← Back to sermon library

Please turn with me in your Bibles 
to Proverbs chapter 18. Proverbs chapter 18. I'm gonna 
read verse 17 and then we'll pray. The first one to plead his cause 
seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. Well, 
let us pray. Father, we thank you for the 
written word. We thank you for these principles given to us, 
for our personal or interpersonal conduct with one another, and 
as well for the courtroom. We ask God that you'd help us 
to think your thoughts after you, help us to receive with 
thanksgiving the written word. And even now, may your Holy Spirit 
be at work in our minds and in our hearts. And we ask this through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, I want to draw out 
a few principles of due process. Due process is generally or generically 
defined as a course of formal proceedings, such as legal proceedings, 
carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules 
principles. I suggest that we see an abuse 
of this all the time. We see it in the media, we see 
this rush to judgment, we see persons hearing one side of a 
story and then condemning others without first having cross-examined 
them. When we see that principle of 
cross-examination, it clearly outlined here for us by Solomon 
in verse 17. So I want to look at first this 
principle of cross-examination, and then secondly go back into 
Moses, specifically the book of Deuteronomy, and look at the 
laws concerning witnesses, and then as well the law governing 
corporal punishment. Now, we may not make it to the 
very end. If my voice does die, I'm sorry. I'll do the best that 
I can. But I want to look first at this principle of cross-examination. But before we look specifically 
at verse 17, notice verse 13, which is somewhat similar. In 
verse 13, we read, Before he hears it, it is folly 
and shame to him. Now, I suggest that we see these 
abuses in our world. We see these abuses out there. But I wonder if we see those 
abuses in here, in our own relationships with one another. Are we the 
sort of fool that is described in verse 13 and the fool that's 
described in verse 17? Or are we committed to due process? Are we committed to actually 
investigating objectively the various things that affect us 
in this world? When we look at verse 13, we 
notice the situation. We see that he who answers a 
matter before he hears it, it's folly and shame to him. Now, 
if a judge did this, if a judge in a courtroom only heard one 
part and then he rendered a verdict, we would see the folly involved 
in that. And yet I suspect we don't see that folly when we 
engage in the very sort of thing. The problem obviously in view 
is that the man answers before he knows the pertinent facts. 
We cannot answer a matter if we don't know the pertinent facts. 
We can't give a ruling, we can't give any sort of confirmation 
or affirmation to a situation until we are presented with the 
facts. Bruce Waltke comments on this 
fool in verse 13. Its subject is implicitly the 
fool, who before the wise has finished speaking, boorishly 
interrupts him to spout his own opinion. His impertinent and 
imprudent interruption exposes his folly for all to see and 
brings him disgrace. This is not a righteous way to 
function. It's not godly to interrupt people. It's not godly to cut people 
off just so you can force your opinion. That's the particular 
offense in the passage. Now, I would suggest, along with 
Charles Bridges, that this is prevalent. This happens a lot. Again, not just out there, but 
it happens within the context of the church, it happens in 
our own relationships. Bridges says, too often this 
proverb is verified in common life. Men will scarcely hear 
out what is unacceptable to them. They will break in upon a speaker 
before they have fully heard him. and therefore answer a matter 
which they little weighed and but imperfectly understood. The eager disputant prides himself 
on his acute judgment." It really is a rendering or rather a a 
comment concerning his pride. He answers a matter before he 
hears it, because in his pride and in his arrogance, he doesn't 
judge that he needs to take in that data. He's already got the 
prescription. He's already got it figured out. 
