← Back to sermon library

Well, please turn with me in 
your Bibles to Romans chapter 12. I neglected to mention this 
morning that today is recognized as Sanctity of Life Sunday. It's 
always a good time for us to remind ourselves what the Bible 
says concerning the Sanctity of Life. This morning we looked 
at the Bible and abortion. This evening we're going to look 
at the Bible and capital punishment. I realize that many non-Christians 
and Christians would disagree that the Bible's teaching on 
capital punishment further underscores the sanctity of life. I know 
that many think that's a paradoxical way to treat the subject. If 
it means to capitally punish someone, then how can it mean 
that we ought to see life as sacred or something that is sanctified? But we need to remember the punishment 
of an offense highlights the seriousness of the offense. And 
if capital punishment is mandated for the murder of image bearers, 
then we ought to conclude that a premium is placed on the image 
of God that was indeed murdered. Capital punishment is biblical. 
It is something that we ought to hold to as the people of God. 
It's something that states ought to… the governments ought to 
enact and ought to practice because God's Word mandates it. So, I 
want to read beginning in Romans chapter 12 at verse 17. you. The apostle Paul writes, repay 
no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in 
the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as 
depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not 
avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is 
written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, 
if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him 
a drink. For in so doing, you will heap coals of fire on his 
head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for 
there is no authority except from God, and the authorities 
that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. 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. for 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, for 
he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices 
evil. Therefore, you must be subject, 
not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake. For 
because of this, you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers 
attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore 
to all their due, taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom 
customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Amen. Well, let 
us pray. Father, we come to an unfortunately 
controversial subject this evening. We just pray that you would give 
us the mind of Christ, help us to see the consistency of Scripture 
on this subject, help us to see its necessity in terms of civil 
polity, help us as well to see that it reflects what is foundational 
to the throne of Yahweh Most High. Righteousness and justice 
are the foundation of your throne. You have governed, you have spoken, 
you have legislated with reference to these things, and we do tread 
with great foolishness if we rebel and reject Your Holy Word. 
We pray for the Holy Spirit now to guide us and to help us with 
these texts, help us to understand what Scripture testifies consistently, 
and we pray these things through Christ our Lord. Amen. Now this 
morning I mentioned that the Bible makes a distinction between 
murder and accidental homicide or justifiable homicide. There 
are instances where persons may accidentally kill another person. In Old Covenant Israel they had 
cities of refuge set up for just such an eventuality. If somebody 
intentionally or with anger or premeditation or malice of forethought 
killed somebody, that was murder and they were to receive the 
death penalty. There are instances of justifiable homicide. There 
are three that the Bible specifies, self-defense, legitimate war, 
and capital punishment. I would like to sketch quickly 
where we find this rationale. We can't develop each of these. 
We're going to focus on capital punishment. But in Exodus 22, 
verses 2 and 3, this is where we see self-defense, something 
assumed by our Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry as well. 
Jesus assumes that persons will indeed engage in self-defense. So it's important that we understand, 
again, this isn't just some Old Testament concept, but in terms 
of self-defense, specifically Exodus 22 at verses 2 and 3. 
Notice. If a thief is found breaking 
in and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt 
for his bloodshed." It's pretty cut and dry. If a thief breaks 
into your house and you strike him, there will be no guilt for 
his bloodshed. In other words, he shouldn't 
have been stealing from you. He shouldn't have been in your 
house uninvited. He shouldn't have been there 
engaged in criminal activity. If the thief is found breaking 
in and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt 
for his bloodshed. The person who owns the house 
naturally is going to try and defend their house. Notice verse 
3. There's a further bit of information. 
If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his 
bloodshed. He should make full restitution. 
