. 
So the language suggests more than just the crime of murder, 
is a capital offense. So he says, if I am an offender 
or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to 
dying. But if there is nothing in these 
things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to 
them. I appeal to Caesar. And then Paul's words in Romans 
13, probably one of the strongest New Testament witnesses, the 
sword given to the magistrate to execute God's wrath and judgment 
in history. So I'll read beginning in Romans 
13 at verse one. 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 
and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore, 
you must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for 
conscience sake. For because of this, you also 
pay taxes, for they are God's ministers, attending continually 
to this very thing. Render therefore to all their 
due, taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, 
fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Oh, no one anything except 
to love one another. for he who loves another has 
fulfilled the law. For the commandments, you shall 
not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, 
you shall not bear false witness, you shall not covet, and if there 
is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying. 
Namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm 
to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 
And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake 
out of sleep. For now our salvation is nearer 
than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day 
is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the 
works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let 
us walk properly as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, 
not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy, but put on 
the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to 
fulfill its lusts. Amen. So again, verses one to 
four is central in terms of the death penalty debate. And as 
far as I'm concerned, what we've seen in scripture, there should 
be no debate as far as Christians are concerned. It is very clear, 
it is very obvious, and yet there are those who object, both within 
the church and outside of the church. So as we look at common 
objections to the death penalty, we'll first consider the biblical 
objections, and then secondly, the pragmatic objections. The 
first of the biblical objections is the mistranslation in Exodus 
20, verse 13 in the King James Bible. This is an easy one to 
dispense with. It says, you shall not kill. 
Well, remember, when it comes to clarification, the rest of 
the Old Covenant does demonstrate a difference between manslaughter 
and murder. So not all killing is murder. 
And so when we read Genesis 9 at verse 6, or rather when we read 
Exodus chapter 20 at verse 13, we need to understand that the 
word kill there has other meanings. There's a broader semantic range. 
And in fact, Walter Kaiser says, while Hebrew possesses seven 
words for killing, the word used here appears only 47 times in 
the Old Testament. If any one of the seven words 
could signify murder, where factors of premeditation and intentionality 
are present, this is the verb. So in other words, it's just 
not the best translation. It's not a wrong translation. 
Certainly, killing is murder, but not all murder, or all killing, 
what's the way? All murder is killing, but not 
all killing is murder. That's what I'm trying to get 
at here. So the translation is not the best. But again, when 
we look at the Bible, self-defense, you can kill somebody defending 
yourself. That's not obviously the first 
recourse. You use the force necessary to 
accomplish the task of defense. Secondly, just and necessary 
war. And then, of course, the death penalty. So it's not a 
good or logical objection biblically to the death penalty. The second 
is probably a little bit more difficult to deal with. It's 
in Matthew chapter 5. Matthew chapter 5, you can turn 
there, the pacifist reading of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, 
specifically Matthew 5 at verses 38 to 42. I'll read the section 
and then we'll look at it. Notice, 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 some take this and say, well, there 
it is. You cannot engage in an eye for an eye Ethic, and Jesus 
says not to resist an evil person. If somebody slaps you on the 
face, then turn the other cheek to them and let them slap away. That is the usual interpretation 
to try and combat the death penalty, or just a necessary war, or even 
self-defense. It's the pacifist understanding 
of this particular passage. Now, as we look at this, we need 
to notice first a contrast. Jesus does this in verse 38, 
but he doesn't just do it here. Notice back in verse 21. You 
have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not murder, 
and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment, but I 
say to you. And then again in verse 27, you 
have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not commit 
adultery, but I say to you. And then in verse 33, again, 
you have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not 
swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord, but I 
say to you. So there's this series of contrasts 
that Jesus is making in the Sermon on the Mount. And at least at 
this part of the Sermon on the Mount, the primary emphasis is 
the Mosaic law or the old covenant law. Look at 517. Do not think 
that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come 
to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till 
heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no 
means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore 
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men 
so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever 
does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom 
of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds 
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no 
means enter the kingdom of heaven." So at this point in his ministry, 
most likely people were saying, what does he think about the 
law of Moses? What does he do with old covenant law? Well, 
he's telling us what he does with old covenant law. Do not 
think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't 
come to destroy, but to fulfill. So when he makes these series 
of contrasts, some call them antitheses, in the Sermon on 
the Mount, he's not against Moses. He's not saying Moses said this, 
but I say this. He is saying what His interpreters 
have said, concerning Moses, the Pharisees, and the scribes, 
what they have said is problematic, and what they have said is wrong. 
