Genesis chapter nine, this morning, we looked at abortion. Tonight, we're looking at the death penalty. Today is sanctity of life Sunday, and the Bible's teaching on the death penalty further underscores the sanctity of life. For the punishment of an offense highlights the seriousness of the offense.

And if the punishment or penalty for murder is the death penalty, then we conclude that a premium is placed on the image of God that was murdered. So while some would say it is inconsistent to claim to be pro-life and at the same time, bro, death penalty, the Bible does teach that. It's certainly easier to simply say pro-life rather than pro-judicially innocent life. That's obviously what's in view when persons call themselves pro-life.

We don't want people that don't deserve it to be murdered at the hands of godless men. However, we want people who do deserve it to be dispatched according to God's will and God's rule, according to His righteousness and justice for the execution of judgment upon perpetrators and for the safety of others, other image bearers. So we are pro-life even though we affirm the death penalty for the crime of murder. So beginning in Genesis chapter 9 at 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 waters 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. Well, let us pray. Father, thank you for the written word and thank you for the clarity of that word with reference to these matters of ethics.

We pray again that you'd help us to think your thoughts after you. Help us not to capitulate to the humanism of our own age, the secularism, the revolt against the living and true God that we witness not only outside the church, but oftentimes we see creeps into the professing church. Grant us grace to take seriously the word of the living God, For we know all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. And we pray that you would thoroughly furnish each one of us unto every good work.

So, Lord, bless this time as we study Scripture. Fill us with your Holy Spirit. Again, forgive us for our sin and anything that would darken our understanding. And we ask in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Introduction

Well, as we did with the sermon this morning, we're gonna stick pretty closely to things that we've done in the past, because again, as I asked the question, what would I want to communicate with reference to the scripture and this doctrine, this is what I think is most helpful. So we'll look first at the biblical doctrine of the death penalty, and then secondly, the common objections to the death penalty. And with reference to the biblical doctrine, we'll look first at the Old Testament, and then secondly, we'll look at the New Testament.

Old Testament Witness

So we begin here in Genesis chapter 9, the mandate for mankind. Now, this is called the Noahic covenant. Now, covenants typically we think of are redemptive in nature. In other words, they advance God's special grace.

This is, however, a common grace covenant. ever been abolished, it has not ever been abrogated, it has not ever been done away with. In fact, there's some debate among Christians in terms of which crimes should be punished with the death penalty. And everybody who affirms the death penalty at least affirms that the crime of murder is a crime that should receive the death penalty. And typically everyone goes to Genesis chapter 9 verse 6 to prove and to highlight that.

So it is the Noahic covenant. So we want to first of all notice the context. We see that this is after the flood. If you look back in Genesis chapter 6 for a moment, you'll see the sorts of conditions that obtained prior to the flood.

In other words, what did the world look like prior to the flood? It looked very often like what it looks like today in our own generation. And so we see there in Genesis 6, 11, and 12, the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

So we come to this scene where Noah and his sons and their families emerge from the ark and God regulates. God institutes the death penalty. He institutes capital punishment because prior to the flood, the earth was filled with violence. Well, after the flood, God has put into society a particular mechanism to deal with that situation.

So in Genesis chapter nine, we see them emerge from the flood or from the ark, and then

Propagation, Provision, and Protection

we see specifically a command to propagate life. Notice in verses one and seven. So God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That is repeated in verse 7.

And as for you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it. God also speaks to the provision for life. In other words, how do we sustain ourselves on this side of the flood? Well, verses 2b and 3 speak to that.

God gave him authorization to eat meat. God is not a vegan. God authorizes and permits man to eat meat. And that is specifically stated there in verse three.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. Now, God isn't a vegan. God doesn't eat.

So that was just a little. Attempt at humor there. God doesn't have a body like men. He doesn't nourish himself like men.

That was just simply a way to say that God is not one who promotes veganism. God gives us. Now, if persons want to do that, they're free to do that, but God has given us authorization to eat meat. But then as well, he speaks concerning the protection of life, and that's in verses 2a, 4, and 6.

Notice in verse 4, "...but you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." So after the authorization to eat meat, to eat animals, there is this prohibition against ingesting blood. This is replicated or repeated in Leviticus chapter 11. God says not to do that. Gordon Wenham says, no sin shows greater contempt for life than homicide.

Whereas an animal's blood may be shed, but not consumed, human blood cannot even be shed. And Waltke says, if animal life is sacred, because it is according to verse 4, in the sense that we may eat them, but we're not supposed to ingest their blood. Waltke says, if animal life is sacred, how much more human life that bears God's image. No sanction against the offender is stated for violating animal life.