If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. The argument 
simply states this. If during the sunlight or during 
daytime, you're better able to assess the person's presence 
in your home. If he's there to steal a vase, 
you're not supposed to kill him. But at night, you don't know 
what his intentions are, you don't know if he's there with 
the intention to rape or to murder, engage in other sorts of criminal 
activity. But what is assumed here is that 
men will defend their home. Matthew Henry says, a man's house 
is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard 
upon it. He that assaults it does so at 
his own peril. As I said, Jesus assumes this 
principle of self-defense in Luke 12, 49. Luke 12, I'm sorry, 
39. Jesus says, Let me find the text here, I 
looked at Luke 11, but know this, that if the master of the house 
had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched 
and not allowed his house to be broken into. Jesus assumes 
self-defense, doesn't he? He assumes it. A man's not going 
to say or know that somebody's coming to engage in criminal 
activity and not do anything about it. Of course he's going 
to do something about it. He is going to defend his home. 
So self-defense is authorized. Again, it ought not to be the 
case that you've got a problem with your neighbor, you invite 
him over for coffee, you pound him on the head, Say, hey, he 
was breaking in trying to steal. Obviously, there are qualifications 
and nuances that we need to make sure that we understand. Legitimate 
war, Deuteronomy 7, verses 1 to 5, God commands the nation of 
Israel or the people of Israel to go into Canaan and utterly 
destroy the Canaanites. Legitimate war, in Romans 13 
itself, the civil government is armed with the sword. I'll 
argue tonight, they're armed with the sword in order to punish 
criminal offenders, but also to defend a civil polity from 
foreign invaders. Certainly, legitimate war is 
something the Bible enjoins upon people. When we find or when 
we see the history of Israel, for instance, we see some of 
our Lord's analogies or illustrations, we see the favorable treatment 
of soldiers in the New Testament, it is very difficult to conclude 
that pacifism is indeed a biblical option. Legitimate war is another 
instance of justifiable homicide. But our subject tonight is capital 
punishment, so I want to do two things. First, the Bible and 
capital punishment and then just look at some common objections 
to the teaching concerning capital punishment. Well, we ought to 
begin in Genesis chapter 9. You can turn there. as we conduct 
a biblical theology of the Bible and capital punishment. Remember 
Genesis 9, this is after the flood, this is Noah having emerged 
from the ark, coming out, sacrificing, God making covenant with him, 
and then giving specific instruction concerning life in this new world. 
Specifically, the context in chapter 9, we see the propagation 
of life. In some respects, Noah is another 
Adam. Noah is another Adam. Notice 
in verse 1, so God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, 
be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. This is repeated 
again in verse 7. And as for you, be fruitful and 
multiply, bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in 
it. We see also the necessity of 
the protection of life in verse 2a, and the fear of you and the 
dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth. We see it 
in verse 4, but you shall not eat, I'm sorry, the propagation 
of life and the protection of life in verses 4 and 6, and then 
the sustenance of life in verses 2b and 3. In other words, you 
can eat those animals. You can feed on those, you can 
sustain your lives based on that tasty creature that you see running 
around in the forest. But note specifically, with reference 
to our consideration tonight, verse 6, whoever sheds man's 
blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of 
God he made man. Before we actually get into expounding 
this particular passage, remember what the Noahic Covenant was. 
It was universal in its scope. It is not just limited to one 
particular people at one particular time. In fact, if you look back 
in chapter 8 at verse 22, while the earth remains, seed time 
and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night 
shall not cease. The Noahic covenant has oftentimes 
been considered a covenant of common grace. Now, I know that 
some people have a problem. with the terminology of common 
grace. But suffice it to say, God causes 
His rain to fall upon the good and the wicked. He causes His 
sun to shine on the good and the wicked. Whatever you want 
to call that, at least historically in some circles, it's been known 
as common grace. And what we find in this Noahic 
covenant is a common grace theme. In other words, it secures and 
preserves this cosmos or this world for the preaching of special 
grace. This is the theater of redemption, 
and so it's universal, and so it is comprehensive, and it is 
unending, at least in this life. Obviously, when we get to the 
new heavens and the new earth, there will be no threat whatsoever 
of a universal flood. But that's the context, the larger 
covenantal context. Now, notice in verse 6, an offense 
is highlighted, whoever sheds man's blood. So the crime involved 
here is murder. As I said, the Bible will further 
make distinctions between shedding blood that is justifiable in 
self-defense, legitimate war, or in capital punishment. What 
is obvious in this particular context is that it is dealing 
with murder. Remember, in Genesis chapter 
6, God saw that the earth was filled with violence and exceedingly 
corrupt. I mentioned this morning that 
Cain tried to cover up his murder. His great, great grandson, Lamech, 
reveled in it. He gloried in it. He delighted 
in it. We get to Genesis and we see 
that this sin, this pervasive wickedness of man, is being fleshed 
out through the earth. And so it makes sense that in 
this after the flood situation, God gives the sword to the civil 
government in order to regulate so that the world does not become 
violent like it had been and exceedingly corrupt. So the particular 
offense is the unlawful taking of another person's life. Note 
the punishment that is to be inflicted upon such a murderer. Whoever sheds man's blood by 
men, his blood shall be shed." Again, the lex talionis, the 
law of retaliation. If you commit murder, God's Word 
says you ought to be executed. This underscores the sanctity 
of life. God puts a premium upon human 
life. God puts a premium upon those 
who bear His image, and He mandates, He commands, and we'll see later, 
that He does not shrink back from demanding that such a penalty 
be carried out. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood shall be shed. And note the agent involved. 
Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed. But it is 
by man. It's a man that's supposed to 
do this. And again, I think it's civil government, as we confirm 
throughout the rest of our survey in the Old Testament, and then 
as we see there in Romans 13. This activity of capital punishment 
is not to be undertaken by private citizens, but rather it is a 
monopoly situation concerning the government. they are to wield 
the sword against criminal offenders. In fact, Luther highlights that 
this was the first command having reference to the temporal sword. 
By these words, temporal government was established and the sword 
was placed in its hand by God. Again, this isn't some barbaric 
ancient code where a bunch of people got together and said, 
hey, let's just stone this guy who does the wrong thing. God 
commands Noah for life after the flood. In this particular 
situation, in the context of a covenant of common grace, this 
is the way society is to function. This is the way criminals are 
supposed to be punished. This is the way you treat murderers. 
You don't celebrate them. You don't honor them. You don't 
give them accolades. If you caught this morning that 
1988 law, wherein the 1968 and 69 law concerning abortion was 
challenged, was by Morgenthaler. Didn't he go on to win one of 
the highest badges of honor that are given in Canada? Didn't he go on to win such an 
award? A man who was responsible, who 
had hands that were full of innocent blood, a man is praised and celebrated. and awarded for such wickedness? God says that is not the way 
it's supposed to be. By man his blood shall be shed. Calvin said, God so threatens 
and denounces vengeance against the murderer that he even arms 
the magistrate with the sword for the avenging of slaughter 
in order that the blood of men may not be shed with impunity. Some say, oh, this will never 
provide a deterrent. Capital punishment does not provide 
a deterrent. It most certainly does. It certainly 
does for at least one individual, that one who is guilty of shedding 
blood. If he is executed by the state, 
as he ought to be, he has been deterred from further acts of 
criminal activity. Calvin sees it in order that 
the blood of men may not be shed with impunity. And then notice 
the theological reason. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made 
man. That's a theological reason for, 
in the image of God, he made man. Now, commentators are a 
bit divided on what this refers to. Is this the reason why we 
ought not to murder people? Because they bear the image of 
God? Yes. Could this also be an argument 
as to why man is the one, specifically civil government, that has the 
responsibility of executing justice upon criminal offenders? Yeah, 
probably that too. In fact, Meredith Klein sees 
both of these things as reasons. He says, this clause, this could 
explain both the enormity of murder, in other words, you don't 
murder someone, for in the image of God, he made man. It's the 
argument, that's the rationale. Why don't I murder you? Because 
God made you in His image. They're a sanctity of life. Image 
bearers deserve protection under God's law. But as well, he goes 
on to say, and the dignity of man that justified assigning 
him so grave a judicial responsibility. In other words, why is it by 
man that his blood will be shed? Because that man is an image 
bearer of God. And as Psalm 82 highlights, they 
are even called Elohim. Judges of the earth are called 
gods, not in the sense that they're divine, not in the sense that 
they're deity, but in the sense that they carry out jurisprudence 
And they execute God's wrath upon criminal offenders in history. I think you'll see that connection 
even more so when we get to Romans 13. But this is foundational, 
and there's no reason whatsoever why we ought to believe that 
Genesis 9-6 is not applicable today. There are certain laws 
in the old covenant that are not applicable today. We can 
eat shrimp. We can eat bacon. We can eat lobster. There are 
some aspects concerning the ceremonial law that have been fulfilled 
by Jesus. So again, enjoy your bacon and 
enjoy your shrimp. But with reference to Genesis 
9.6, there is no hermeneutical reason why we ought to believe 
that it no longer applies to us. Again, it's in the context 
of the Noahic Covenant, the covenant wherein the cosmos will be preserved 
as the arena or the theater for the preaching of special grace. 