It's not Moses giving of the law. It's the misinterpretation 
that has attached itself to that law. So Jesus is clarifying, 
and highlighting, and showing, and demonstrating, and confirming 
his allegiance to that law that was originally given none. Notice, 
it's not given by Moses, it's mediated through Moses. God gives 
the law through Moses. So there's this series of contrasts, 
or these antitheses, and here specifically in verse 38, he 
says, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and 
a tooth for a tooth. This is called the Lex Talionis, 
or the law of retribution. the law of retaliation. It's 
specified in Exodus 21-24, Leviticus 24-20, and Deuteronomy 19-21. Now people get horrified at the 
thought of this, but it simply means that the punishment must 
fit the crime. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, wound 
for wound, and life for life. The idea is that the punishment 
must fit the crime. And then van Drunen makes the 
observation, far from promoting unbridled vengeance, the lex 
talionis prohibits excessive retaliation. You can keep your 
finger there in Matthew 5 and turn for just a moment to Deuteronomy 
chapter 25. Deuteronomy chapter 25. We need 
to understand that the Old Covenant law was not barbaric. It wasn't 
something that was just bloodthirsty. It wasn't just about, let's cause 
the city streets to flow with blood. No, there was built into 
Old Covenant law protections and strictures so that punishment 
was not excessive. And Deuteronomy 25, 1 to 3, is 
a good example of that. And the specific issue here is 
corporal punishment. Somebody is going to get a beating 
for having transgressed in the covenant community. Now, do with 
that whatever you want, but that was what was happening at this 
particular time. We can discuss the merits of 
corporal punishment in society on another day, but notice specifically 
how this is framed. if there is a dispute between 
men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, 
and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. So there's 
a proper trial. In other words, there's due process, 
laws of evidence, cross-examination, all that sort of thing. And they 
justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. Then it shall be, 
if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will 
cause him to lie down. So there's proper supervision. 
It's not, well, take him out and let him have it. No, it's 
not like that. There's proper supervision. The judge will cause 
him to lie down and be beaten in his presence according to 
his guilt. Not to exceed his guilt, not 
throw in a few extra stripes for good measure, not throw in 
a few good extra ones because maybe we didn't catch him in 
doing other things. No, it's according to his guilt 
with a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him, 
and no more, lest he should exceed this, and beat him with many 
blows above these. And then notice, even the criminal 
is an image-bearer of God, and as such is to be treated with 
dignity. And your brother be humiliated in your sight." It 
would be humiliation for him to have an excessive beating 
for a particular crime. He's to be punished according 
to his guilt. So go back to Matthew chapter 5. Understand that the 
lex talionis principle is not barbaric. It's not out of line. 
It's something that civil jurisprudence always operates in light of. 
The punishment must fit the crime. But that's the point. This is 
not an instance of civil jurisprudence. This is day-to-day living. This is day-to-day ethics. This is how you engage in interpersonal 
relationships. Jesus is not dealing with law 
courts here. Jesus is not dealing with the 
civil structure in Old Covenant Israel, or what they find themselves 
in now in the Roman Empire. He says, 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. He does not mean that 
without qualification. He does not mean do not resist 
an evil person ever, because as we've seen, self-defense is 
authorized according to Exodus 22, two and three. Jesus invokes 
the principle by way of an illustration in Luke 12, 39. Again, that's 
not his point in Luke 12, but the fact that he uses that particular 
illustration shows that he nods to it and approves of it and 
understands that it's in play and people understand and get 
it. As well, it cannot mean do not resist an evil person with 
reference to the ecclesiastical sphere. Matthew 18, 1 to 15, 
we've got rules for church discipline. You know, we don't say, well, 
this brother or this sister has been found out in the act of 
adultery. Well, we're not supposed to resist an evil person. Let 
them just do whatever it is that they want to do. 1 Corinthians 
chapter 5. The Apostle Paul says, it's actually been reported among 
you that a man has his father's wife. And not only did you guys 
know about this, but you've been arrogant about it. So you are 
supposed to resist an evil person. If he's coming in to rape your 
family or he's coming in to murder you, you must resist him. In the church, you must resist 
evil people that are unrepentant. It might get to that latter stage 
of church discipline where you treat them as a heathen and a 
tax collector. That is absolutely resisting an evil person. and 
then resistance in society. God would not have clothed the 
civil government with the sword of vengeance if we were not supposed 
to resist an evil person. Just let them thrive, let them 
flourish, let them do whatever evil they want to do, because 
Jesus says we're not supposed to resist an evil person. He 
cannot mean ever. He rather means in ordinary situations 
that you face on a daily basis. In other words, don't be sue 
happy because your neighbor's dog defecated on your yard, as 
much as you might want to get sue happy about that. I've had 
a couple of interesting experiences this week, and it wasn't dogs. And it's only Wednesday, brethren. 