He knows the best way to go forward. Well, that, according to Solomon, 
is folly. And while the proud man engages 
in this kind of thing and proudly wants to assert his prudence, 
his intelligence, his wisdom, his ability, what he's actually 
demonstrating is his folly and shame. And everyone around him 
sees it. And yet, at times, he doesn't 
see it himself. Now, look over at verse 18. The 
first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor 
comes and examines him. Now, the language that is used 
here by Solomon could apply to a civil courtroom, but it could 
apply to those interpersonal relationships. In fact, John 
Gill shows the comprehensiveness of it. He says, this often appears 
true in telling a tale, in private conversation, in lawsuits before 
a judge and a court of judicature, and in theological controversy. So Gill suggests this happens 
everywhere. The first one to plead his cause 
seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. The emphasis 
is upon cross-examination. The emphasis is upon listening 
to both sides of the story. If you come to me and you tell 
me that your husband's the worst human being on the face of the 
earth, forgive me if I don't round up the villagers and get 
the pitchforks and the torches and go and prevail upon him. There's two sides to every story 
and that's what Solomon is reiterating. We all know that, and we all 
expect people to treat us that way, but when it comes to others, 
we rush to judgment. We forget the rules of due process. We forget the principles outlined 
in scripture that is the bedrock of our Western civilization jurisprudence 
situation, and we just run willy-nilly into condemning people that are 
not worthy to be condemned because they haven't been heard. The 
first one to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor 
comes and examines him. Just think in the recent months, 
a bit of a clip of a video was enough to cause great hardship 
and agony to young kids that didn't do the very thing that 
they were castigated for. Again, we see it evidently there, 
but we don't always see it evidently within our own hearts and in 
our own practice. Cross-examination is a bedrock 
principle of all matters of justice. If we get rid of that, forget 
it. We have degenerated to the level 
of animals. And as the people of God, we 
ought never to fear cross-examination. The truth never has anything 
to fear. It doesn't have to run and hide 
from any sort of examination, but rather is able to stand up 
to the task. It is able to present itself 
well. Matthew Henry, with reference 
to this principle, says, we must therefore remember that we have 
two ears to hear both sides before we give judgment. Now obviously 
in verse 17, the first one to plead his cause seems right until 
his neighbor comes and examines him. That cross-examination shows 
problems with the first disputant's story. That cross-examination 
shows the holes in that person's story. Again, you've probably 
all had this happen. You've heard one person say such 
and such, and you say, wow, I can't believe that that person is such 
a terrible beast of a human being. And then you hear their side 
of it, and you say, oh, wow, I didn't know. Again, brethren, 
we as the people of God need to be patient. We as the people 
of God need to guard against these rushes to judgment. We 
as the people of God need to insist upon cross-examination 
so that we don't engage in the sorts of things that we find 
condemned by Solomon in the pages of Proverbs. And then the failure 
to listen to both sides also compromises another fundamental 
principle, the presumption of innocence. Again, that's something 
that we're losing. We're losing as a society. Anybody 
can say anything and take down another person because we're 
all quick to grab the pitchforks, to grab the torches, and to burn 
people down without ever listening to their side, without ever investigating 
the claim, without ever looking at the data or the evidence. 
God does not want his people to proceed in that manner. God 
wants his people to be careful. God wants his people to be diligent, 
God wants his people to be humble, and God wants his people to be 
governed by facts, by evidence, by data, not by feeling, and 
not by emotion, and not what we want it to be the case of. 
We need to guard our hearts when it comes to this particular matter. 
We need to realize that the presumption of guilt works in a communistic 
society. But with reference to free peoples, 
it's always a presumption of innocence. That is bedrock and 
foundational. Again, I suppose none of us give 
any thought to due process until we're on the wrong side of the 
law. Then we want everybody to treat us the way that God's Word 
says. But we as the people of God need 
to have a proper framework to look at the society around us 
and as well to function with one another in the context of 
the local church. So that's one principle of jurisprudence 
or due process. It is the principle of cross-examination. Go back to Deuteronomy chapter 
19. Deuteronomy chapter 19 deals with the law of witnesses. Deuteronomy 
chapter 19, specifically verses 15 to 21. Now this isn't the only passage 
that speaks to the law concerning witnesses. There are other passages 
vis-a-vis Deuteronomy 17, but specifically I want to look at 
this one. Now note, verse 15 establishes 
a rule. One witness shall not rise against 
a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits. By 
the mouth of two or three witnesses, the matter shall be established. So there's a negative aspect. 
It cannot be the case that there's one witness. But positively, 
it must be that there are two or three witnesses. A principle, 
again, that wasn't invalidated by the collapse of the theocracy. 