But with respect to the taking of human life, the threefold repetition of this phrase, I will demand a reckoning, brings emphatic attention to the value God bestows on it. Animal blood may be shed for food, but human blood may not be shed at all except to compensate for homicide. So that's the context in this post-flood situation. The propagation of life, the provision for life, and then the protection of life.

And then

The Punishment and Its Reason

verse 6 addresses a particular offense. It says, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed. Now, later on in the Old Testament, we see a distinction, as I mentioned this morning, between accidental homicide or manslaughter and murder. This obviously speaks to murder.

Whoever sheds man's blood with premeditation, or if they lie in wait, or if they had malice aforethought, that's the crime, that's the offense, that is what is condemned here, the taking of another person's life in an unlawful manner. Now notice the punishment that is meted out for this. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. It's the agency of man that does this.

It's not the case that God immediately takes out criminal offenders. but God has instituted the governing authorities and given them the sword for this particular activity, for the punishment up to and including the death penalty, here specifically for the crime of murder. By man his blood shall be shed. Remember this morning, the Lex Talionis, the law of retribution. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, wound for wound, life for life.

And that is mandated here in Genesis 9, 6. And again, with reference to the agency by man. 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.

So again, this isn't man's will or man's best attempt at trying to regulate society. If we oppose the death penalty, we are opposing the God who mandated it, the God who gave it. When persons say, well, it's not the case that we should ever think that we could execute a criminal offender, God commands it. By man, his blood must be shed.

And as we move on in the Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant, we see, as I said, further distinction in terms of accidental homicide or manslaughter and murder. We see additional crimes treated as capital offenses with reference to the death penalty, and then we see as well the necessity to execute murderers, and we'll see that in just a moment. But here, finally, we ought to consider the theological reason by or for which this command comes. Verse 6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man.

Now some theologians say it's because man bears God's image, He is, therefore, the lawful agency to inflict this capital punishment. Others say, no, this is the reason why we inflict capital punishment, because man is made in the image of God. That's the position I favor. In other words, when we assault a human being, it is ultimately an assault upon God. in life slain, it is the image of God that is attacked according to Gerardus Vos and Moses in Genesis chapter 9 and verse 6.

Now, as I said, as we move on in the Old Testament, we see the distinction between It's manslaughter and murder, Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. We see the identification of additional capital crimes. We see murder, obviously, adultery and sexual immorality, bestiality, homosexuality, rape, incest, an incorrigible son, Sabbath breaking, kidnapping, solicitation to apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension of prophecy, and blasphemy. Now, persons ask the question, do those things still require the death penalty today?

That's another sermon. That's another series of sermons. But suffice to say, at least the crime of murder is still subject to the death penalty in our own day.

Necessity of Capital Punishment

Now, turn over to Numbers 35 for just a moment to see the necessity of the death penalty for the crime of murder. Numbers 35. And if you read the chapter, beginning in verse 9, it deals with what's called the cities of refuge. There were cities of refuge in Israel, such that if somebody was to accidentally kill another human being, they could flee to those cities of refuge until such time, or they spent some time there, and then ultimately they would be free to go from there.

But it was a period of years that they would be in these cities of refuge. And I think, again, The idea was to discourage carelessness and foolishness on the part of the body politic. Understand that even if you accidentally kill somebody, your life is going to be radically altered. You're going to have to leave your wife, you're going to have to leave your kids, you're going to have to leave your city, you're going to have to leave everything you know and love, you're going to have to leave your job, and you're going to have to go to these cities of refuge.

And then the text proceeds to define what is accidental and what is murder. But with reference to murder, we see the necessity of the death penalty. Notice at Numbers 35 at verse 31. Moreover, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.

There were some crimes in the Mosaic law where a monetary fine could be imposed. We saw that this morning. If men fight and they accidentally hit a woman who's pregnant and her children come out and no harm follows, then the judges shall impose a fine as the husband stipulates. But if harm follows, then that lex talionis applies, that law of retribution.

Well, here there is no ransom price for murder. There's no six years or seven years or 18 years or even life imprisonment. The demand with reference to murder is the execution of the murderer. Now, this is a tough one for most people to get their minds and hearts wrapped around.

Somehow we think life imprisonment is not barbaric and somehow that's an OK situation. Personally, if I was facing either or, I'd choose the death penalty because I don't want to be in prison for the rest of my life. I think there's more dignity in dying according to God's law than there would be to be locked up for 60 or 70 years, not at this age, but you get the drift, with other offenders. But notice what he says, verse 32, you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest.