I'd like to see some Lex Talionis with reference to that. But he 
means in ordinary situations that you face on a daily basis. 
He is not speaking of matters of crime and punishment. You've 
got to get context when you study scripture. And he cannot be interpreted 
according to a pacifistic reading because then the text would say 
too much. Imagine if we took this seriously 
and literally as a pacifist, but I tell you not to resist 
an evil person. That means no locks on your doors. No guard dog named Rudy that 
likes to eat human flesh in your backyard. No alarm on your house. And no gun, I almost said under 
your bed, but I'm in Canada, so no gun in your safe. That's not what Jesus is talking 
about. He's not saying that if somebody 
intrudes upon your home and they come in in the hours of darkness, 
invite them in, make them coffee while they pillage and loot and 
destroy. That's not the way we're supposed to understand this. 
The specific issue that Jesus is combating here in the Sermon 
on the Mount, at least here in chapter five, is the application 
of civil law to personal relationships. There's got to be a demarcation. 
Not everything needs to go to court. Not everything needs to 
be adjudicated by a judge. Not everything needs to go to 
that nth degree. The application of the lex talionis 
to everyday situations makes you obnoxious, essentially. Spurgeon 
says, 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. John Murray says the lex talionis 
was part of the order of public justice and not private revenge. So again, you don't invoke this 
principle. That man's dog defecated on my yard. Fido, go next door 
and make sure you do the same to him. You're not supposed to 
live that way. Bonson says, the Pharisees were 
wont to appeal to the Old Testament principle of equitable punishment 
in civil court to justify personal revenge and vindictiveness. Christ 
is speaking to the situation of interpersonal relations and 
prohibited the exacting of due punishment for wrong suffered. 
So again, the context. makes it evident that Jesus is 
not suggesting that we get rid of self-defense, we get rid of 
death penalty, and we do away with the concept of just and 
necessary war. As well, the examples of Jesus 
and Paul. You can turn to John's Gospel, 
John chapter 18. Because one of the illustrations 
that Jesus is going to use in verse 39 is whoever slaps you 
on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. So look at 
John 18, specifically at verses 22 and 23. 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? See, it doesn't say he turned 
the other cheek to him so that he could get buffeted or slapped 
on the other cheek. And then look at Paul in Acts 
chapter 16. Again, addressing or seeking redress 
through civil government for wrongs committed against him. 
So he can't say, well, Paul, what are you doing? You're resisting 
an evil person, and Jesus told you not to do that in Matthew 
chapter 5. Look at Acts 16, specifically at verse 37. Well, verse 35, 
And when it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, Let 
those men go. So the keeper of the prison reported these words 
to Paul, saying, The magistrates have sent to let you go. Now, 
therefore, depart and go in peace. But Paul said to them, They have 
beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into 
prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No, indeed, let them come themselves 
and get us out. That doesn't sound like somebody 
who's not resisting an evil person. He's calling them out on their 
misdeeds. Notice as well in Acts chapter 
23, specifically verses 2 to 5. Acts 23, verses 2 to 5. Well, picking up in verse one, 
Paul before the Sanhedrin. Then Paul, looking earnestly 
at the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all 
good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest 
Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 
Then Paul said to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall. 
