in your Bibles to the book of Genesis, Genesis chapter 9. God willing, we'll return to our studies in the book of Acts next week. We will find ourselves, the Lord willing, in Acts chapter 7. But I wanted to extend what we considered last Sunday.
Last Sunday I mentioned it was called Sanctity of Life Sunday, and I preached on the sin of abortion. Well, this morning, as I said, I want to extend that theme and argue for capital punishment as a proof of the sanctity of life. And Genesis chapter 9 and Romans 13 are the foundational texts for this study, so I'll read Genesis chapter 9, beginning in verse 1. So God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs, but you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood.
Surely, for your lifeblood, I will demand a reckoning. From the hand of every beast, I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother, I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.
For in the image of God, he made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply. Bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it. Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, And as for me, behold, I establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth.
Thus I establish my covenant with you. Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood. Never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, this is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations.
I set my rainbow in the cloud and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. It shall be when I bring a cloud over the earth that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud and I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. The water shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud.
And I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. And God said to Noah, this is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth. Amen. Let us pray.
Father, we thank you for the written word of the living God. We thank you that, as was mentioned, it's sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. We know it's profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work. We know that things outside the church are also good works.
So help us to think in terms of Your Word with reference to things connected to the body politic. Help us, God, to have a proper understanding of the value of human life. We see that attack in abortion and euthanasia. We see as well an attack with reference to the the allowance of murderers to continue to live.
God, help us to see what Scripture says concerning these things. And to that end, we pray again for the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Do forgive us for our sins and its darkening influence in our hearts and lives, and help us, God, to have clarity, and help us to judge with righteous judgment those things affecting us in this world. And we ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Amen.
Introduction
Well, a few months ago, August 2, 2018, the governor of New York, the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo, tweeted, the death penalty is morally indefensible and has no place in the 21st century. Today, in solidarity with the pope and in honor of my father, I will be advancing legislation to remove the death penalty from state law once and for all. Now, he cites the Pope there as his authority. Well, the Pope is heretical when it comes to this matter, and I don't believe that all Roman Catholics would agree with the Pope on this matter.
In fact, there are some writing presently that argue in defense of the death penalty. Rome would trace their theological heritage back to Thomas Aquinas. He was certainly pro-death penalty. He was not against the death penalty.
So the Pope is wrong on this fundamental principle. But Andrew Cuomo, just recently, within the time of our last sermon, which was on abortion, was responsible for enacting, by law, protection for mothers and fathers and doctors against murder with reference to babies born right up until the time they are born. In other words, there's no law prohibiting the abortion of a child up until the time it's actually coming out of the mother's womb in the state of New York. Matt Walsh made the observation.
Again, it was via Twitter, but I think it's powerful. He says crimes that can earn you a lethal injection in New York. Rape? No.
Child abduction? No. Serial murder? No.
Mass shooting? No. Being conceived in the wrong womb? Yes.
Brethren, I mentioned last week that in some senses we've lost our collective minds when it comes to this issue of life. We are to protect the image bearer of God. Animals do not bear the image of God. It is not murder to kill an animal.
Again, we shouldn't senselessly kill animals. We should be responsible stewards of God's earth and not club baby whales to death. But we ought to be primarily concerned with not clubbing baby humans to death. We ought to be primarily concerned with protecting the most vulnerable in society.
And as mentioned, I want to argue that the death penalty itself, or what some have called capital punishment, is not only not inconsistent with pro-life, but it's absolutely consistent with pro-life. Because God attaches the penalty of execution to anybody who would murder an image-bearer. The Bible authorizes three instances of lawful killing. Not all killing is murder.
Killing is justifiable when it comes to self-defense. Killing is justifiable when it comes to legitimate war, and killing is justifiable when it comes to capital punishment by the part of the civil authority. So, I want to do two things this morning. First, I want to look at the Bible and capital punishment.
And then secondly, the common objections to capital punishment. This is repetitious, of course, for the people who attend the Wednesday night Bible study. It wasn't a long time ago that we were in Genesis chapter 9, but it is an important subject, it is an important matter, and the fact that life is so little regarded in our own generation ought to cause the people of God to really want to have biblical arguments when it comes to these fundamental issues.
The Bible and Capital Punishment
So first, the Bible and capital punishment will start here with the Old Testament in Genesis chapter 9 and verse 6. Now the context, it's the post-flood situation. It's after Noah and his sons exit the ark. It is, in a sense, a new era in the existence of the world.
In fact, Noah functions similarly to Adam. Noah is given instructions to be fruitful and multiply. Noah is given instructions that are very similar to what Adam was given. And remember the conditions of the earth prior to the flood.
Back in Genesis chapter 6, it says the earth was exceedingly corrupt and filled with violence. So now in this post-flood situation, God is going to seek to remedy that problem where the earth is filled with violence. And the way that God remedies that problem is by handing the civil government the sword and the power to execute murderers. So that's the context.
And specifically what you find here in Genesis 9, some have called it the Noahic Covenant, what you find is the propagation of life. Noah's told to be fruitful and multiply. We see the protection of life from animals and from other men, and then we see the sustenance of life. He increases their diets.
He increases the ability for them to feed themselves. He gives them meat. He gives them all those good things and resources so that life will be sustained.
Genesis 9:6 — The Noahic Mandate
Now, note the particular offense that is addressed in Genesis 9.6. It says, whoever sheds man's blood. Now, later in the law of God, we will see a bit of discrimination or definition or explanation. We will see there's a difference between murder, and murder always implies malice of forethought.
