← Back to sermon library
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. 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. 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 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