For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command 
me to be struck contrary to the law? And those who stood by said, 
do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not know 
brethren that he was the high priest, for it is written, you 
shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. Some interpret 
this in a curious way. Some say, well, Paul most likely 
had a problem with his eyes. I mean, I think that's an obvious. 
sort of implication from the book of Galatians. He said, you 
treated me like an angel. You would have given me your 
own eyes. Some suggest he got malaria, affected his eyes. Whatever 
the problem was, he had eye problems. So some say, well, he just couldn't 
tell that that was the high priest. That's not what I think is going 
on. I think Calvin's right. I did 
not know, brethren, that he was the high priest because he's 
not acting like the high priest. The high priest just can't slap 
people for no good reason. You can't just, without due process, 
let somebody have it in a court. That is absolutely contrary to 
the law of God. Anyways, Paul calls this man 
out. He doesn't not resist the evildoer. And then in Acts 23 
and 24, Paul gets wind that there's a conspiracy to murder him. His 
nephew overhears. The nephew rats him out. Paul 
hears about it. And then Paul invokes his rights 
as a citizen to get a military guard to transport him. So again, 
that cannot be, you know, don't ever resist an evil person. So whatever 539 means, it can't 
be contradictory to the practice of our Lord Jesus and to the 
practice of the Apostle Paul. You can keep your finger there, 
your pencil there, whatever you want to put there, and turn back 
to Romans. I mentioned last week, to really 
understand Romans 13, you need to go back to Romans 12. And 
I would suggest that it's Romans 12, 17 to 21, that is paralleled 
with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 5 at verse 38. So when it comes 
to your personal day-to-day ethics, you don't call down the wrath 
of God on your enemy whose dog defecated on your yard. When 
it comes to the day-to-day issues that you deal with, you don't 
have to sue everybody, you don't have to take them to court, you 
don't have to, you know, go nuts on them. You deal with that bearing 
and that forebearing attitude. So I think 1217 to 21 in Romans 
is the parallel to Matthew 5. So repay no one for evil. Have 
regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, 
as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, 
do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For 
it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. 
Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give 
him a drink. For in so doing, you will heat coals of fire on 
his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with 
good. So in your daily life, in your personal ethics, that's 
the way you're supposed to function. But if somebody's criminal behavior, 
if somebody's, you know, murdered your sister or raped your wife, 
yes, you call the magistrate. Yes, you invoke the civil authority. Yes, you turn them over to God's 
avenger of wrath in history. And that's what Romans 13, 1 
to 4, goes on to say. So in your daily life, deal with people 
with bearing and forbearing. If people engage in criminal 
activities against you, there is redress. And that redress 
is in the civil magistrate. And if that person is guilty 
of a capital offense, that person will be executed by the death 
penalty. And so Turretin comments here 
on this passage in Romans 12. He says, blameless protection 
is not prohibited in Romans 12.19. In other words, self-defense. 
Blameless protection. You come into my house, I'm going 
to get that shoehorn, and I'm going to let swing. Blameless 
protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 19, but private 
revenge. That's the difference between 
Romans 12, 17 to 21, and Romans 13, 1 to 4. So going back to Matthew chapter 
5, he's not saying don't resist an evil person ever. Let criminals 
do whatever it is they want to. No, you can call the police. 
You can turn them over to the civil state so that they can 
be rightly punished. And then he gives a series of 
illustrations there in Matthew 5 in verses 39 to 42. So how 
do we function daily? Well, the believer's response 
to insult, verse 39b, the believer's response concerning his rights 
in verse 40, the believer's response to the governing authority, verse 
41, and then the believer's response to benevolence in verse 42. Notice 
the response to insult, 39b. Whoever slaps you on your right 
cheek, turn the other to him also. Think about that, right 
cheek. How do you slap the right cheek? with your left hand usually, 
right? Wouldn't you? But most people 
aren't left-handed, so you would backhand. So it's not so much 
an attempt to really hurt this person, it's probably more of 
an insult. when it comes down to it. Whoever 
slaps you on your right cheek or whoever insults you, don't 
make the biggest deal in the world out of it. The fact that 
you are slapped on your right cheek in a right-hand dominant 
society, I think it's safe to say throughout the history of 
the world it's been a right-hand dominant society. If you're a 
lefty here, forgive me, but that just seems to be the majority 
report. in a right-hand dominant society indicates that violent 
crime is not envisaged here, but an insult to your person. 