As well, we see the universal application of it in terms of 
earth remaining, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter 
and summer, day and night shall not cease, and ultimately because 
of the theological rationale for in the image of God He made 
man. As long as we bear God's image, 
this holds true. When we move on from this particular 
section to what's called the Mosaic economy or to the Old 
Covenant itself, we see a distinction between accidental homicide and 
murder. We have dealt with that. We're not going to replay that. 
You can look at this further in Exodus 21, 12 to 14, Numbers 
35, 9 to 34, Deuteronomy 19, 1 to 13. There is a distinction between accidental homicide and 
murder. As well, we see in the Mosaic 
economy an identification of additional capital crimes. You 
see, it wasn't just for the crime of murder. In the Mosaic law, 
there were a whole host of things that would indeed bring the death 
penalty. Again, we don't have the time 
to go through all of these particular passages. You can read Leviticus, 
Numbers, Deuteronomy, or Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, 
and see those for yourself. There were a lot of crimes that 
did bring the sword, the temporal sword to bear upon the heads 
of criminal offenders. But as well, in the Mosaic economy, 
notice in Numbers 35, the declaration concerning the necessity of capital 
punishment. Numbers 35, specifically 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's no financial payment. 
There's no restitution that you can make for a murderer. There 
were other crimes, of course. We saw it this morning. If the 
woman is struck, she gives birth prematurely, and no harm follows 
to her or to her children, then there is financial remuneration. 
The husband can go to the judges and ask them to impose a fine 
and pay for their pain and suffering. But if harm follows, then you 
shall give life for life. And that's the mandate here. 
You shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is 
guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. And 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." The DP or the death penalty alone 
for the crime of murder. Again, we see this in the old 
covenant. Now, turning to the New Testament, we see the crucifixion 
of Jesus Christ. This is an indirect argument 
for the validity of the death penalty. Notice what Jesus does 
not do. When he's sentenced to death, 
he doesn't pick it. He doesn't say, well, the death 
penalty is barbaric. It's antiquated. It's old. It's 
something that ought not to be practiced among civilized human 
beings. Christ accepts this as a punishment 
from the civil state. The apostle Paul saw the validity, 
not just in terms of his teaching in Romans 13, but notice his 
practice in the book of Acts. Acts chapter 25, specifically, 
verses 10 and following. So we move from the Old Testament 
to the New Testament, and I hope that you'll see and appreciate 
the consistency of both. Again, with reference to the 
crime of murder, all of those mosaic addendum, all those other 
crimes, that's a debate for another time. But in terms of the crime 
of murder based on Genesis 9, 6, further upheld throughout 
the Mosaic Covenant or the Old Covenant, and then into the New 
Testament, we certainly see the crime of murder as being punishable 
by death. Notice in Acts 25.10, 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. Certainly strange musings from 
a man if he did oppose, in principle, the death penalty. He's not trying 
to argue for the invalidity of the death penalty or saying that 
it's antiquated, it's barbaric, it's a hangover from an uncivilized 
day. No, if I have done anything. 
And notice the plurality of the crimes in view. Paul doesn't 
say if I have murdered. He says if I have done anything. 