We see this principle embedded in judicial situations in the 
New Testament with reference to church discipline in Matthew 
chapter 18. If your brother sins against you, go to him. If he 
hears you, you've won your brother. If he doesn't, then take with 
you two or three witnesses. If he doesn't hear them, then 
tell it to the church. 1 Timothy chapter 5, Paul is 
very clear. Do not receive an accusation 
against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 
So it wasn't located only in the theocratic situation that 
Israel found herself in, in Canaan, but rather it is something embedded 
in our creatureliness that we need to abide by. Now notice, 
well, just for one moment, look at the text again. One witness 
shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any 
sin that he commits. By the mouth of two or three 
witnesses the matter shall be established. Christopher Wright 
makes this observation. He says, the purpose of the plurality 
of witnesses is clearly the protection of the accused. It's just incredible. And that's why we're going to 
look at the law governing corporal punishment. I know that's not 
a happy topic. Chapter 25 of Deuteronomy deals 
with the public flogging of a criminal offender. I know that that just 
grates against us as, you know, Canadians in the 21st century. 
This just seems or feels or reeks of barbarism. and all sorts of 
things that are antiquated. But it's actually governed by 
law. It's actually regulated. And 
I want you to see that and appreciate that. Whether you come down on 
the side that the government ought to be publicly flogging 
criminal offenders or not, you need to see that it's not a barbaric 
thing, it's not an antiquated thing, but it was regulated by 
the law of God for the benefit of society. But specifically 
here, Wright says, the purpose of the plurality of witnesses 
is clearly the protection of the accused. And in Deuteronomy 
25, the regulation concerning public flogging was about preserving 
the humanity and dignity of the criminal offender himself. I 
often think that the way that we treat criminals today dehumanizes 
them. It is barbarism. But the biblical 
pattern and the biblical norm secures the reality that they 
are image bearers even when they are guilty. Even when they are 
punished for criminal activity, their dignity is kept in place 
and their personhood as those bearing the image of God is respected. 
So he says, it's clearly the protection of the accused, especially 
the protection of the weaker individual from the vindictiveness 
of a more powerful opponent. Obviously, this precaution could 
be flouted. as Naboth discovered in 1 Kings 
21, but it provided at least some safeguard. This emphasis 
on two or three witnesses provides a safeguard so that persons cannot 
destroy other person's lives without any substance, without 
any basis in reality or fact. Now, note specifically in verses 
16 to 20, there is a violation of the rule concerning the law 
of witnesses. And this text speaks to the presence 
of a false witness. Remember, God takes perjury very 
seriously. It's enshrouded or a prohibition 
against it is enshrouded in the Decalogue. You shall not commit 
or you shall not bear false witness. It's the ninth commandment. And 
we see so many laws, case law applications of that principle 
in the society of Israel to show us the seriousness with which 
God takes this matter. Because frivolous lawsuits destroy 
people's lives. Frivolous or groundless accusations 
destroy people's lives. It ruins them. It ruins reputations. And while we may say, well, reputation 
isn't important, it's only how God sees us. God says that a 
good reputation is something to cleave on to. It's not to 
be discarded, it's not to be discounted, and it's certainly 
not to be compromised by persons unwilling to do what God demands. You see, the Lord Most High is 
serious when it comes to matters of truth, when it comes to matters 
of witness. Now note the situation in verse 
16. If a false witness rises against 
any man to testify against him of wrongdoing. So this is the 
issue. Now remember, I want to just 
remind you, because there was no witness doesn't mean there 
was no crime. Just because there's no witness 
doesn't mean no crime happened. But the Bible speaks to the situation 
in terms of the ability to prosecute offenders. You have to have witnesses 
to go forward. Again, Craigie, a commentator 
on the book of Deuteronomy, he says, So, all that to say, witnesses 
and testimony and all of that is absolutely crucial. But notice, 
this false witness rises up, there's a particular procedure 
that is given to deal with this. Verse 17, then both men in the 
controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests 
and the judges who serve in those days. What does that mean? It 
means there was a structure in Israel that had lower and higher 
courts. There was a structure in Israel 
that had lower and higher courts. In fact, if you look at Deuteronomy 
chapter 17, we read of that higher court in verse 8. If a matter 
arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees 
of guilt, for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between 
one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, 
then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your 
God chooses. It's a central tribunal. It's 
a higher court. And their specific task is to 
deal with the harder cases. Degrees of guilt for bloodshed. 