So you shall not pollute the land where you are, for blood defiles the land and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel. So in the Old Testament, we have this mandate for mankind in Genesis 9, 6, and then we have the mandate for Israel, the Old Covenant, the distinction between homicide and murder, the distinction, or rather the addition of additional capital crimes, and then the declaration concerning its necessity.

New Testament Witness

When we turn to the New Testament, the first item that we present is the death of Jesus, the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ never said, I'm not going to that cross because it's unrighteous, unholy, and ungodly to execute offenders. Now, Jesus obviously was holy, harmless, undefiled. He didn't deserve any of that.

But you didn't see sort of the supporters of Jesus standing out there with signs objecting to the reality of the death penalty. Another line of evidence is found in Acts 25. You can turn there. Acts 25, 11, with reference to the Apostle Paul before Festus.

The Apostle Paul before Festus. Remember, Paul is arrested. Paul is looked upon as a troublemaker. Unbelieving Israel basically chases him into the hands of the civil magistrate, the Roman magistrate.

And then notice in chapter 25, 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 anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. See, he didn't in principle object to the concept of or the doctrine of the death penalty or capital punishment. And the language that is employed by the Apostle Paul seems to go beyond one crime. If I have done anything worthy of death.

So when we look at the Bible, we see that the chief proponents of holiness, righteousness, and the law and will of God have no objection whatsoever to the death penalty. have no objection whatsoever to capital punishment.

Romans 13 and the Civil Sword

And of course we have then the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Romans 13. Romans 13, we'll spend a few moments there, as it is most important concerning this issue of the death penalty. it's important that we see Romans 13 in its context. And the context actually begins in Romans 12 at verse 17. If you'll notice, Romans 13 one does not begin a new thought.

It doesn't say now onto other things, but rather it continues the argument. If you had no sort of verse or chapter indicators, you would read this as one group of texts that speak to the same issue. Notice in Romans 12, 17, Repay no one evil for evil, have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. See, Paul does not say it is wicked, it is sinful, it is vile, that in your heart you want criminal offenders to be punished. That's not what he says. What he says is wrong is for you to take the initiative in the punishment of those criminal offenders.

He says, rather, give place to wrath. Now, when he moves the argument into the civil magistrate, the sphere or realm of the magistrate's lawful execution of that wrath, we're to think about these verses. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. He's condemning vigilantism.

He's condemning judge and jury-ism. He's condemning the sort of figure that, under the shadow of the night, goes out and takes out bad guys for, you know, the good of his environment. That's what's condemned. It's not the execution of wrath upon criminal offenders.

Back to verse 19, Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his head.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." And then he moves into this section concerning the civil government. And here he speaks about the same concepts. Do not avenge yourselves, but give place to wrath. Within this historical context, God has instituted a particular mechanism to inflict his wrath upon criminal offenders.

And that is civil government, that is the civil magistrate, and that's what Paul highlights. He indicates that there is a duty for us to submit to governing authorities. Notice in verse 1, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. Now again, this is our mandate.

Titus 3.1, 1 Peter 2, 13 and 14 indicate the same sort of thing. The Christian should be a good citizen. The Christian in his body politic shouldn't be a troublemaker. He shouldn't be a rebel.

He shouldn't be the sort of guy that is constantly bringing attention to himself for not being one who submits to governing authority. This is Paul's point. Let every soul be subject to the governing authority. Notice, secondly, the rationale or the reason.

For there is no authority except from God. In other words, it's God who instituted civil authority. In Proverbs 8.13, Christ, speaking his wisdom, says, By me kings reign. What did Nebuchadnezzar recognize or realize?

That it's God Most High who raises men up and he puts men down. Consider the fact that God refers to Nebuchadnezzar Now, Nebuchadnezzar, prior obviously to that drastic change we find in Daniel 7, was no honorable man, was no godly man, I'm sorry, Daniel 4, was no righteous man, but God refers to him as my servant. Do you know that Cyrus, king of Persia, is referred to by God the Lord as Messiah, as Christ, as anointed one? Why is that?

Because God raised up Cyrus and God raised up Nebuchadnezzar to conduct specific tasks at his bidding. The king's heart is in the hand of Yahweh, and he directs it the way he does with the waters. Civil authority is instituted by God, and for that reason, we need to be submissive to that civil authority. Notice he highlights the sin of resistance.

Look at verse two. He says, therefore, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. Now, that does not mean civil authority can function any old way that they want. In fact, John Gill says, 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 to the endangering of the lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted. There is this doctrine in the reformed tradition of resistance against an evil governing authority. Again, it's a massive subject.

It's a large topic. Is there a time when a body politic may resist their authority. Again, I would suggest that you not only be familiar with what Scripture teaches, but read John Calvin's specifically booked for in the Institutes of the Christian Religion to get into the ballpark. Persons who begin to engage in this kind of thought, well, we just need to march against Ottawa or march against Washington, D.C.