It implies premeditation. It implies motive. It implies that somebody is angry with somebody else and wants to cease or end their life. And then the Bible highlights what we call manslaughter.
Manslaughter is involuntary. Manslaughter isn't predicated on the anger of one toward another. Manslaughter, more often than not, is due to carelessness and irresponsibility. Now, there were penalties to be imposed, even in the case of manslaughter, but with reference to murder, there's one penalty that can be imposed, and the Bible makes that clear.
So that's the offense. Whoever sheds man's blood. The taking, the unlawful taking of another person's life. Now note the punishment that is to be inflicted.
Whoever sheds man's blood, notice, by man his blood shall be shed. So it's not that God will directly intervene and exterminate people. No, he says, by man. There's a human agency involved.
There's a particular group of people that are tasked with this activity. By man, his blood will be shed. So he sheds the blood of one, and it's unlawful and wicked. He has tried, he has found guilty, and therefore, by man, his blood will be shed.
In fact, Martin Luther said, this was the first command having reference to the temporal sword. By these words, temporal government was established and the sword placed in its hand by God. John Calvin said, God so threatens and denounces vengeance against the murderer that he even arms the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of slaughter in order that the blood of men may not be shed with impunity. Those are accurate comments.
That's legit. That's good interpretation. That's what's happening. And there are some that will say, well, that's in the Old Testament.
Again, we're going to move into the New Testament to see how it's confirmed there. But even if it is the Old Testament, you need to appreciate something about the Noahic covenant. It applies to man as creature. The Mosaic Covenant, or what we call the Old Covenant, applies to man as Israelite.
It was a covenant made with the nation of Israel. Certainly there are things for us in that covenantal arrangement, but the language of the Noahic Covenant is that it's universal, that it's comprehensive, that it obtains for every one of God's creatures, and that it's eternal in terms of its application. We're all under the Noahic Covenant still. Some have called it a common grace covenant.
It protects the social order so that the preaching of special grace can go forth. It's not a redemptive covenant in the sense that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but it provides for the protection of that arena where that special grace can be preached. Now notice the theological rationale or the reason given for the command. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.
Again, you need to appreciate this isn't suggestive. This isn't, if you'd like to, if you think this is the best possible arrangement, this is the way to sort of possibly... No, God is commanding Noah on how life must now look post-flood. If the problem prior to the flood was that the earth was exceedingly corrupt and it was filled with violence, then we see the wisdom, the goodness, and the kindness of God employing something for society so that the earth won't be filled with violence.
God knows that creatures don't flourish in an environment that is flourishing with violence. It cannot be, so God in His goodness gives this, so it's a command. And then note the reason for the command. He says, for, in the image of God, He made man.
Now, commentators go one of two ways with this particular clause. On the one hand, they say, well, this highlights the dignity of the agency of man in executing criminals. In other words, the fact that a man or a group of men have the wherewithal and the ability and the lawful calling by God to execute criminal offenders, that's because they are image bearers of the living God. That's how some interpret the passage.
Others say, no, this is the reason for the execution. The reason why you punish with death somebody that murders another person is because that person murdered is an image bearer of God. Those babies in New York, those babies in Canada, those older people or sick people in Canada that are being euthanized, they are image bearers of God. They possess dignity.
They possess worth. They reflect something concerning the Creator. And therefore, to assault them is to assault the divine majesty. And God says, no.
It is a proof, an evidence, a powerful affirmation of the reality. Man can't get to God, so he'll slay God's images. He'll slay God's image bearers, and we see it all around us in abortion, in euthanasia, in drugs, in drive-by shootings, whatever the particular way of men dispatching other men from this world. See, God says you cannot do this for, in the image of God, He made man.
Your heart is boss, reasons. This is the reason why you don't murder people. In life slain, it is the image of God, i.e., the divine majesty that is assaulted. Meredith Klein sort of combines both concepts.
Man carries out execution because man is an image-bearer of God. But as well, you execute murderers because they murdered the image of God. Klein says this could explain both the enormity of murder and the dignity of man that justified assigning him so grave a judicial responsibility. In other words, it's right to execute somebody that murders an image-bearer.
And it's right that the state, the magistrate, the governing authority do this because he bears the image of God in the wielding of this sword to do what God has commanded. Genesis 9-6 is a most powerful statement concerning the Bible and capital punishment.
The Mosaic Economy's Clarifications
When we move further beyond Genesis to the other books of Moses and we see what I would call the Mosaic economy or the Old Covenant, that covenant God made with the people of Israel as a body politic, we see clarification. As I mentioned, the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Not all homicide is murder. If you accidentally run somebody over and they die, you didn't do it with malice aforethought, you didn't do it with premeditation, you didn't do it with a heart of anger toward that particular person.
It was an accident. You should still be fined, you should still be punished, you should still have your life inconvenience, so you'll learn to exercise more responsible drivership in the future, but you shouldn't be executed for that. Murder is a different ballgame. Murder includes premeditation.
Murder is trying to snuff out the life of another individual. Well, the Mosaic Law makes that conspicuous. I've shared many times the specific illustration is the man with the axe. The man with the axe whose axe head flies off and lands on his neighbor's head and kills him next door.