Is it first degree murder? Is it second degree? Is it manslaughter? There has to be a structure in 
place to deal with these sorts of things in civil society. Again, 
this is not barbarism. This is not antiquated. This 
is the foundation of our present system. Our present system owes 
its being to what we find in the book of Deuteronomy. Persons 
out there that hate the Bible, persons out there that hate the 
Old Testament, they certainly love due process when they are 
on the wrong side of the law. Everybody likes the presumption 
of innocence then. Everybody likes the two or three 
witness mandate. Everybody likes the prohibition 
against false witness when they're on that side of it. And they 
owe that to the word of the living God. So this is a higher court 
designed to deal with the harder matters. Notice verse 9, you 
shall come to the priest. the Levites, and to the judge 
there in those days, and inquire of them. They shall pronounce 
upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the 
sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which 
the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do 
according to all that they order you, according to the sentence 
of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment. 
which they tell you you shall do. You shall not turn aside 
to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they 
pronounce upon you. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will 
not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the 
Lord your God or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put 
away the evil from Israel, and all the people shall hear and 
fear and no longer act presumptuously. Now back to our passage, that's 
prescribed in verse 17. If it is supposed, or if it is 
thought, or if it is suspected that this man is a false witness, 
vis-a-vis verse 16, then there is a structure in place to deal 
with that. And that's what God's Word highlights. 
Notice in verse 18, there's a determination. And notice how that determination 
comes about. And the judges shall make careful 
inquiry. This ain't communism. This isn't 
off to the gulag with you. This isn't just cut them off. 
No, there's careful inquiry. There's the rules of evidence. 
There's the witness testimony. There's the sifting through all 
of those things. That's what they were prescribed 
with to deal with matters of jurisprudence in the theocracy. Again, our Western civilization 
is built on these principles and we ought to praise God for 
that. But that's what's in view. They give careful investigation 
or inquiry to this, and then notice, and indeed, if the witness 
is a false witness who has testified falsely against his brother, 
so the determination has been made, he is in fact a false witness, 
now note the particular punishment involved for that false witness 
according to verse 19. then you shall do to him as he 
thought to have done to his brother, so you shall put away the evil 
from among you." That's beautiful wisdom, isn't it? It's absolutely 
masterful. If I allege that you are guilty 
of a particular crime, and it turns out that I am a false witness, 
whatever the punishment was associated with that particular crime will 
be turned against me, up to and including capital punishment. 
Now, I suggest that would empty our courts. I suggest that that 
would mitigate against frivolous lawsuits. I suggest that that 
would discourage false witnesses. If they knew they were found 
out, it wouldn't only be they were guilty of perjury and were 
put on probation. But whatever it is they allege 
that that particular person did, whatever the punishment attached 
to that particular crime would now be poured out upon that false 
witness, it would certainly make people think twice. That's the 
emphasis in Israel. Back to 17, verse 13. And all 
the people shall hear and fear and no longer act presumptuously. Verse 20 in our passage. And 
those who remain shall hear and fear and hereafter they shall 
not again commit such evil among you. We've lost that principle. No one's afraid to do anything 
wrong because nothing happens to them anymore. I am speaking 
broadly, generically there. Obviously, things do happen, 
but for the most part, We have created a criminal class that 
has no fear whatsoever of repercussion. And that's because we do not 
take seriously these rules of due process. Now notice the result, 
as I said. And those who remain, verse 20, 
shall hear in fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such 
evil among you. Christopher Wright comments. This text has a simple but effective 
deterrent to perjury. Anyone proved to have lied in 
court is to suffer whatever penalty would have been inflicted on 
the accused if the false accusation had been successful. If the case 
is capital, then the risk to a malicious witness was very 
great indeed. You certainly wouldn't just run 
willy-nilly into the courtroom and say, that man's guilty of 
a capital offense if you couldn't furnish the evidence because 
you knew that you would be executed if you couldn't furnish the evidence. 
Again, what would that do to our court system? I think it 
would be a release valve. I think it would be, you know, 
get rid of a bunch of stuff. The frivolity would be gone because 
persons would see that there's a seriousness to this and you 
don't allege that somebody committed a crime without giving due concern. to the results or to the consequences. Of course, the governing principle 
is found there at the end of the passage. Verse 21, your eye 
shall not pity, life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth 
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. The lex talionis basically 
means the punishment must fit the crime. And the crime, with 
reference to the false witness, is that he is intending to destroy 
the life of another. And if he is found to be destroying 
the life of another, then according to God, his life should be destroyed. That's consistent, that's biblical, 
that's justice. Now finally, look over at Deuteronomy 
25. Again, my point here is not that we march on Ottawa and demand 
public flogging for the criminal class. That's not my point. My 
point is to see that due process regulates even the punishment 
of criminal offenders. That due process governs how 
we approach the issue of penology. And with reference to the types 
of punishment, I know we've rehearsed this in the past, restitution 
or compensation, if somebody stole, they'd pay it back. They 
didn't pay a fine to the state by serving in a prison, they 
paid the family back who they stole from. If they didn't have 
the money to pay the family back, they became that family's indentured 
slave. They did work until the time 
that that particular problem was recompensed and that particular 
problem was solved. Again, restitution, compensation. It's gone. It's completely gone. 