I personally would never say that's not an option. I would, however, say you better think it through, you better figure it out, and you better do it in a manner that is consistent with the Word of God, with the best of the Reformed tradition, and that would, in fact, redound to the glory and honor of God. I mean, you've got the American Revolution. Was that justified or was it not?

Again, there's theologians on either side of that question, and it's a big deal. But in terms of Paul's basic command, be subject to the governing authorities, to resist the authority is to ultimately resist God. Now notice, he moves into the purpose of the function of civil government in society in verses three and four. Notice, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.

Now I suggest that you add works in that statement. They're not a terror, or let me just get my glasses back on. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil works. Again, they don't punish thought crime.

They don't punish covetousness. They don't get inside your head and bring you to the bar. That's not how it functions. They punish external acts of wickedness.

That's their lawful function. That is their role. And again, I suggest that this delimits government involvement in the lives of people. protect us from murderers in our city, and protect us from foreign invaders. That's about as far as it goes with reference to the logistics of civil government, at least here in this particular passage.

So notice, the role of the magistrate is to punish evil works. The role of the magistrate is to function as a public good. Notice verse 3 for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil Do you want to be unafraid of the authority do what is good and you will have praise from the same The idea of praise there is not that they'll have parades in your honor. You obeyed the law So we're going to call you to the city square and give you or confer upon you benefits and good things I think the praise from the government that's envisaged here is that they don't mess with you.

They don't bug you They don't get into your life. They don't get into your business That's the best praise our government could ever give to us is just to leave us alone. I don't need awards I don't need to go down to City Square. I don't need wreaths on my head I just want to be left alone so that I can pursue life liberty and Justice and happiness and all those good things that we long for and desire now notice as he advances the argument verse 4 For he is God's minister, back up just a little bit.

Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Verse 3, do what is good and you will have praise from the same. Verse 4, for he is God's minister to you for good. That's his supposed role.

That's how magistrates are to function. And minister here is the same word that we find with reference to the New Testament deacon. There's a deacon, a minister, a servant that functions in the ecclesiastical realm, and then there's a minister, a deacon, a servant that functions in the civil realm. They are servants.

They're not masters. They're not lords. They're not the suzerain. They're not the absolute and utter authority.

Rather, they are God's servants for the good of people. Somewhere along the line, they lost sight of that. Somewhere along the line, they lost big-time sight of that. And now it's all about them being served by everybody below them.

But that's not God's purpose with reference to the magistrate. Back to verse 4, for He has God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid. There's that deterrent effect.

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. Notice the parallel with what he stipulated in 1219. Do not avenge yourselves, but give place to wrath. Now he comes and says the civil government is the armor servant of God's wrath in history to inflict the sword on those who practice evil works.

Again, they're external acts of evil that are punishable by the civil magistrate. 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.

That is a great and perceptive statement, and that jives exactly with what Paul says concerning the function and role of civil government. But then with reference to the sword, notice, he is God's minister to you for good, but if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. That does not mean that every time the civil government punishes a criminal offender, it is with the death penalty. But it certainly includes the death penalty if such is warranted by the particular offense.

John Murray comments, he 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. That is as well consistent with Paul's teaching concerning the place of the civil government with reference to evil works in society. They are God's minister for the good of the body politic and for the execution of God's wrath upon those who would violate the civil order.

That's Paul's doctrine concerning the death penalty. It is consistent with what we find in Genesis 9, whoever sheds man's blood by man, his blood will be shed for in the image of God, he made man. We have both testaments, both covenants. We have consistency throughout scripture.

And yet there are people that profess saving faith in Jesus Christ and say, well, the death penalty should no longer be enacted. The death penalty or capital punishment should no longer be. Brethren, that is to deny and to take away from the very Word of God Almighty. Imagine if, well, I guess people do do that with everything else as well.

Well, you know, we know that we're not supposed to let women preach, but let's go ahead and let women preach. We know that we're not supposed to do that, but let's go ahead and let that. These things ought not to be. We all say and all confess that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, and we need to be submissive to that and subject to it, even in those things that obviously are not popular.

I mean, if the Conservative Party in Canada is reticent to bring up abortion, I've never even heard death penalty, and the church or the people of God don't go to these town hall meetings and ask people, what are you going to do about criminal offenders? Are you going to execute them? Brethren, we have gone so far afield that the primary emphasis of civil government is not even thought about by people today. The primary emphasis that God's Word indicates with reference to civil government isn't even on the landscape for most people's thinking when it comes to the execution of criminal offenders.