He didn't mean to do that. The man who lays in wait, the man who knows that his neighbor's coming home, hides in his bushes and jumps out and whacks him with premeditation, with malice aforethought, that's murder. And the Bible speaks to that, brethren. So you'll hear at times, especially with reference to the Old Testament, it's so barbaric, it's so offensive, it's so primitive.
You know what's barbaric, offensive, and primitive is modern humanism. You see it. Governor Cuomo would certainly condemn this message while standing on a mass of aborted babies. How dare him?
How dare them call into question the Bible's ethics when it comes to life? These people have difficulty managing budgets, and they're going to tell us as the moral arbiters of what's right and wrong concerning life? And yet Christians, for whatever reason, we fall prey to this, well, I don't know, I'm not sure. You better be sure, because the lines are drawn in the sand, and the humanists, if you haven't noticed, are presently winning.
And we need to make sure that that doesn't happen. I'm not advocating overthrow. I'm not advocating arming up. I'm not advocating C4 vests, telling people we'll see them on the others.
I'm not advocating that. Do you know what? We need to think God's thoughts after Him. We need to shine his lights in a crooked and perverse generation, holding forth the word of truth.
Yes, gospel verities, acceptance by God through the blood of Jesus Christ. But what about civil ethics? What about abortion? What about the death penalty?
It is unacceptable for the people of God to say, well, I don't know. I'm not sure. Why don't you know? And why aren't you sure?
It's not a lack of information in the scriptures. It's a lack of attention on the part of God's people. Not you guys, of course. Now notice, with reference to the Mosaic economy, you have the distinction between accidental homicide and murder.
You have the identification of additional capital crimes. See, in Genesis 9, 6, the specific crime prohibited is the crime of murder. You get to the law of Moses, you'll see there's additional crimes that have, as their penalty, capital punishment. And then another intriguing fact with reference to the Mosaic economy, it's found in Numbers 35.
And essentially what Numbers 35 tells us, after making a distinction between accidental homicide and murder, after all that, the law of God says that he will not accept a ransom payment with reference to murder. In other words, there are some lesser crimes where payments are made. Remember last week, the case law, Exodus 21, if two men fight and they harm a woman who's pregnant and her children come out, but no harm follows, then they'll pay a fine. That was certainly an agreed-upon principle according to biblical law.
But in the case that there was harm, then eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, life for life. See, the baby and the mother are protected with that lex talionis, or that law of retaliation. But there are certainly lesser crimes where you can make a monetary payment, where you could run to the city of refuge if you engaged in accidental homicide. That's the context in Numbers 35.
But with reference to murder, God says, I will not accept any ransom payment. There's only one payment. There's only one price. There's only one penalty that attaches to the crime of murder, and that is the execution of the murderer.
Now, again, we're not Israel. We're not under all of the stipulations with reference to the Mosaic economy. I would argue that. I would agree with that.
But the fact is, it is consistent with the Noahic economy or the Noahic covenant, this comprehensive, universal, for all times, that creatures are. It's consistent with that. God doesn't change when it comes to the execution of murderers.
New Testament Confirmation
Turn to the New Testament for a few lines of proof. The very crucifixion of Jesus. Notice what Jesus does not do when he stands before Pilate. Oh, horror of horrors.
You're going to enact on me the death penalty? Don't you know that's wrong? He doesn't do that. He accepts that.
He realizes. He knows that this is how you deal with criminals in the body politic in the Roman Empire. Now, he wouldn't concede that he was a criminal, obviously, but he didn't protest. He didn't boycott.
He didn't say capital punishment is immoral. We have the practice of the example of the Apostle Paul. Turn to Acts 25. Acts chapter 25.
We'll see his writing specifically, commanding it in Romans 13, but notice his experience in Acts 25. He's appearing here before Festus. After Felix comes Festus. They're all passing the buck.
Paul's a hot potato. He's a lightning rod. They don't want anything to do with him. And so Felix passes him on to Festus and now Festus comes and Festus says to him, let's just drop down to verse seven.
When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all. So he maintains his innocence, his judicial innocence, with reference to Jewish crime and with reference to Gentile or Roman crime. I haven't offended them and their sensitivities.
I haven't done anything untoward with reference to the law of God. And I certainly haven't offended Caesar. I'm innocent. Now, he wouldn't say I'm innocent in terms of no sin.
Paul knew that he had sin, but he's judicially innocent. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a criminal, and so he's making his defense at this particular time. Now, notice in verse 9, But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things? So Paul said, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged.
To the Jews, I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender or have committed," now notice the language, anything deserving of death. So I think this is something that I would argue with reference to the mosaic economy. There are still some additional crimes that deserve capital punishment.
I would not be the kind of guy that only sees capital punishment for the crime of murder. I would think it's a bit broader. Notice Paul seems to resonate that way, too. If I've done anything, not murder, he doesn't say, if I have murdered, then I'm not hesitant to be executed.
If I've done anything. You see that? Plurality. There's more crimes than one that Paul acknowledges that he might be done in for with reference to capital punishment.
But notice, verse 11, for if I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. Very strange, isn't it? If Francis is right, and capital punishment is reprehensible and morally indefensible, and Cuomo is parroting him, then strange language from the Apostle, the man under God's service, the man employed by Jesus Christ, he doesn't say, you know, on principle I deny the legitimacy of the death penalty. We're not under law, we're under grace.
We have no more dealings. No, he doesn't say that. He acknowledges that this is legit. He acknowledges that this is lawful.