The thought of it. Anybody ever getting their stuff 
back? Nope. Forget it. Even if we catch the 
guy, we're not going to insist that he pays you back. We're 
going to insist that he goes to prison and pay the state. 
Well, he didn't do a criminal activity against the state. He 
did a criminal activity against us. Why aren't we getting paid 
back? See, the Bible is pro-victim, too. It's another thing we have 
forgotten. Pro-victim. We actually care 
about and deal with people that have been offended by criminals. 
Capital punishment. That's another aspect. I know 
we've considered that recently. We will not rehearse it here. 
There is one instance, one instance in the book of Deuteronomy of 
what's called punitive amputation. One instance of punitive amputation. 
That means where someone's hand is cut off for a particular offense. Now, the Bible is unique concerning 
the ancient Near Eastern world, because in the ancient Near Eastern 
world, especially Assyria, there was all manner of physical violence 
inflicted upon criminal offenders. Cutting off appendages, cutting 
off this, cutting off that. But the one instance is found 
in Deuteronomy 25, 11, and 12. And the situation is, if two 
men are fighting, and one of the men's wives comes to try 
to rescue her husband, and she grabs the other man by the genitals, 
then she is to lose her hand. Then we might look at that and 
say, wow, God really is concerned about modesty. God is concerned 
about modesty, but it's probably dealing with seed. It's probably 
dealing with progeny. It's probably dealing with the 
reality that this man will no longer be able to sire children. And as a result of that, there 
is this punitive amputation designed to discourage her and anyone 
else from ever engaging in that activity. Now, most commentators, 
I think rightly so, say that was probably a rarity. That probably 
didn't happen a lot. There wasn't many instances where, 
you know, ladies were doing this to rescue their husbands while 
they were in fistfights with other men. But I do think it's 
important that we mention there is an instance of punitive amputation. 
But then there is this instance of corporal punishment, and that's 
what's we see here in Deuteronomy 25. Now, again, I want us to 
see the process involved here. In the first place, there is 
the necessity of a trial. The necessity of a trial. We 
don't just beat people. We don't just find them in the 
act of something and beat them. We go through the trial. We listen 
to the evidence, or we look at the evidence. We listen to witness 
testimony. We go through the process, and 
once the determination of guilt is made, then we punish. That's 
the way you do it in the Western world. That's the way we do it 
based on the written word of God. Again, this isn't the gulag. This isn't, you know, Russia 
or the Soviet Union where you got shipped off to Siberia if 
you stopped clapping, you know, for the dictator before everyone 
else. That's not the way we function. 
We're supposed to function in terms of punishing people after 
there's been a trial, and you see that. Chapter 25, verse 1, 
if there is a dispute between men And they come to court that 
the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and 
condemn the wicked. So all the court process has 
been engaged in. All of the rules of evidence 
have been engaged in. All of the testimony has been 
engaged in. And now the judge pronounces 
judgment. And the rest of the passage goes 
on the assumption that the man is found guilty. And he is going 
to receive corporal punishment. He is going to be beaten for 
his offense. Now notice, with reference to 
the beating of the man for his offense, there is a necessity 
of supervision. A necessity of supervision. Look 
at the text in verse 2. in his presence. You don't take 
him out behind the back 40 and just, you know, have your way 
with him. There are rules governing this sort of thing. There's a 
process involved. This isn't barbarism. This is 
law. This is justice. This is the 
administration of justice, and it behooves us to take it seriously. God speaks to these issues, again, 
not only for the purging of evil from the civil society, but as 
well for the protection of even criminal offenders. He shouldn't 
be beaten within inches of his life if that's not what he deserves. I know at a certain gut level, 
there's a certain level in all of us that, yeah, whatever it 
comes, whatever comes to him, he has coming to him. Well, praise 
God, God's not like that. Praise God that he doesn't operate 
on that gut level, that visceral response, but rather it's measured, 
it's calculated, it's regulated, it's ruled, it's governed, it's 
principled. That's the way we execute justice. There must be supervision. Now, 
Craigie again says, if the judges declared that corporal punishment 
was in order, then the flogging was to be carried out in his 
presence. In this way, the judge was able to see that the sentence 
was properly executed and that the offender was not treated 
too leniently or too harshly by the officer of the law entrusted 
with the task. That's interesting. We don't 
want to be too severe with the guy, but we don't want to be 
too lenient with the guy either. If he deserves this amount of 
corporal punishment, then he better get that amount of corporal 
punishment. Supervision is crucial. Notice 
in the next place the necessity of proportion. Proportion. Verse 2, it shall be if the wicked 
man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie 
down and be beaten in his presence according to his guilt. You see 
that? According to his guilt. He cannot 
exceed what is according to his guilt in terms of the meaning 
out of punishment. That's just, that's ungodly. 