I personally would argue that there are more crimes to be punished 
by death than simply the crime of murder. But Paul says, if 
I have done anything deserving of death, I do not object to 
dying. But if there is nothing in these 
things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to 
them, I appeal to Caesar. And of course, Romans chapter 
13, you can turn there. I began the reading in Romans 
12 because it's absolutely crucial that we see the connection There's 
no sort of adversative between chapters 12 and 13. In fact, 
if you read, chapter 13 just starts off with, let every soul 
be subject to the governing authorities. There's no, oh, and I want to 
talk about something brand new. No, he's introduced the subject 
of wrath. He's already introduced the subject 
of retaliation and vengeance and revenge. Notice in 1217, 
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. This is 
an intriguing thing to me because oftentimes Christians say, well, 
we're not to avenge ourselves. We're not to have any kinds of 
thoughts whatsoever concerning justice and righteousness. Paul 
says specifically to give place to wrath. He says, don't take 
it into your own hands, but don't bury it completely. give place 
to it. In other words, acknowledge that 
it's God's, it's His prerogative to pour out His wrath upon those 
who violate His holy law. It's not somehow virtuous to 
live in this altruistic manner and to say, well, I hope that 
no one ever has any bad thing happen to them. A man who's raped 
repeatedly, a man who has molested children, a man who has murdered, 
it is not ungodly for the righteous to cry out, how long, O Lord? Pour out your wrath upon his 
vicious head and keep him from our children, keep him from our 
women, keep him from engaging in that sort of barbarity. Paul 
says, give place to wrath. Why? For it is written, vengeance 
is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. You see, the issue isn't 
wrath bad. The issue is, do not undertake 
on your own to carry out vengeance. Rather, entrust it to Him who 
has perfected it. Entrust it to Him who is masterful 
in its application. Entrust it to Him who is able 
to carry out with the severity of a thrice holy God. Do not 
avenge yourselves, but give place to wrath. And this, incidentally, 
is one of the arguments for praying the imprecatory Psalms. How do 
we give place to wrath? We pray Psalm 137. We pray Psalm 
58. We pray Psalm 109. We pray concerning 
the enemies of God Most High that they will meet their match 
and their maker and He will bring justice to bear upon them. Not 
our enemies, not somebody who cuts us off at a light, but those 
enemies of the God of heaven and earth. We are to give place 
to wrath. So you see the particular context 
the apostle is trafficking in. He goes on to highlight, 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 become overcome by evil. but overcome evil with good. 
I'm just going to say very quickly, this is the parallel passage 
to Matthew 5, 38 to 42. We're going to look at that as 
a so-called biblical objection to capital punishment. That whole 
idea of turning the other cheek. Jesus is dealing with personal 
ethics. He is not dealing with civil 
authority. Paul here is dealing with our 
response to the evils that plague us in society. Do not avenge 
yourselves. Do not be overcome by evil. Overcome 
evil with good. Now back to that wrath thing, 
Romans 13, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, 
for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities 
that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do it as good, and you will have praise from 
the same. For 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. For 
he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices 
evil." Do you see the connection? Do not avenge yourselves, but 
give place to wrath. For vengeance is mine, I will 
repay, says Yahweh. We get to Romans 13.4 and what 
do we find? Yahweh has raised up the civil 
magistrate. Yahweh has entrusted the sword 
to the civil magistrate for the execution of Yahweh's wrath in 
history, in time, in space. In other words, it's not just 
for eternity, it's not just for the second coming, but right 
now, right here, if the state is functioning as it ought to 
be, then God has equipped it with the sword in order to execute 
His wrath upon criminal offenders. So the passage speaks against 
personal retaliation, An idea where we can just go pick up 
a .38 and right all the wrongs in society, but rather give place 
to wrath. One of the agencies by which 
God displays His wrath in history is the civil magistrate. This is why He armed him with 
the sword. Notice, all Christians have a 
duty to submit to the governing authorities. Christians ought 
to be the best citizens. Christians ought to be the best 
citizens, brethren, because we are commanded by our God to be 
subject to the governing authorities. This is what we find not only 
here, Titus 3.1, 1 Peter 2, 13 and 14. Notice the reason for 
this command that we are to submit to the governing authorities. 