He acknowledges that this is an option. His point is, I haven't done anything worthy of the death penalty. You get that, right? See, if he was an anti-death penalty guy, his rhetoric would be, well, the death penalty is immoral.
How dare you, Festus? I don't understand. We're not in a barbaric age anymore. We're not in this antiquated primitive age anymore.
It's not about warring factions and tribes and whatnot. We're a civilized people, and you need to re-change your thinking or change your thinking with reference to this whole idea. He doesn't do that. Later Christians do that, but not Paul.
Later, Christians boycott things that God commands, but not Paul. Later, Christians say foolish things like, well, it's indefensible, but not Paul.
Romans 13 — The Sword of the Magistrate
Now, notice Paul's language in Romans chapter 13. Very important passage with reference to the death penalty. I don't think I'll answer every one of your questions, but that's not my job this morning. It's simply to present to you the biblical case for capital punishment.
And we'll get that in the large swath of a bit of interpretation or examination of Romans 13, which actually begins in Romans 12. If you look at Romans chapter 12 at verse 17. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written, 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 will he put coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Now close your Bibles and forget everything that he just said. and then in a week read Romans 13.
That's not how it's supposed to go. Chapter divisions and versification, all that stuff came way later. If you notice how Romans 13, 1 starts, there's no adversative, but I'm starting a brand new subject, but I'm doing a whole new topic, but I want you to forget everything I just said. No!
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. What's one of the means by which the God of heaven executes his wrath? Well, according to Romans 13, one to four, it's the civil government who's been handed the sword as a minister of God's vengeance to execute God's wrath. You have to appreciate the flow of God.
Don't avenge yourselves, give place to wrath. That's one of the reasons why we sang Psalm 11. One of the reasons why someday, when I have the guts enough, we'll sing Psalm 94. I think sometimes believers get a little bit freaked out when they're singing about God's wrath and judgment.
That God's gonna give them burning coals as their portion. Did we really sing that as New Covenant Christians? It's one of the means by which we give place to wrath, by singing the Psalms of Zion, by singing the imprecatory Psalms. Lewis was wrong.
The imprecatory Psalms are legitimate and consistent for Christian use. And this is what Paul is doing. Give place to wrath. How do we give place to wrath?
Recognize the civil authority, recognize that they bear the sword, and they don't bear it in vain. Their task is to serve God in society by executing criminal offenders. That's the flow of the context. If you neglect that, you're going to have problems with this passage.
Notice, all believers have a duty to subject themselves to governing authorities. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. Why? For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Christ speaking as wisdom in Proverbs 8 says, by me kings reign. Paul tells us here, there's no authority except from God. We're studying, at least tonight, we're going to finish our little glimpse at the life of Ahab in 1 Kings chapter 22. He was God's Ahab.
He didn't ascend that throne autonomously. He didn't ascend that throne by virtue of his own charismatic gift. He ascended that throne because every authority is from God. That's not just in biblical times.
God's not just responsible for Manasseh. God is responsible for the current regime as well. We studied that in the last hour of Divine Providence in our Confession of Faith, chapter 5. There's nothing outside the providence of God.
There's nothing that obtains outside of God's purpose and plan. There's nothing that happens that catches God unawares. And he says, wait a minute, I didn't think that was going to happen. I didn't know he was going to ascend the throne.
I didn't realize that he would be voting. No, everything is according to God. And that's what Paul says, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. Why?
There's no authority except from God. God appoints them. We have a responsibility as believers to be the best citizens we can possibly be. The best.
The best. Cut your lawn. Keep your house clean. Be nice to your neighbors.
Do good things in society. Pay your taxes. Paul's going to argue for that. You know what they call people that don't pay their taxes, at least in America?
I'm sure it's the same way in Canada. They call them prisoners. You can't escape. Paul says, you're not supposed to try to escape.
You're supposed to pay your taxes. You're supposed to be good citizens. Now, this isn't universal. This ought not to be seen as, well, if they command us to sin, we're going to sin.
No, there's qualification the Bible makes with reference to this whole issue. Notice, he speaks to the sin of resistance in verse two. He says, therefore, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. Now, this is a reality we're not supposed to resist.
However, there are instances, and we've seen them in our study in the book of Acts, when the highest political and religious council in Israel at the time told the disciples or told the apostles that they were not supposed to preach in the name of Jesus. What did they do? Did they stop preaching? They say, wow, good, because I find it very uncomfortable to go out there and preach.
I'm so glad that they made this law. I wonder if sometimes as believers, We'd like that if they outlawed Bible reading. Oh great. Now my pastor won't nag me about reading my Bible I'd have to say well, you'll be a good citizen.
There are times and instances where the people of God resists the civil authority What did Daniel do when Daniel was told to pray to the image and not pray to Yahweh? What's he do? Oh, well, you know, it's just really hard to be he opens his window and he does it just like he always did what do the Apostles say in Acts 5 we must obey God rather than men and That's just our marching order. That's just what we are supposed to be.
John Gill, I think, explains this well. He says, this is not to be understood, this resisting the ordinance of God, this is not to be understood as if magistrates were above the laws and had a lawless power to do as they will without opposition, for they are under the law and liable to the penalty of it in case of disobedience as others. And when they make their own will a law or exercise a lawless tyrannical power in defiance of the laws of God and of the land or to the endangering of the lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted." Again, brethren, be subject to the governing authorities. Don't resist the governing authorities unless they tell you to sin.