It's unholy. These are image-bearers, even 
though they're wayward, even though they're lost, even though 
they're criminal, they are nevertheless protected by God's law and by 
these principles embedded in Scripture. There must be proper 
proportion. You are not to exceed that. You're 
not to go beyond that. You're not supposed to belittle 
or dehumanize him. You're not supposed to treat 
him as an animal. And then, well, worse than an 
animal. And then notice the necessity of limitation with reference 
to the beating. Verse 3. Again, I see it now. Facebook tonight. Butler advocates 
beating criminals in Chilliwack. That's not my point. It's not 
my point. Now, you can ask me privately 
what I think of this particular passage, and I'll be more than 
happy to tell you what I think of this particular passage. My 
point tonight is simply to highlight that even in the punishment of 
a criminal offender, it is governed by principle. It is governed 
by law. It is governed by rule. It is 
governed not by emotion or feeling or sympathy or this or that. Don't you love that picture of 
Lady Justice with the blindfold on her face? That's what we want. We don't want her to judge based 
on money. We don't want her to base whether 
we have a lot or we don't have any. The scripture prohibits 
giving leniency to a poor man. That's an emotive response. Well, 
he's poor. Life is terrible. We understand 
it's tough for him. So we're going to go ahead and 
turn the other way when he does his crime. No, you don't do that. 
Lady Justice is blind. Whatever the crime is, whatever 
the facts are, whatever the data suggests, that's where you go. 
Now notice this particular instance of limitation. You know this 
from the New Testament, because you see this language used with 
the Apostle Paul. 40 blows he may give him and 
no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows 
above these. Did Paul say he was beaten by 
the Jews with 39 lashes? Well, why? Because they didn't 
want to exceed this Deuteronomic prohibition. So instead of even 
getting 40, they would give 39 so that they would be in the 
safe confines of not violating this law with reference to the 
limitation involved in punishing a criminal offender. You see, 
it's governed by rules. It's governed by procedure. It's 
governed by principle. It's law that regulates even 
the punishment of criminal offenders. And then notice the necessity 
to preserve dignity. Now, let me just say this again. I know the guttural response. 
I know the visceral response. I know the gut level response. 
He gets whatever it is he gets. He gets whatever it is he gets. 
Brethren, again, God doesn't function that way. God doesn't 
respond that way. God says you do it this way. 
You do it in a measured, calculated, responsible, civil, humane way. Because even that criminal offender 
is an image bearer of the living and true God. in my mind, sending 
image-bearers of the living and true God into environments that 
are just full of bestial conduct by other persons on men. That 
is to dehumanize people. I think that the way we do things 
is just terrible and unfortunate, but notice the text in terms 
of the necessity to preserve dignity. Forty blows he may give 
him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with 
many blows above these. Now notice, and your brother 
be humiliated in your sight. He's a criminal, but he's still 
part of the Commonwealth. He's a criminal, but he's still 
part of Israel. He's a criminal, but he's still your brother. 
