← Back to sermon library

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Well, let us pray. Father, we 
thank You for Your Word.