Common Objections Answered

Now, let's look, secondly, at the common objections to the death penalty. I'm sure there's more, but I'll just give you a few. There's both A, biblical objections, and B, pragmatic objections. First of all, the biblical.

Biblical Objections

The first is the mistranslation in Exodus 20 at verse 13, thou shalt not kill. Persons hear that and they think, well, you can't kill even a criminal offender. Remember this morning I cited Walter Kaiser and he said that word ratzah, used 47 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, is the best word to encompass the concepts of premeditation, malice aforethought. You shall not murder is the preferred translation of Exodus chapter 20 and verse 13.

Exodus 20, verse 13, cannot be cited to militate against Genesis 9.6 or Romans 13.4.

Matthew 5 and Personal Retaliation

Secondly, we have a pacifist understanding of Matthew 5.38-42. You can turn there. Matthew 5.38-42. 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, whatever this passage mean, it does not mean that we as individuals are never to oppose wickedness inflicted upon our persons. Jesus is slapped at his trial. Jesus does not turn the other cheek and say, give me another one, please. This is not a call to relinquish any thought whatsoever of personal defense from criminal offenders.

This is not a call by Jesus to get rid of our guns, to get rid of our dogs, to get rid of our locks, to just invite criminal offenders into our home. If they want to rape our wives, we tell them that our daughters are down the hallway. That's not what this text is teaching. This text also does not teach that the church can never oppose wickedness within her own ranks.

Matthew 18 tells us there is a manner in which we deal with wickedness, unrepented sin, in the context of the church. It's not execution. Capital punishment or the death penalty has never been given to the church. It's always the monopoly of the civil state.

But this is not to be taken that way. As well, it is not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in society, because this would then fly contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 13.4. If you want to keep your finger there, or remember all the way back to when I cited Romans 12, I think the parallel to Matthew 5, 38 to 42 is found in Romans 12.19. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.

For it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." This particular rule that our Lord is giving here in the Sermon on the Mount is contrary to the Pharisees and the scribes. Remember that he says if your righteousness does not exceed the scribes and the Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. The scribes and the Pharisees were very judgmental, obviously. They were very vindictive.

They engaged in personal retaliation. They engaged in personal vengeance. Jesus is condemning that in the context of believers, individual believers. He would not tell a civil magistrate, hang up your sword and just love on people.

No, he wouldn't do that because Paul doesn't say that in Romans chapter 13. It is the idea of a vindictive spirit that is a fault-finding, irritated person that's always about their own sort of game or their own sort of space or their own justice. Turretin, with reference to the Romans 12 passage, says blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 19, but private revenge. That's the emphasis here in Matthew 5.

Don't be that petty, vindictive person. That's the teaching in the passage, not allow criminal offenders to come in and plunder your goods. Allow criminal offenders to run rampant in the streets. Get rid of police, get rid of alarms, get rid of locks, just be hippies.

That's not the teaching of the passage. The passage condemns the personal retaliation of individual individuals in society. It does not militate against the role and function of civil government in society to execute criminal offenders.

John 8 and the Woman in Adultery

And then the third common biblical objection is the woman caught in adultery. John 8. John chapter 8, another famous passage invoked to show that Jesus suspended, Jesus abrogated, Jesus did away with the death penalty. We know what the offense was.

The woman was caught in adultery. That was in fact a capital offense, according to Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 22. But we also know the specific situation facing Christ. Verse one, chapter eight, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

Now, early in the morning, he came again into the temple, And all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned.

But what do you say? So the offense is clear, a woman caught in adultery, but notice the specific situation as John reports it through us. Verse 6, this they said, testing him that they might have something of which to accuse him. See, they were not interested in justice.

If they were interested in justice, they would have brought the woman and the man. Because if she was caught in the very act, that means there was a man present as well. That they didn't bring the man indicates they didn't care one whit about justice. Secondly, John tells us they were testing him.

They wanted to try and pit him against Moses. He's popular. Crowds are following him. They want to put him on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus, if you mandate that this woman is executed, then you're going to lose popular support from everybody around you that thinks you're this wonderful fellow. But Jesus, if you disregard the law of Moses and allow this woman to go unpunished, then everybody will see that you're a fraud and you are not consistent with Mosaic law. So they put Jesus on what's called in logic, the horns of a dilemma. So John alerts us to this.

Consider as well, if they were legitimately concerned about justice, they would have sought out a civil or an ecclesiastical official. Christ was neither. Now, I know that's an odd statement because he's the Messiah of God. He's the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

But Jesus was a carpenter. Jesus was an itinerant preacher. Jesus was a minister of the Word. He wasn't an actual official in the synagogue or temple.