And as your brother, as a recipient of at least the common grace 
of living in this covenant of nation, as a result of that, 
you preserve his dignity. You don't dehumanize him. You 
don't belittle him. You don't treat him as less than 
an image-bearer. The criminal is still a brother, 
thus part of the covenant community. He should be spared from a punishment 
that would be degrading and humiliating. Meredith Klein says the just 
punishment of the guilty was to be dispensed in such a way 
that his individual human dignity was honored. And then again with 
Wright. It is sad that in the popular 
perception, the Old Testament is so often vilified for the 
severity of its punishments, whereas this law, with its careful 
limitation and its explicit protection of the rights and dignity of 
criminals, is overlooked. You get that, right? And it's 
unfortunate. It's not just humanists, it's 
Christians. People in the church that have a problem with the 
Old Testament. They have problems with sermons like these. Oh no, 
don't preach on Deuteronomy 25. I mean, that was then, and this 
is now, and that's not for us. I mean, the thought of ever flogging 
a criminal in public and doing these sorts of things is just 
barbaric and we won't even entertain it. Again, I'm not even picking 
on humanists here. That's our brothers and sisters 
in Christ that say such things. The Old Testament is vilified 
for what is looked at as being barbaric, or antiquated, or tribal, 
or clan-ish. But look at what's embedded in 
this text in terms of the punishment of a criminal offender. Preserve 
his dignity. Don't exceed the punishment that 
is necessary. Don't engage in the sorts of 
things that happen in a gulag. Don't be commies. Don't be those 
who engage in the stripping away of the dignity of human beings. 
So those are some principles. Certainly, there's a lot of other 
things, but this will hopefully wet our appetites to be alert 
to Scripture with reference to these sorts of things. In terms 
of some concluding thoughts, if we ask the question back of 
Solomon in Proverbs 18, why do people do verse 13 and 17? Why would anybody ever answer 
a matter before it hears it? Why would we do that? Because 
I'm sure we have done that before. Oh, no, not me, Pastor, brother. 
I just live my life regulated by Deuteronomy law. All right, 
just two or three witnesses, rules of evidence, no crossing. 
Okay, good. Pray for your brethren that struggle 
in these things, because we hear something, we go nuts, and we 
think, oh, this person's got to be dealt with. Well, wait 
a minute, there's a bigger picture. There's mitigating circumstances. 
There's other issues. That's the reality of the world 
in which we live. And God knows that, and God speaks 
to that, and God prescribes law in that context. But if we ask 
the question, why does a man answer a matter before he hears 
it? I don't think the text specifies 
why he does that, but I think the overarching structure of 
Scripture or the rest of Proverbs can help us to at least scratch 
the surface of such an issue. In the first place, the fool 
is proud and wants to be right. The fool is proud and he wants 
to be right. He doesn't want to listen to 
anybody else because he knows everything. We're dealing with 
competing sovereigns. We're dealing with little g-gods. We're dealing with persons who 
think that they have the capability to judge something with omniscient 
specificity. You don't. You need to hear the 
data. You need to hear the facts. You 
might have heard the old radio program it was on in America. 
I don't know if it made it to Canada, but it was called Dragnet. 
And it was a police show. It was radio, old-time radio. 
It was before my time. I'm not quite that old. But you'd 
sit by the radio, and you'd listen to Dragnet. And it was about 
these two detectives, Joe Friday and then his partner. I can't 
remember his partner's name. But Joe Friday's tagline, what 
he said all the time was, just the facts. Just the facts. Well, I'm sorry Joe Friday. You 
wouldn't recognize America today because that's not the way we 
operate. You would not have recognized Canada if you'd ever been here. 
That's not the way we operate. It's visceral response. It's 
guttural reaction. It's I'm mad. It's emotion. Just 
the facts. Just the facts. So the fool is 
proud and he wants to be right. Also the fool is proud and he 
wants to be first. Right? Verse 13, he who answers 
a matter before he hears it. He has to be first out of the 
gate. He has to be the most, you know, the quickest to respond. He has to be the guy that is 
not only right, but he's also first, because for some sick 
reason, he feeds on that. People go, oh wow, man, that 
guy's right, that guy's first, that guy's amazing. And that's 
what fuels this sort of, this desire for him. Turn back for 
just a moment to Proverbs 15 and verse 28. Proverbs 15 and 
verse 28. The heart of the righteous does 
what? Blurts out the first thing that 
comes into their head. The heart of the righteous just 
vomits whatever it is they think they should say? No. The heart 
of the righteous studies how to answer. Somebody asks you 
a question, you say, give me some time to think about that. 