For there is no authority except from God and the authorities 
that exist are appointed by God. You see that? The civil government 
exists by virtue of God's sovereignty. Now, you have to remember, when 
Paul wrote Romans, Nero was the emperor in Rome. Now, Nero would 
get a whole lot worse, but he wasn't a model of virtue. Here, 
when Paul wrote Romans, if it's around 55, 56, certainly by the 
time we get to 80, 63, 64, he's a nut, absolute nut. Nero was a wretched, wretched, 
horrible human being. But Paul is telling Christians 
in the Roman Empire to be subject to the governing authorities, 
for there is no authority except from God. Who raised up Nebuchadnezzar? God. Who raised up Cyrus, king 
of Persia? God. Incidentally, God calls 
Cyrus, Messiah. He calls Nebuchadnezzar, my servant. There is no authority except 
from God. Even Justin Trudeau is raised 
up by God for this particular task. Soon-to-be former president 
Barack Obama was raised up by God for that particular task. 
There is no authority except from God. We are duty-bound to 
submit because God appointed these men over us. That is the 
apostles' argument. Now, note, he goes on, concerning 
the sin of a resistance. Therefore, whoever resists the 
authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist 
will bring judgment on themselves. Now, we need to understand, brethren, 
that because these men were put into place by God, it doesn't 
mean they have the prerogatives to be tyrants. They are not to 
rule as sovereigns. They are not to conduct themselves 
as absolute despots. They are to be submissive to 
God Himself. John Gill makes this observation 
concerning magistrates. when we read, therefore, whoever 
resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those 
who resist will bring judgment on themselves. He said, this 
is not to be understood as if magistrates were above the laws. 
You see, there's an equal abuse of this passage. On one hand, 
the abuse is, well, I'm not gonna submit to the governing authorities. 
On the other hand, it's I'm gonna submit to the governing authorities 
no matter what they command. Well, brethren, if they command 
us to sin, we must obey God rather than men, Acts 4 and Acts 5. 
Isn't this what the apostles said? We must obey God rather 
than men. They're not sovereign. They're not, you know, the anointed 
one. They are human government that 
are to responsibly function for the well-being of society. Dill 
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 a time for lawful resistance. But again, we're dealing with 
the text generally speaking. That's a whole other sermon, 
a whole other study in terms of when is it lawful and right 
to resist the governing authorities. For now, we focus on what we 
are focusing on. Notice the purpose of God with 
reference to this situation. In other words, why did God set 
up these magistrates? Why did God give the sword to 
the governing authorities? Verses 3 and 4, for rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to evil. I think we ought to 
supply works. They're not a terror to good 
works but to evil works. In other words, the magistrate 
is not tasked with punishing sin. The magistrate is not tasked 
with punishing thought crime. The magistrate is tasked with 
punishing external acts that are wicked. This is very important 
because if we don't get this, it will be an Orwellian nightmare. where persons will show up at 
our door and say, we're from the government, you had a horrible 
thought, we're going to take you away and punish you. No, 
that's not Paul's point. It is not just evil unqualified. For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil works. If you go out and you do something 
wrong, you ought to get in trouble. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good, and you will 
have praise from the same. The role of the magistrate is 
to punish evil works." I've said this many times before, and I 
may say it until the day that I die. It's always amazing to 
me that the one specific thing the New Testament commands governments 
to do is the one specific thing we don't hold our political leaders 
to. We want to know how they're going to give us health care. 
We want to know about child tax benefit. We want to know about 
the benefits. And we want to know about the 
goods and the services and the roads and the this and the that. 
How are you going to deal with criminals in society? And how 
are you going to protect us from foreign invaders? That's their 
job. It isn't supposed to be cradle-to-grave 
supervision. It's supposed to be defending 
us from rapists and murderers and men who want to blow us up 
in the name of some other god. That's legitimately the government's 
role. This is very much delimited here 
in Romans 13. We want to know about every possible 
conceived idea and thing that government's going to do for 
us. We want to know how they're going to educate us. We want 
to know how they're going to care for us. We want to know 
how they're going to subsidize us. We want to know what loans 
they'll enable us to get. That's all just out there. The main purpose of the civil 
government is to wield the sword. internally, against criminal 
offenders, and externally, in terms of protection, against 
foreign invaders. It just never comes up, does 
it? Never! What's your view on punishment? 