He certainly wasn't an official with reference to the civil sphere. He didn't have the authority to command capital punishment on this particular woman. Again, it shows that they want to try and upset the apple cart. They want to show him or try to show him as a fraud.

So that's the specific situation. Now notice the response. We won't look at the Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger as though he did not hear. There's been a lot of speculation as to what he wrote with his finger.

The text doesn't tell us what he wrote with his finger. I mean, you can speculate until the cows come home. That might be a good question when you enter into heaven. Jesus, what did you write, you know, with your finger when you stooped down as though you did not hear?

But notice his response in verse 7. Now, if you are not familiar with the horns of a dilemma, it's sort of a logical conundrum where either answer, either way, you're done. You know, the question, have you stopped beating your wife yet? How do you answer that?

Yes, okay, you've stopped beating her. No, you're still beating her. That is a logical conundrum that persons speak about, and it's called the horns of a dilemma. How does Christ respond in this instance?

I'll just cut to the quick. He goes right through it. He upholds the law of Moses, and he shows compassion and forgiveness. That's precisely how Jesus does it.

Notice what he says. Verse seven, so when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. What is this? This is submission to, on the part of Christ, the law of Moses.

You see, a capital offense or death penalty could never be inflicted except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. So when Christ says what Christ says here, he is saying we need witnesses to proceed. When he says, he who is without sin, he means this particular sin. He doesn't mean no sin at all, Christ is not a Wesleyan.

Christ is not a perfectionist in terms of his theology. He is speaking concerning this particular sin of adultery. He who is without this sin, let him cast the first stone at her. We know this because later he tells this woman, go and sin no more.

Again, Jesus doesn't believe that a redeemed sinner will never have remaining corruption. The emphasis is on, go and do this sin, this particular sin of adultery, no more. With reference to witnesses, We see in Deuteronomy 17, 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. Matthew Poole comments on 8.7 fantastically. He says, in reason, those who are zealous for the punishment of others should neither be guilty of the same nor of greater crimes themselves.

Again, it's not a call to absolute sinlessness on the part of anybody that would function as a civil magistrate, but it is a call to these men that they examine their hearts to see with what they have in terms of their status before God. Poole is right. And then remember that the two or three witnesses that would affirm or confirm the particular violation, they would be the first ones to pick up the stone and throw it at that offender. Think about how that would cause you to reflect very seriously on your charges of another person.

These weren't like the city of Vancouver. I mean, you lived amongst a community of people that was pretty close, pretty tight-knit, and probably you knew everybody. If you are at the position or point where you're going to take up stones to throw at one of your fellows, you better be absolutely, positively, 100% right, not only in terms of your accusation, but right in terms of your own heart status before the living and true God. If you're going to function in this capacity, you better examine yourself.

The literature suggests that these men were known for their profligate lifestyles. These men were known for their multitude of girlfriends and that sort of thing. And the text shows that to be the case. Notice what happens.

Verse 8. Or verse 9, then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest, even to the last. And Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, woman, where are those accusers of you?

Has no one condemned you? She said, no one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

You see, Christ handles this horns of the dilemma masterfully. He upholds the law of Moses. Two or three witnesses are absolutely crucial in the death penalty. Everybody bailed, everybody left.

There's no longer two or three witnesses. He then exercises that messianic blessedness of forgiving her her sin and then charging her to go and to sin no more. Brethren, to suggest that Christ here suspends the death penalty or abrogates the death penalty, or does away with the death penalty, brings it into contradiction with both Genesis 9, 6 and Romans 13. I don't know why that doesn't bother more people.

I don't know why consistency is not pursued more earnestly on the part of God's people. We need to think God's thoughts after him. That is our calling. That is our mandate.

That is what is prescribed to us. If there seems to be a problem in the scripture, you can rest assured it's not a problem in the scripture. It's a problem in your own head or heart. It's a problem with your interpretation.

Those who say, well, there's all kinds of contradictions, they're simply wrong. And for professing Christians to say, well, Jesus forgave her, so therefore Jesus didn't believe in the death penalty is foolhardy and brings those persons into direct confrontation with Paul's mandate in Romans chapter 13, at verse 4, with reference to the function of civil government.

Pragmatic Objections

Now, in terms of the pragmatic, that means practical, or the non-biblical, these are pretty easy to dispense with, and I'm sure there's a whole lot more, but again, time is quickly evading us. First of all, the death penalty is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. The death penalty is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Well, no penalty is consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness if we take that tact.