This is not somebody who's trying to get over you so he can get 
to your wife to have his way with her. This is more like an 
insult. The Lord Jesus is not advocating 
giving way to violent criminals or not responding to your country's 
call for military service. Lloyd-Jones, in his studies in 
the Sermon on the Mount, has a good observation about that. The guy who reads this and has 
this conflict of interest in terms of joining the military, 
Lloyd-Jones says, this has nothing to do with that, nothing whatsoever. The second is the believer's 
response concerning his rights. Verse 40, if anyone wants to 
sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 
Again, brother, we're not talking about somebody bankrupting you 
in business. We're not talking about somebody 
committing arson against your house. Well, you know, my garage, 
you forgot to set that alight too. Now, the Lord Jesus discourages 
here a sue-happy people who are more insistent upon their personal 
rights than upon advancing his kingdom through forbearance of 
wrongs committed against him. John Murray says, the lesson 
is surely not that we are to avoid all appeal to public justice 
as administered by magisterial authority, but in line with what 
we have found in verses 25 and 26, our Lord is inculcating the 
virtue of forbearance, even with reference to those who do us 
injustice. and the necessity of resigning ourselves to privations 
which spring from the miscarriage of justice." Now, no doubt you're 
going to say, some of this is hard. Yeah, it is hard. That's 
why Jesus had to command it, because it doesn't come natural 
to us, and we need wisdom on how best to apply these sorts 
of things. But that he's not talking about getting rid of 
the place of just war, getting rid of the place of self-defense, 
and getting rid of capital punishment, I think it's pretty obvious. 
And then the believer's response to the governing authority. Verse 
41, and whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him too. 
Now the example refers to the Roman practice of commandeering 
civilians to carry the luggage of military personnel a prescribed 
distance, usually one Roman mile. Roman soldiers had the right 
to conscript civilians to carry burdens for them, but the practice 
was despised by the Jewish people, which you could probably understand 
why. we're under subjugation, and 
here comes this soldier, and he says, hey, pick that up and 
carry it a mile. What does Jesus say? Go with 
him an extra mile. You see an illustration of this 
in Matthew 27 at verse 32. Now, as they came out, they found 
a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear his 
cross. So what Jesus is saying, again, 
doesn't mean we can't, you know, sue Bonnie Henry. We should sue 
Bonnie Henry. We should pray for victory over 
Bonnie Henry and her being sued. It doesn't mean that, but it 
means in the daily affairs of life, we're not suing everybody 
that happens to rub us the wrong way. And then the believer's 
response to benevolence in verse 42, give to him who asks you, 
and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. That's 
great policy as a private individual, but a horrible one with reference 
to civil government. Don't give away money like that. 
That's not right. Don't take from us and just give 
it indiscriminately to everybody else. Great policy privately, 
but bad policy in terms of the macro level. The believer is 
to be diligent, to give to him who asks you, but again, careful. 
The guy's got a needle hanging out of his arm and he asks you 
for $25. It might not be the best expenditure 
of money. You can buy him a hamburger, 
pull the needle out of his arm, do something, but giving him 
money to subsidize evil isn't necessarily the best way to go. Remember Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 
3.10, if a man does not work, neither shall he eat. But the 
believer is to demonstrate a generous spirit and a loving benevolence 
that should characterize kingdom citizens. And again, this simply 
highlights and reiterates what we find in the Old Testament. 
So this bit, this section, specifically in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus is 
showing his relation to the Old Testament law. He's not saying, 
it's terrible, get rid of it, pull it out of your Bible, excise 
it, because I'm here. That's not what he does at all. 
He nods to it, he approves of it, he confirms it, and he promises 
fulfillment of it. So he treats the law of Moses 
with a great deal of respect. He's not teaching new things. He is expounding on what the 
law had always maintained, but had been neglected by the religious 
leaders, and thus the people in Israel. I mean, we just went 
through Leviticus 19 recently. Isn't that deal with our personal 
ethics one to another? We're supposed to be characterized 
by love and kindness. We're supposed to demonstrate 
forbearance and long-suffering. These aren't new concepts. They 
are concepts that have been obliterated by bad interpretation. And so 
Jesus comes not to pit himself against Moses, but against Moses' 
interpreters that had taken the generation of Jesus' day into 
the pit. And then the last one, in terms 
of the biblical ones, is in John chapter 8. John chapter 8, we 
won't deal with the textual issue, we'll just assume that it's there. 