Then you must resist them. Everybody's with me? Yes, this is a basic principle of biblical ethics. You do what God says, always.
Well, you know, they said we have to practice abortion. God says, don't do it. You're duty bound to obey God. Now notice, he highlights the purpose of the government under God in verses three and four.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." So I always tell everybody when we work our way through this passage, add, at least in your head, works after evil. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil works. Paul's not Orwellian. Paul is not advocating punishing thought crime.
Paul is about evil works. That's what's punishable by the civil government. We're not talking about the punishment of sin. We're not talking about punishing covetousness.
We're talking about punishing evil works, those things which are an offense to God and which are a danger to others and which are, you know, hostile to the body politic. They're not a terror to good works, but rather to evil. Notice what he says in verse 3. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?
Do what is good and you will have praise for the same. Now the praise from the same there isn't, you know, accolades and parking lots and, you know, parades in your honor down the city street. I think the praise from the government is that they leave you alone. That's the praise I want from my government.
Just leave me alone. Let me pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just let me do that. I don't want you to provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I just want you to get out of my way so that I can pursue that, and you protect me so that others aren't killing me to try to keep me from pursuing that. That's the praise. It's not, oh, we're going to have an honor in your favor because you did everything right last. That's not it.
The praise from the same in the context is that they're not putting you on the chopping block. They're not putting you in prison. They're not feeding you to lions. That's the praise that you should want from these people.
So do the right thing is what Paul is saying. Now notice, he underscores this in verse 4, 4, he is God's minister to you for good, but if you do evil, be afraid. Think about Paul's words right there in the argument against capital punishment. Capital punishment doesn't deter anybody from committing crime.
It always determines 100% successfully the criminal executed. He'll never go out and murder again. It's an effective deterrent, isn't it? If I commit murder and they execute me, there's a deterrent factor there that is 100%.
I'm not going to ever go kill again. But Paul says, be afraid. Do we believe humanists who tell us that the death penalty doesn't deter crime? Or do we believe Paul that says, look, if you don't want problems, then do what you're supposed to do.
If you don't do what you're supposed to do, then be afraid. You should fear. See, I think the problem is we don't consistently carry out punishment. And as Solomon says, because the execution against a sentence isn't quickly passed, the hearts of men are fully given over to do evil.
Parents, when you just keep telling your kids, okay, if you keep stealing cookies, I'm gonna count to 10. What is counting to 10 do? Gives them 10 more seconds to snatch more cookies. You see it in the family level.
Why don't we see it at the macro level? When people commit murder, and they're out in seven years, and then you want to blame the death penalty? I'm sorry. You're not any moral authority on these things whatsoever.
Paul the Apostle says, be afraid. We should fear going out and murdering someone. We should fear going out and drug trafficking. We should fear going out and raping.
We should fear going out and engaging in any sort of crime, because the magistrate will come down on us as God's representative in history. We should fear it. Do we fear it? I don't think so.
I mean, it used to be we'd get vandalized here, and I'd call the police. I don't even bother anymore. I know that may sound terrible, and you're a horrible pastor, and you should call the police. Nothing happens.
Nothing at all. The other day, that little stairwell were candles. They're going to burn our building down. They had candles to light that little stairwell so they could shoot up.
I drive down Yale, I see people shooting up. I tend to think that if I stood on a corner in Yale and I was shooting up, the RCMP would probably arrest me. Why doesn't it happen to everybody else? There's no fear.
We don't know what it is to actually have jurisprudence. We don't know what it is to actually see the hand of God operative in civil society. Because after all, we don't think God belongs in civil society. We've taken him out of schools.
We've taken him out of society. We've taken him out of everything. And now it's not safe to walk outside our front door. I mean, come on, when some of us were kids, you'd get up in the morning during the summer break and be gone till night.
Nobody ever thought you were gonna get abducted or raped or molested or whatever. Now, and rightly so, parents, you've got an eye on your kid always. What's happened? Well, we don't want God in our society.
He's barbaric. It's vicious. It's a primitive law code for a primitive people. Paul says if you do something wrong in society, you should be afraid.
You should be afraid to cheat on your taxes. You should be afraid to embezzle from your employer. You should be afraid to engage in theft. You should be afraid to be the kind of person that the Bible condemns.
The Bible says, don't be. Now note Paul's argument as we continue. Verse 4, for he is God's minister to you for good, for if you do evil, be afraid. Now notice, 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.
Keep that with your finger and go back to Romans 12. Notice in Romans 12, 18, 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.
Back to Romans 13, 4. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. See Paul's point in larger context? Don't avenge yourselves.
Don't go buy a gun and be a vigilante on your streets, get a cape and a mask and go foil crime, but rather give place to God's wrath through the lawful authority of God's wrath or dispenser of God's wrath, which is the civil government, the magistrate who's been given the sword in consistency with Genesis chapter 9. And I love what Paul says here with reference to verse four. 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, again, practices evil works.
Paul's not advocating thought crime. Paul's not advocating punish people who have different ideas. But evil works, those things that are a menace and a threat to society. They need to be dealt with severely by the governing authority because God gave them the sword to enact his vengeance in society.
That's the argument. Now, sword means sword. Sword means sword. Sword doesn't always mean the power to execute.
It can be lesser punishment, but certainly it involves execution. Calvin says, magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interests, but for the public good. Nor are they endued with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the well-being of their subjects. In short, they are responsible to God and to men in the exercise of their power.