Life imprisonment certainly doesn't seem to be an expression of forgiveness. Can we, on the one hand, forgive somebody, and on the other hand, demand that they be punished accordingly? I say absolutely, positively, we can. I think that that is a position that is absolutely maintainable in the hearts of God's people.

And in fact, if the person is dealt with accordingly, I think it facilitates and helps the forgiver. In other words, if the disposition is carried out, if the person is dealt with logistically and specifically, it helps us to have closure and to truly exercise forgiveness. Secondly, the death penalty is not an expression of mercy. It's not supposed to be.

It's the death penalty. That's not an expression of mercy. It is retributive justice. It is lex talionis.

It is the law of retaliation. Again, it's not an expression of mercy to send somebody to life imprisonment either, and yet nobody is whining about that. Thirdly, the death penalty is used on innocent people. That is a terrible one, that is a horrific one, and that is one that we ought, by God's grace, to not duplicate or not to engage in.

However, if we take seriously the mandate of two or three witnesses, And we praise God for general revelation and the light of nature that is afforded to us DNA fingerprinting. A lot of this will be minimal at best as we proceed. The abuse of something is not an argument for the non-use of it. People sometimes drive their cars into crowds of other people.

Do we outlaw cars? Do we suggest that because somebody crashed into somebody, no one should ever drive? I realize that's a talking point at times with the federal government, but no thinking individual ever goes down that path. We need to take seriously what scripture says.

As well, the death penalty does not deter crime. As I mentioned this morning, it always does in at least one case. A murderer that is executed according to God's law will never murder again. He is deterred once and for all, but God's word is clear.

Paul tells us, if you do evil, be afraid. The reason why there's no deterrent is because we don't use it the way God intended it to be used. Persons don't fear punishment because oftentimes there is no punishment. I think the state of California now, if you steal anything under $950, nothing at all happens.

Not one, I don't even think you'd get arrested. You can literally walk out of a store with a TV. I mean, if they catch you, you'll have to give the TV back. But if you make it out and they find you, they got a video recording of you, nothing's gonna happen.

Well, of course, persons aren't afraid in that environment. Of course, persons don't fear any repercussions when no repercussions are meted out. Turn to Ecclesiastes for just a moment to see this principle. Ecclesiastes chapter eight.

Ecclesiastes chapter 8, verse 11. Solomon says, because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. If that isn't a description of our generation, I don't know what is. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Back to the argument that oftentimes, or it has in the past, been used on innocent people.

Consider that if you are sentenced, capitally, in America, it initiates an automatic 12-year appeal process. 12 years. That is a long time to hopefully sort everything out, to get your case heard, have evidence weighed, and all those things. But that 12 years, that's not the execution of justice in any sort of a speedy fashion. The idea that I can steal, or I can hurt, or I can engage in crime and have no punishment or repercussion.

Of course, we don't see the effectiveness of deterrent in punishment when we don't actually punish people. It's like the parent that says, if you do this, I'm going to spank you. And then they do that, and you count. One, two, three.

There's no fear of God before the eyes of those kids. Spank them. Carry out the threat. Engage in what you said you were going to do.

Because if you don't execute it speedily, the hearts of these little ones are going to be given over to madness and wickedness and rebellion. There is a deterrent effect in the death penalty. And for those who say otherwise, they haven't read Romans 13, and they haven't reflected upon reality. And then the final, and this comes from a theological vantage point, the death penalty will prohibit sinners from being saved.

The death penalty will prohibit sinners from being saved. Typically, that's a Pelagian or an Arminian argument. Brethren, we could reverse that right back over on its head. It could be the sentence of the death penalty that causes the sinner to reflect upon his or her misdeeds and lead them unto repentance.

This is based on faulty theology. If God is going to save somebody, the death penalty is not going to deter God. He will save them in that 11th hour, and intriguingly, who gets to speak to the convicted at the very end? It ain't his wife.

It isn't his friend. It's his pastor. Why? So he can urge upon that sinner to repent and believe the gospel.

This is founded on faulty theology and should not be entertained for a moment.

Application

Well, in conclusion, the death penalty in civil government. In Canada, it was eliminated de facto. That means it didn't happen ever since 1963. And then de jour, which is by law, on July 14, 1976.

So there's been no death penalty in Canada for that amount of time. Gordon Clark says with reference to capital punishment, God gave the right of capital punishment to human governments. He intended it to be used wisely and justly, but he intended it to be used. See, it is this kind of a common blunder that persons have.

This, in and of itself, is bad because it's been misused. Now, as Clark says, we need to use it wisely, justly, judiciously, but we must use it. It's not the case that we can say, well, bad things have happened as we've used it. Well, then fix that.