John chapter 8, the woman caught in adultery, verses 1 to 11. The offense, very clearly specified 
in verse 1, we'll read. Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 
Now early in the morning, He came again into the temple, and 
all the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them. 
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught 
in adultery. And when they had set her in 
the midst, they said to Him, Teacher, This woman was caught 
in adultery in the very act." Already we're faced with a bit 
of a problem because in their zeal to, you know, get this woman 
on the hot seat, they neglected the fellow. Now, they're right 
that this is a capital offense. Leviticus chapter 20, we've seen 
that in our passage, verse 10, and then again in Deuteronomy 
chapter 22, verses 21 to 24. But they say, teacher, this woman 
was caught in adultery in the very act. The mandate in the 
Old Covenant was that both the woman and the man should have 
been executed, not just the woman. So they're already operating 
in a very uneven sort of a way. Now John alerts us to the real 
issue, in case we miss it. Verse 5, now Moses in the law 
commanded us that such should be stoned. Sort of a similar 
situation. Matthew 5 doesn't say they were 
asking, what do you think of the law? But by virtue of the 
fact that he says, do not think that I came to abolish the law 
and the prophets, I think it's OK to sort of infer that there 
might have been that. Hey, what does he think about 
the law? Well, here they ask him specifically. But they really 
aren't concerned at all about his view of the law. They just 
want to get him. And as well, at this stage in 
the Lord's ministry, He's not a judge. He doesn't have civil 
authority, and He's not a Pharisee, He's not part of the Sanhedrin, 
He doesn't have any ecclesiastical authority. I mean, he's the Messiah, 
he's the King of Kings and Kings of Lord of Lords, he's the Word 
made flesh and dwelling among us, but at this point, in terms 
of function, in terms of office, he doesn't have the ability to 
adjudicate this case. Again, John alerts us, so they're 
trying to put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. Now, Moses and 
the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do 
you say? Mr. Forgiveness here, what are 
you going to do with this one? Moses said this, you're saying 
this, and then John tells us what's at stake here in verse 
6. This they said, testing him, that they might have something 
of which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote 
on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. So when they continued asking 
him, he raised him up and said to them, He who is without sin 
among you, let him throw a stone at her first. So when you're 
placed on the horns of a dilemma, you're usually going to be wrong. 
You know, it's kind of like the question, have you stopped beating 
your wife yet? How do you answer that question? 
Yes, that meant you were beating her. If you say no, that means 
you're still beating her. You can't win. So the horns of 
a dilemma are designed so that either you're for forgiveness 
or you're for Moses. You can't have it both, Jesus. 
So what does Jesus do? He appeals to the law of Moses, 
verse 7. So when they continued asking 
him, he raised himself up and said to them, he who is without 
sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. That's 
what the mandate is in Deuteronomy 17 and Deuteronomy 19. A capital case must have two 
or three witnesses. The witnesses are the first among 
them to throw the stones at the criminal offender in order to 
execute them. So he appeals to the law of Moses, 
so one horn of the dilemma he grabs onto. And again he stooped 
down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being 
convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning 
with the oldest even to the last. So the idea behind this demand 
for witnesses, I think Poole capitalizes on this well. He 
says, in reason, those who are zealous for the punishment of 
others should neither be guilty of the same nor of greater crimes 
themselves. So likely, and this wasn't according 
to his divinity, it's according to his humanity. It was pretty 
well known that Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, they had girlfriends. 
I mean, you know, it's not the case that our society is the 
only one where adultery or fornication or those sorts of things have 
obtained. It's always kind of been that way. So he invokes 
or appeals to the law of Moses with reference to the witnesses, 
but there's a specific qualification that the witnesses must bear. 
They themselves mustn't be guilty of that particular crime, because 
it's the height of hypocrisy to take up a stone and throw 
it against somebody that's your neighbor. Remember, we're not 
talking about New York City with however many millions of people. 