And commenting on the sword, John Murray says, "...the sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his authority, but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which a sword does. It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls short of death, but to exclude the right of the death penalty when the nature of the crime calls for such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies and executes." So Genesis 9, the Mosaic economy, and Romans 13 all prevail when it comes to the issue, does the Bible teach capital punishment? Yes, it does.
Objections to Capital Punishment
Now, what are some common objections? I've put them in two categories. First, the biblical objections. I know, we got to deal with that.
You'd never think that there'd be Christians that would deny the death penalty, but they're out there. And then we put them into pragmatic objections.
Objection: 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'
In the first place, a biblical objection hinges on a bad interpretation or translation of Exodus 2013. King James Bible says, Thou shalt not kill. Before the argument goes, neither shall the civil government. That's just a bad translation.
I mean, the word can be translated kill, but in the context, as Walt Kaiser points out, there's several words that are utilized for this idea of ending someone's life, and it's murder that's in view in Exodus 20. The word that's used is the best word used to involve the elements of premeditation and malice aforethought. So it's, you shall not murder. And if, as I've said earlier, and I could show you this, the Bible authorizes killing with reference to capital punishment, as we've just seen, with reference to self-defense, Exodus 22 or 21, and then with reference to war.
I mean, brethren, again, I don't know how anybody can be a pacifist. How do you be a pacifist in light of Israel's history? How do you be a pacifist in light of Romans 13? The magistrate has a sword.
I think that means to protect people within the body politic from other criminal offenders, but it certainly might mean or extend to protecting the body politic from foreign invading armies. We kind of like that to happen too, don't we? I not only want to not be gunned down in the city streets by a murderer, but I'd like to be protected from ISIS. I'd like to be protected from somebody coming from another country to do me harm and mischief and all sorts of bad things.
The government has that authority. The civil magistrate bears that authority.
Objection: The Sermon on the Mount
Secondly, Matthew 5. We're not going to spend a lot of time here. I'm sorry. Matthew 5.
You can turn there. This is another passage that is utilized to try and teach that no death penalty. Matthew chapter 5. Verses 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. Now, just briefly, I'd like to suggest that the parallel passage here is Romans 12. Do not avenge yourselves, but give place to the wrath of God.
This isn't dealing with civil ethics. It's dealing with a personal attitude. It's not dealing with whether or not we lock our doors. It's not dealing with whether or not we have alarms.
It's not dealing with whether or not we have guard dogs. It's dealing with the way that we rub shoulders with people in society. Are we, like the Pharisees, vindictive? Are we, like the Pharisees, retaliatory?
Are we, like the Pharisees, the kinds of people that have to be right over everything? Basically, Jesus is saying, in your personal dealings with men, be long-suffering. Don't be insufferable. Don't be an irritant in society.
Be somebody that people want to be around. It's not a call to never oppose evil in the church, because later on in Matthew 18, Jesus is going to say, we need to treat as heathen and tax collectors unrepentant sinners. What do you mean, Jesus? You just said, we're not supposed to ever do anything mean or untoward.
It's not a call to never resist evil in terms of self-defense. Somebody breaks into my home. They want to rape my people. I said, well, right down the hallway, you'll find my wife.
And across the room there, you'll find my daughter. No, that's not it. The heretics were wrong with Matthew 5. We wouldn't have locks.
We would tell everybody, go ahead, take it, whatever you want. Do whatever it is you want. And it certainly can't be mitigating against civil ethics in terms of the government's responsibility to wield the sword. It's just not there.
It's private. It's not civil.
Objection: The Woman Caught in Adultery
And that brings us to John 8, the woman caught in adultery. You can turn there, John chapter 8, the woman caught in adultery. Some of the Bibles don't even include it as if it were in the text. I understand that, but even those that don't put it in there.
John chapter 8, the woman caught in adultery. That's the offense. According to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it was in fact capital. Imagine that in this godlessly, sinfully, sexually immoral age.
Imagine if we actually operated under the principle of capital crime when it comes to adultery. There wouldn't be many people left, would there? I mean, it's so commonplace today, isn't it? Everybody's fooling around.
Everybody's messing around. I mean, there's apps for that. Oh, but we've graduated to a place of wisdom and maturity. No, we're a bunch of fools that can't control their glands.
That's the problem. They can't control themselves. I don't see that as a sign of maturity. When your kid's immature, you tell them, control yourself.
The idea is that they grow up learning how to control themselves. We've abandoned all thought of controlling ourselves, and somehow we're the wise ones. The Bible's the primitive law code that nobody should ever have any truck with. But notice the offense, the woman is caught in adultery.
You also need to notice the specific situation. John alerts us to what's really happening. Verse 6, this they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. Their goal, their endgame, their purpose, their zeal, their desire here is not for the law.
It's not for right and wrong. If they were concerned about this woman's crime, they would have had a man there too. If she was caught in the very act of adultery, that would necessitate a man's presence as well. They bring a woman, but not the man?
Last time I checked, it took two to tango when it comes to the sin of adultery. And if she was caught in the very act, they underscore that. She was caught in the very act. Well, where's the fellow?
You're not interested in justice. You don't care one whit about the application of Mosaic law. You're trying to trip up Jesus, who, by the way, is not a civil authority nor an ecclesiastical authority. Now we know he's Messiah, he's prophet, priest, and king, we know all that to be sure, but in terms of his station in life at this particular time, he had been a carpenter, and now he's on this public ministry, but he doesn't have an official title with the church, and he doesn't have an official title with the magistrate.