That's good. You want that. You want people 
just, you know, right out of the holster, you know, a ready 
fire aim. You want people to study how 
to answer. The heart of the righteous studies 
how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil. And so the fool is proud he wants 
to be right, the fool is proud that he wants to be first. I 
think Matthew Henry on this text is beautiful. He says, though 
a ready wit is an agreeable thing to play with, it is solid judgment 
and sound wisdom that do business. Oh, man, I wish every one of 
us got that. Though a ready wit is an agreeable 
thing to play with, it is solid judgment and sound wisdom that 
do business. That's the way we ought to proceed. As well, the fool is lazy and 
doesn't want to put in the required effort. It'll take time to hear 
the data. It'll take time to cross-examine. It'll take time to actually do 
what I'm supposed to do before I answer a matter. That's just 
laziness, and we should never accept that approach to life 
when it comes to such things. As well, the fool is selfish, 
and he's not concerned about others. Doesn't care. It's all 
about him. I'm right. I'm first. I'm lazy. I, I, I. That's why someone answers 
a matter before he hears it. As well, the fool is ignorant 
vis-a-vis verse 17 and rejects due process. And the principles 
of due process held out by verse 17 is that presumption of innocence 
and additionally the necessity for cross-examination. See, that's 
perhaps the reason why We are warned in Proverbs 18, 13, and 
17 to function in a way that is more consistent with God's 
revealed law. And then finally, with reference 
to civil justice or matters of justice or due process in the 
life and ministry of Jesus, did he operate this way? Absolutely, 
positively. John 7, 24, judge with what? 
Your heart. Judge with what? Just what the 
naked eye can see. Judge with what? Your prejudice 
and your bigotry? Judge with righteous judgment. 
Lo and behold, we get into John chapter 8, and the Pharisees 
and the religious leaders want to catch him. They want to trip 
him up. They want to show him as a fake and a fraud. They want 
to expose that he has no regard for the law of Moses. And the 
first thing Jesus does is appeal to the law of Moses, and he asks 
for witnesses to throw the stones at this particular woman. That 
is the way that Christ operated with these principles. They were 
a part of who he is, not only as God, but as man. And we see 
that carried throughout the New Testament itself. So brethren, 
I hope that these things, again, will whet our appetites to think 
about such things and not just to see the faults and the problems 
and the issues that are out there, which they are increasingly growing 
out there, but to see it in here. And most importantly, to see 
it in here. Am I the kind of person that 
answers a matter before I even have received the data? Am I 
the kind of person that responds viscerally to one side of a story 
without listening to the other? If so, God, have mercy on me. 
God, humble me. God, show me that I'm not always 
right. God, show me that I don't need 
to be first. God, show me that it's better 
and more consistent as the professing people of God to follow your 
law and to seek by grace to do the things that were read in 
Psalm 15. Praise God Almighty, that's a 
description of Jesus. It is not a description of us 
because we are hasty, because we do the various things that 
are condemned in that particular psalm, but it's Christ who ultimately 
can stand in the presence of Yahweh. And by virtue of Christ's 
grace and His redemptive work on our behalf and the faith God 
gives us to unite us to Jesus, we shall stand in the presence 
of Yahweh based on His righteousness. Now, I don't say that so that 
we can go out and answer matters without hearing them. I don't 
say that so we can go out and neglect cross-examination or 
the principle of presumption of innocence, but I say that 
to encourage us. We're not going to heaven because 
we're great at matters of social or interpersonal relationship. 
We're not going to heaven because we're great witnesses if called 
upon to testify in a courtroom. We're going to heaven because 
Jesus is everything Psalm 15 says He is. We're going to heaven 
because Jesus is the the one who merited the favor of God 
based on His law-keeping. And the way of relationship with 
Jesus is by grace through faith in Him. Well, let us close in 
a word of prayer. Father in Heaven, we thank You 
for Your Word. We thank You for its clarity on these matters. 
We thank you for its concern, even for the dignity of criminal 
offenders. God, I pray that we would operate 
according to principle, according to due process, according to 
these things written in the law of God, versus relying on our 
emotions or our feelings or the things that we see. God, even 
the things that we see can be misinterpreted, and the things 
that we see can be misjudged. Help us to be faithful. Help 
us to be upright. Help us to be godly in a godless 
society. And we ask this through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. Amen. We'll close with a brief 
time of meditation and then be dismissed.