We're not talking about Vancouver. We're talking about small villages 
where everybody knows everybody. So the two or three witnesses 
are intimately connected to the one they're going to have to 
dispatch via stone to the head. And so again, he stoops down 
and writes on the ground, and those who heard it being convicted 
by their conscience went out one by one, beginning with the 
oldest even to the last. So we could possibly interpret 
he who is without this particular sin among you. I think that's 
how we understand his words to the lady, but that in a moment. So he who is without this particular 
sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. Whether 
that's a good interpretation or not, the idea being that the 
two or three witnesses who are charged with executing the criminal 
offender mustn't be likewise guilty. These persons obviously 
were, so they all left, beginning with the oldest, even to the 
last. So he upholds the demand for witnesses. And now notice, 
Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst. 
When Jesus had raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, 
he said to her, woman, where are those accusers of you? Has 
no one condemned you? There's no witnesses. There's 
no capital offense without two or three witnesses. She said, 
no one, Lord. Now here he goes with the other 
horn. And Jesus said to her, neither do I condemn you. Go 
and sin no more. That's a general call to repentance, 
but it's also a specific demand for no more adultery. Lady, don't 
get caught like this again. This is not godly behavior. This is not consistent with the 
law. This is not the way that you're 
supposed to live. So Jesus upholds the law of Moses 
and exercises the grace of forgiveness all at the same time in this 
particular situation. Now, in terms of the pragmatic 
objections, we'll run quickly through these. First, the death 
penalty is not consistent with Christian forgiveness. The death 
penalty is not consistent with Christian forgiveness. I want 
to say, who cares? But the implementation of any 
punishment would be a violation of this principle, any punishment 
at all. What do you mean you're going 
to give them a fine? That's not forgiveness. Again, 
punishment is not forgiveness. Punishment is not an expression 
of mercy. The recognition that forgiveness 
of sins and punishment of crimes We need to recognize, rather, 
that the punishment of crimes and the forgiveness of sins are 
two different categories. A man can be convicted of a heinous 
crime, come to the Lord Jesus, seek forgiveness with God and 
the victim, find and obtain it, and still be executed for his 
criminal activity. There's no inconsistency there. 
In fact, I'm absolutely convinced that if a man does get saved 
on death row, he's not going to boycott what comes to him 
justly. The thief on the cross recognized 
the justness of his punishment as he chides his fellow thief 
or his fellow insurrectionist. The death penalty is not consistent 
with Christian forgiveness. Again, different categories, 
apples and oranges. Secondly, the death penalty is 
not an expression of mercy. Again, who cares? It's not supposed 
to be an expression of mercy. The death penalty is retributive 
justice. And the objection assumes a distorted 
view of God. The God who abounds in mercy 
calls upon the civil state to execute criminal offenders. Both 
things are taught in the Bible. It's not an either-or proposition. 
The God who exhibits great mercy is the God who nevertheless arms 
the civil government with the sword for the execution of criminal 
offenders. Third, the death penalty is used 
on innocent people. Again, that's an objection that 
really doesn't obliterate the concept. It doesn't obliterate 
the doctrine. The argument assumes that the 
abuse of something argues against its use. Because somebody drinks 
and drives, we don't outlaw driving. Because somebody takes a gun 
and goes and shoots up a schoolyard, shouldn't mean we outlaw guns 
and ownership. The abuse of something does not 
argue against the use of it. And though the death penalty 
perhaps has been or could be abused, it doesn't argue against 
its use. And the argument negates the 
biblical mandate. There are a necessity for two 
or three witnesses. And then as well, the potential 
is greatly reduced nowadays. I mean, with DNA fingerprinting 
and forensic evidence and all the sorts of things, I mean, 
they can pick up your cell phone from wherever and whenever. I think the odds of having an 
innocent man slip through are a lot slimmer now than they've 
ever been. The fourth is that the death 
penalty does not deter crime. It always does in at least one 
case. The one who's executed will never 
be a repeat offender. And quite frankly, repeat offenders 
are a big problem in our generation. When there's no consequences 
associated with offending, the offenders continue to offend. But Romans 13 tells us there 
is a deterrent of fact. And in Romans 13 at verse 3, 
the apostle says, Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? 
Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For 
he has God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, 
be afraid. My argument is that it doesn't 
deter because it's not operating. It's not being used efficiently. 
It's not being carried out. It's not being executed. No, 
he didn't get it. So when we have a properly functioning 
judicial system and a system of penal sanctions that are being 
applied consistently and righteously, then there will be a deterrent 
effect. And then the last is theological, 
and a pragmatic one and a bad one. The death penalty will prohibit 
salvation. No, it won't. A man on death 
row can hear the gospel, believe the gospel, and be saved. It 
may be God's means in His sovereignty to bring that man to a saving 
knowledge of Himself. Being on death row might be that 
wake-up call that some hard-hearted sinner needs to have in order 
to come to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Well, in conclusion, 
when it comes to the concept of penal sanctions, when it comes 
to the idea of punishing crime, the criminal must be punished 
as there must be consequences for criminal conduct. You can't 
escape the teaching of Scripture. You cannot evade the clear intention 
of God. I realize the Old Covenant is 
no longer binding upon us as New Covenant Christians. There's 
something called natural law. There's something that God has 
built into the created order where we know there are certain 
things that are wrong. We know that certain things must 
be punished. Romans 1.32 indicates that, that 
the ungodly knows that it's righteous with God to punish the ungodly. The criminal must be punished 
to mitigate the effects of his crime upon the civil state. You 
shouldn't be afraid to go out of your front door. The criminal 
must be punished in order to deter him and others from committing 
crimes. Again, deterrent is a necessity 
in any society. And as well, the criminal must 
be punished so that he can make atonement for his crime and be 
reconciled with society. Now, when I say make atonement, 
I'm not talking, you know, peace with God through our Lord Jesus. 
But brethren, I got to tell you, you know, having a guy go to 
prison for 20 years and get out and never get a job past car 
wash or being a car washer, dishwasher. He's never going to stop being 
punished. There's no end to his punishment. 
If he's punished, then he's done. Let's move on. That man needs 
that just like society needs that. The criminal must be punished 
so that he can make atonement for his crime and so that he 
can be reconciled to society. If he served his 20 years and 
he did it the way he was supposed to do, I'm not necessarily saying 
have him be your nanny, but he should be able to get a job beyond 
the basics in society. And then the criminal must be 
punished so that the victims can receive relief. We are so 
anti-victim in this modern generation. In fact, we send people to prison 
to do what? To pay their penalty to the state. 
Well, they didn't sin against the state. They didn't beat the 
state. They didn't steal from the state. 
They stole from people. They beat people. They violated 
people. Those people need redress. Those 
people need some sort of relief from what this person did in 
their lives. Secondly, the death penalty in 
civil government. Gordon Clark said, God gave the 
right of capital punishment to human governments. He intended 
it to be used wisely and justly. And again, here's where I register 
my somewhat relief. I'm glad that this magistrate 
isn't wielding the sword, because he might just come after us at 
this point. So listen to what Clark says. 
He intended it to be used wisely and justly, but he intended it 
to be used. Abolition of the death penalty 
presupposes the falsity of Christian principles. Watson said, to kill 
an offender is not murder, but justice. 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 just some thoughts 
to consider. When we read through Leviticus, 
and there's going to be more, and we go through numbers, and 
when we get to Deuteronomy, We're going to meet with more penal 
sanctions against criminal offenders. And I realize in our modern society, 
we recoil at horror at the thought of these things. But God instituted, 
according to His wisdom, for the proper order of society. 
I'm not saying this is redemptive in nature. I'm not saying because 
of the death penalty, the gospel will advance. Brethren, we trust 
Christ to advance His gospel. We also trust Christ to bless 
the use of his law in a civil society to restrain the abject 
wickedness of men and to provide some sort of a context for the 
preaching of special redemptive grace so that men can be saved. Well, I'll close. And then if 
anybody has any comments, we can. Talk through those. Father, 
thank you for your word. Thank you for its clarity at 
the point of penal sanction. I pray that you would give us 
wisdom concerning these things, and thank you for the word of 
God and the revelation that you have given to us in both law 
and gospel. I pray that you would bless your 
word as it goes forth. Bless the preaching of the gospel. 
May it run swiftly and be glorified, and may many people come to a 
knowledge of our blessed Jesus.