Deal with those issues. Don't eliminate it altogether. He says, abolition of the death penalty presupposes the falsity of Christian principles. And Watson famously said, to kill an offender is not murder, but justice.

A private person sins if he draws the sword. A public person sins if he puts up the sword. A magistrate ought not to let the sword of justice rust in the scabbard. This is God's mandate, this is God's will, this is God's command.

Secondly, the death penalty and the believer. The believer must embrace the entirety of God's work. We don't get to pick and choose. Well, you know, I kind of like this, but I don't like this.

I think I've shared with you once, when I first got to Chilliwacker, a couple of years in, I met a pastor and we got together and we kind of hung out. And I asked him one time, do you ever preach on abortion? He says, no, it's so controversial. And then I said, do you preach on the death penalty?

And he says, well, you know, the Old Testament seemed to teach it, but Jesus, he didn't like it or he didn't believe in it. And I just thought to myself, are you kidding me? You're a pastor of a church and you don't know what the Bible says concerning the death penalty? That's pretty bad.

That's pretty pathetic. And yet, that's what happens in the lives, not only of pastors, but in people. We need to know what Scripture says, and even if we find something that sort of bristles against the flesh, we embrace it because God's Word teaches it. Right?

We don't get to pick and choose. This isn't a buffet. I mean, when I go to a buffet, I don't eat salad, man. I go for the meat.

I go for the money items. I want what I don't normally get. I can get lettuce any time of the week, right? We don't treat the Bible that way.

We really love the love of God. We really like that mercy of Jesus. We like forgiveness. I had somebody once tell me, I don't like Paul.

I don't like Paul's teaching. You don't have the right to not like Paul. You don't have the right to not like what people in the scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit teach. Our job is to submit Our job is to comply.

Our job is not to pick and choose. As well, the believer must recognize the enormity of the problem of evil. I mean, brethren, if this world was not filled with sin and lawlessness and violence, there would be no need for the death penalty. But this world is filled with sin and lawlessness and violence.

It obtained prior to the flood, so post-flood, God says to the civil government, here's a sword to deal with the violence that will be in the earth. And then as well, the believer must realize the consistency of God's holy nature. He punishes crime. He punishes sin.

He punishes crime through civil government, according to Paul in Romans 13, 4. God has no truck whatsoever with evil. Sin is bad, it is an offense against who God is, and therefore God has instituted mechanisms for the punishment of criminal offenders in society. And then finally, the death penalty and the unbeliever.

If you're not a believer here tonight, You're not going to become a believer by now believing in the death penalty. The way of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. The way of salvation is belief in the gospel. The reality that Christ assumed our humanity, lived in obedience to the Father's law, died as a sacrifice on the cross, and was raised for our justification.

Life is found in Christ. Believe on Him, and you will have everlasting life. But the death penalty should function in this particular capacity. If this is God's mind and will with reference to civil society, vis-a-vis the execution of criminal offenders, what about the lake of fire?

What about the punishment to come? To me, that's always been the most inconsistent idea in a professing Christian. Oh no, we reject and are horrified at the concept or the thought of the death penalty. And on the other hand, we affirm the lake of fire?

The lake of fire and eternal punishment makes execution in the civil sphere look like a walk in the park. Either way, it reflects God's mind relative to sin and abomination, and hopefully that will provoke in your heart that fear of God so that you'll run to Christ and find refuge in the Savior. That is the hope, that is the prayer, that is the desire. Well, let us pray.

Closing Prayer

Father, thank you for your Word, and thank you for the consistency that we find. It is such a blessing and such a joy to find the Word of God as a consistent whole. We know that it is, though it was authored by 40-plus persons, 40-plus men, we know it's one author, because you, by your Spirit, caused those men to write what you would have us to know. And I pray, Father, that you would be gracious to us, help us to think these thoughts after you, and as well, God, we pray for civil society.

We know there is rampant crime. We know there is such violence. We know there's just gross transgression of God's holy law. And we pray for a society to actually take serious the need to punish criminal offenders.

And we ask that you would now go with us, help us in this coming week to bring glory to you. And we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Scripture References

• Genesis 6:11-12; 9:1; 9:2-3; 9:4; 9:6; 9:7
• Exodus 20:13; 21
• Leviticus 11; 20
• Numbers 35; 35:31; 35:32
• Deuteronomy 17; 19; 22
• Proverbs 8:13
• Ecclesiastes 8:11
• Daniel 4; 7
• Matthew 5:38-42; 18
• John 8:1; 8:6; 8:7; 8:9
• Acts 25:9; 25:11
• Romans 12:17; 12:19; 13; 13:1; 13:2; 13:3; 13:4
• Titus 3:1
• 1 Peter 2:13-14