What's your view on capital punishment? What's your view on defending 
us from nuts that want to take us to their gods by blowing us 
up with C4? Let's talk about your health 
care. I don't want to talk about my health care. I want to talk 
about how you're going to do the best thing you can do in 
terms of my health, and that is punish a murderer so he doesn't 
come and get me. This is what it is in this particular 
section. The role of the magistrate is 
to punish evil works. Notice the role of the magistrate 
is to function as a public good, for he is God's minister to you 
for good. Interesting use of the language 
here. We oftentimes associate minister with ministers of the 
gospel. The word is diakonos, and we 
use that word in our own church. We have deacons. It's a word 
that is used in terms of an ecclesiastical application with reference to 
church officers, but the same word finds a civil application 
in terms of civil leaders. They are ministers of God. Isn't 
this a doctrine or an idea that has gone as well? We think we 
all live to serve them. Government's really supposed 
to minister to us? I know that's shocking and I 
know that's just bizarre, but they're really supposed to serve 
their people? They're supposed to do what the people want and 
say? But notice, the role of the magistrate 
is to function as a public good. Calvin says magistrates may hence 
learn what their vocation is. This is their job. This is what 
they're paid to do. This is why tax money is taken 
from hard-working people and given to them. It's not so they 
can have the best food and the best houses and the best cars 
and the best summer vacations. Their primary function is to 
take that money given to them by taxation for the public good. It's just incredible how we care 
so little. I don't mean we personally, I 
think most of us do, but we generally just don't care that they're 
not ministers, they are masters. Magistrates may hence learn what 
their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, 
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 man in the exercise 
of their power." Notice as well, the punishment executed by the 
magistrate serves as a deterrent. I love verse 3, do what is good 
and you will have praise from, I'm sorry, verse 3, for rulers 
are not a terror to good works but to evil. You want to be unafraid 
of the authority, do what is good and you will have praise 
from the same. The best way I can illustrate this, if you're like 
me and you're driving down the road and you see an RCMP behind 
you, your heart might start pounding a little bit. I don't know what 
it is, I just can't shake that. Or you pull up to the border 
crossing, and you're like, hey, they're going to beat me with 
a rubber hose. You've got a guilty conscience. Paul says, just do 
what you're supposed to do, and you will have praise from the 
same. Praise from the same in this context does not mean they're 
going to celebrate you and put laurels around your neck and 
give you good things. It means they're going to leave 
you alone. That's the best praise the government can give you, 
is just to leave you alone. It's just wonderful. Just leave 
us alone. Let us do our thing. Let us live. Let us work. Let 
us breathe. Let us function. Let us worship. 
That's the praise that we crave and we seek after. That's what 
Paul says, verse 3. Do you want to be unafraid of 
the authority? Do what is good. You will have 
praise for the same. For he is God's minister to you 
for good. That's his job. But if you do evil, be afraid. You see, there is a deterrent 
effect there. If you do evil, be afraid. Opponents of capital 
punishment say it doesn't deter anybody. It does deter people. It deters the one who is guilty 
of the particular crime in view. When he is executed, he no longer 
goes out and murder. But it has an effect upon others. 
Could you imagine if capital punishment was routinely applied 
in these criminal cases? Wouldn't you think twice about 
robbing a bank or molesting a child or murdering somebody if you 
knew that you would be caught, that this sentence would be executed 
speedily, and you would be put to death? There is a deterrent 
factor there that the Word of God validates. Be afraid. You see, the problem is no one's 
afraid. No one cares because you can 
do something that is horrible and get like three years in jail. There's no fear before the eyes 
of men with reference to civil polity. And then notice, the 
use of the sword by the magistrate is an execution of God's wrath. For 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. For he is God's minister and 
avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Again, you've 
got to see the connection with 1217. Do not avenge yourselves, 
give place to wrath, for vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the 
Lord. Is it surprising that a few verses later we learn or we read 
the same language applied with reference to God's execution 
of wrath through the civil magistrate? This is not accidental. 12.17 
goes with 13.1-4. We need to appreciate that reality. 
Now notice, with reference to the sword, the sword is the authority 
to execute criminals. not in every instance, it doesn't 
always mean that, but it is the supreme symbol of his ability. 
It demonstrates the power of life and death. John Murray, 
in his commentary on Romans, 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." I think Murray is absolutely correct. If you 
missed it, you want it later, call me, email me, or text me. 