He's not somebody you would take a criminal to, would you? unless you were trying to trip him up. And John alerts us that that's the issue. John 6, this day said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. Now again, we're just treating this briefly.
Notice the response of Jesus. Verse 7. This is really what's called the horns of a dilemma. If we could back up just a little bit.
It's when your opponent gives you two equally bad situations. I don't even know what to think. Do you beat your wife or do you beat your kids? That's a tough one.
How do I answer that? Or have you stopped beating your wife? That's sort of the classic question. Have you stopped beating your wife?
What do you say? Yes? No? What do you say to that?
But the horns of a dilemma, have you stopped beating your wife or have you stopped beating your children? How do you answer that? That's what they're doing. They want to show Jesus as a man who has problems with the law of Moses.
They want to show Jesus as one. They've come to know, we'll probably let this woman go. And in that, we'll say, well, look, he softened the law of Moses. He let this adulteress go.
How can he be trusted? How in the world could he be the guy that he's claiming to be? You see, it's a lose-lose situation the way they've constructed it. How does Jesus deal with this?
It's called going through the horns of a dilemma, and this is precisely what Jesus does. On the one hand, he upholds the law of Moses, and on the other hand, he lets the woman go. Right? Beautiful.
That's what he means when he says, he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. I don't think Jesus means sin less, because Jesus knows the heart of man. He can't mean that, because if sinlessness is the requirement for all matters of jurisprudence, we'd have no jurisprudence, because there's not a judge alive who doesn't have sin. Probably means without this particular sin, because he tells this woman, go and sin no more.
Again, Jesus is not into Wesleyan perfectionism. Jesus tells this woman, don't go out and commit adultery again. Don't go out and engage in this practice again. But as well, there's a particular passage that Jesus seems to be echoing in his response.
He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. Deuteronomy 17, 6 and 7. Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses. He shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.
So that is the primary emphasis. He knows what's going to happen, and it does happen. They all leave, don't they? Don't they?
That means he can't carry out execution. It means nobody can carry out execution. See, the opponents of the death penalty, and we'll see this, well, now we won't have to, but a pragmatic objection is that innocent people die sometimes with reference to the death penalty. Yeah, I would concede that, but the biblical requirement is two or three witnesses.
And with DNA for fingerprinting and all that sort of thing, the ability to ascertain a person's guilt today It's a pretty, pretty slim margin. But also, whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses. He shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death.
And afterward, the hands of all the people, so you shall put away the evil from among you. So Christ, when he says this in verse seven, is simply echoing what Moses has already said. In other words, you need to be without this sin, and you need to have credible evidence and a credible testimony, and that will be manifested in your participation in throwing the first stone. So again, opponents of the death penalty think that, well, then the streets will run red with blood.
No, they won't, because there's responsibility on the part of the plaintiff as well. Deuteronomy 19, if I charge that you committed a crime and it's found that I'm lying, I will get the punishment for the crime that I accused you of. I think that's brilliant. I think that would reduce the litigiousness of modern society that wants to sue or persons that want to sue everybody.
You see what it does? It's discriminating. There's responsibility imposed. And in this instance, if you're not sure of this, you've got to realize you're one of the first to pick up a stone and send this woman to the afterlife.
What happens? They all bail. They all leave. Now Jesus exercises that compassion, that kindness.
Verse 10, 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, no one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, neither do I condemn you.
Go and sin no more. See, he manages to navigate his way through that horns of a dilemma by maintaining the law of Moses, but as well by exercising mercy, justice, and kindness to this particular woman. Really brilliant on his part, but this is not an argument against the death penalty.
Pragmatic Objections
Pragmatically, that means non-Bible arguments, capital punishment is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Capital punishment is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Well, then no punishment is ever to be meted out. Why should we want somebody to go to prison?
We should just forgive them. Do you know it's actually possible to forgive somebody and demand that they're punished? It's an amazing thing that creatures are able to do. We can forgive somebody and watch them go to whatever it is they're going to be punished for.
Just because we want them to be punished or the law demands that they be punished doesn't mean we can't forgive them. Of course we can forgive them. Another one is capital punishment is not an expression of mercy. This is the one where the humanist, the atheist, the inconsistent Christian wants to be more merciful than God.
Our confession describes God well when it talks about his perfections and it says that he's most merciful. And this most merciful God says to Moses or says to Noah through Moses in Genesis chapter nine, I know Moses came later, Moses is writing down what God said to Noah, whoever sheds man's blood by man, his blood will be shed. So is it possible that somebody can be merciful and still demand capital punishment? Yes, because God exemplifies that all over the Bible.
Capital punishment does not deter crime. Already dealt with that, Romans 13, 4. You should be afraid. You should slow down when you see the RCMP if you're going too fast.
You should shake a little bit because you know that you may get in trouble if you do bad things. And then the worst of them all from the Christian is that capital punishment will prohibit salvation. If a guy is executed, then he won't have time to believe the gospel and repent. This is just bad theology.
This is Pelagianism and Arminianism. If God has purpose, I don't want to sound like a hyper-Calvinist and undo what we did in the last session and the confession study, but if God has purpose to save a sinner, he has elected them before the foundation of the world, then he will do so before they are executed by the civil magistrate. So this idea that we let murderers live in the hope that in 30, 40, 80 years they'll come to know Jesus? No, we do what God commands us and let God deal with who he's going to save and who he's not.
That's just bad, bad theology.
Application
Well, in conclusion, I want to suggest first we ought to think concerning capital punishment and the civil government. I was talking to my son Josh this morning on the phone and he told me two things. One, it's minus 45 in Dryden. Their power steering fluid froze today and we've got sunshine and beauty.
The other thing is I was talking to him about this particular sermon and he said, doesn't it bother you that some people in civil government don't seem to be that sharp? In other words, when you suggest or argue that the Bible demands the civil government wield the sword, what do we do with inept civil government? So that's a concern. The thought of handing a sword to some of these people terrifies me.
But that doesn't mean we don't argue for what God's word says. We have this idea, there's an abuse of something, and so the response is get rid of it altogether. Just get rid of it. No, use it properly.
Use it responsibly. Right? I think we could probably fill in the blanks. This is bad.
This is bad. This is bad. Let's get rid of it. No, let's use it properly.
Now, I would suggest that if this was a part of the body politic, voters might actually be more responsible. When they know that matters of life and death hang in the balance, things like he's handsome, or he's charismatic, or we need a change might not be what motivates them in the voting booth. Maybe the gravity of the situation needs to be appreciated anew, and that will affect how persons go about choosing their elected officials. Maybe that.
Capital Punishment and the Believer
Capital punishment in the believer. The believer must embrace the entirety of God's Word, even those things that unbelievers find offensive. This is kind of the battleground for us as God's people nowadays. We see them all over, churches, professing churches, sort of, you know, relaxing on homosexuality.
Our argument has never been, we hate homosexuals, we despise them, they're terrible, they're sinners who stand in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. You're a homophobe. No, I'm a theophobe, and I want homosexuals to flee to Jesus for salvation through his blood. That's it.
See, when it comes to the death penalty, I think we're afraid to offend the delicate sensitivities of the people around us. When has that ever been a concern for the people of God? When did John Knox ever say, oh, I don't want to offend the Virgin Mary? I don't want to offend the Pope of Rome.
He didn't want to offend the Virgin Mary. But when people wanted to extol her and worship her, I think there was a time where somebody showed him a statue of the Virgin Mary. and using it as a bit of an idol to protect them on the ship, and he threw it into the water and said, well, let's see if she can protect herself or something like that. Again, not offensive, not against the Virgin Mary, but against the idea or the concept of showing religious worship to her. When have the people of God ever been those who kowtow to the prevailing opinions of men?
It is unfortunate that some of the modern pundits are more accurate than some of the Protestant Christians when it comes to these things. The believer as well must recognize the enormity of the problem of evil. Maybe this is why the church is so anemic, because we don't see the gravity of the situation. We don't see how God sees life.
God says, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. God says in Numbers 35, I will not accept a payment price when it comes to murder. I demand blood, the blood of the offender, as that which requites this situation. We don't have that concept of justice by and large.
Thirdly, the believer must realize the consistency of God's holy character. Civil government and the enactment of the sword of the governing authorities is a reflection of who God is. It's a reflection of his justice and of his righteousness. See, brethren, as New Covenant believers, we preach grace, we preach goodness, we preach mercy, but we don't ever stop preaching justice, holiness, righteousness.
We don't ever stop preaching that God abominates unjust scales. We don't stop preaching that God abominates hands that shed innocent blood. We're not supposed to kowtow to the prevailing notions of humanists who can't even function at the most simple level. And as well, I would suggest the believer—I have must, but I won't go that strong.
I'll take it easy. The believer should appreciate the wisdom of biblical ethics. The believer should appreciate the wisdom of biblical ethics. Read the laws concerning the goring ox in Exodus 21 and ask yourself, isn't this something that might be enacted today with great profit and help to all people in a civil society?
Read some of those statutes, read some of those applications of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 21 to 23 and just say, is this barbaric? Is this a horrific primitive code, or is it something that actually reflects the genius of God? Is it something that actually reveals the wisdom of God, the goodness of God, the fact that God is pro-victim? Anymore, that's just not the case.
The victim loses all over the place in modern civil jurisprudence.
Capital Punishment and the Gospel
And then finally, capital punishment. And those of you who perhaps are not Christians, the doctrine of capital punishment is not the gospel. I'm not suggesting that if you embrace the Bible's teaching on capital punishment, you're going to go to heaven. No, that's not the case at all.
But I think, and I hope, and I pray that capital punishment will tell you this one thing. God hates sin. God despises sin. God loathes sin because it's contrary to His holy character.
And God, I'll step it up, must punish sin. So while capital punishment is not the gospel, hopefully it will illustrate to you why you need the gospel. Because you have offended this holy God, you have sinned against this God, you have transgressed His law. Perhaps you've not been a murderer, perhaps you've not been a rapist, perhaps you've not been an embezzler, perhaps you've not done horribly, dastardly things.
But all of us have sinned against God. All we like sheep have gone astray. There is none righteous, no not one, and that includes you. The only hope, the only remedy, not through the civil state, not through this church, it's through Jesus Christ the Lord.
He is able to save to the uttermost all that draw nigh unto God through him. That's the encouragement today. See what God thinks of sin, and see what God has purposed to save sinners. Namely, His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and by grace, believe in Him, and you will be forgiven.
Closing Prayer
Well, let us pray. Father, we thank You for Your Word.