I will send you that quote because I think it does define well what's 
in view with reference to the sword. So we see consistency 
between Genesis 9-6 and Romans 13 1-4. The death penalty is 
biblical. It's not simply an Old Testament 
concept. It is in the New Testament as 
well. That ought to carry the consciences of all who name the 
name of Jesus Christ. Again, as Murray said, the sword 
doesn't always have to be used to inflict death, but to say 
that it never can be or does is to reject the language altogether. 
A sword has the power to end life. And in this context, those 
who practice evil are executed by God's minister here on earth. Well, with reference to some 
of the common objections, I don't want to spend a whole lot of 
time here. Perhaps we've had enough of this subject today, 
but I just want to run through a few. The first is Exodus 20, 
verse 13 in the King James Version. says, thou shalt not kill. And 
some universalize that, so you can't kill, you can't kill. Well, 
as we saw this morning, Ratsa, the particular verb, is the verb 
that is most likely or most appropriately understood as murder. Premeditation, 
malice, anger, all those sorts of things go into the sixth word. So when it says, thou shalt not 
kill, it is not saying that self-defense, legitimate war, and capital punishment 
are wrong. I mentioned Matthew 5, 38 to 
42 already. In fact, you can go there because 
this comes up a lot with people that I think just missed the 
point. Matthew 5, 38, 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. Whoever slaps 
you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. Brethren, 
when Jesus was slapped on his cheek in John 18, he didn't turn 
the other. He asked why he was slapped on 
that cheek. This is not a call to never oppose 
wickedness, period. Jesus is condemning the Pharisees, 
the religious leaders of his day, who were nitpicky, fault-finding, 
revengeful people. It is a prohibition against private 
revenge. It is not a prohibition against 
the civil government carrying out its role of executing criminal 
offenders. I think the context here indicates 
that. He is dealing with personal ethics 
on a one-to-one level. He is not dealing with what states 
should do in terms of punishing people. If we take this text 
and we reduce it to absurdity, we ought not to have locks on 
our houses, we ought not to lock our windows. If somebody comes 
in and asks where our wife is, we ought to tell them, she's 
in that bedroom, my daughter's in the other one, you go ahead 
and do what... We would never do that. Ever. But if we took 
this text to its logical conclusion as twisted, then that's what 
we would have to conclude. Never resist an evil person. 
Well, come on in, evil people. Eat our food, watch our TV, rape 
our women. We would never do that. That 
is not the context. I suggest or I submit that Romans 
12.19 is the parallel. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, 
but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, vengeance 
is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Turretin says on that passage, 
blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12.19. but private 
revenge. So this text is oftentimes twisted 
and taken out of its context and employed against capital 
punishment. John 8 is another very famous passage. John 8, 
verses 1 to 11. The woman caught in adultery. 
Again, we must be brief here. If you want more information, 
just Pop in, we can talk through it. The offense, the woman was 
caught in adultery, a capital offense according to Leviticus 
20.10 and Deuteronomy 22.21-24. Now notice specifically in John 
8 verses 5 and 6. Now Moses and the law commanded 
us that such should be stoned. But what do you say? This they 
said, testing him, that they might have something of which 
to accuse him. You see, John alerts us to what's 
going on here. They're not really seeking justice. We know that for a whole variety 
of reasons, not the least of which is where is the man? If 
the woman was caught in the very act of adultery, there must have 
been a man present. How could she be caught in the 
very act of adultery without a man? But they don't have the 
man, they bring the woman to the Lord Jesus Christ. They don't 
care one whit about the law of Moses. John tells us they are 
doing this in order to test him. Another reason we know that they 
don't care about the law and about justice is because Jesus 
is neither a civil nor an ecclesiastical ruler. He doesn't have authority 
as a civil magistrate and he certainly doesn't have authority 
as an ecclesiastical leader. He is not, I mean, obviously 
he's the Messiah and he's the mediator of the New Covenant 
and he has, you know, absolute authority as the God-man. But 
in terms of public capacity, he does not have this. They're 
not coming because they're actually interested in prosecuting this 
person. according to the law. They've 
come in order to test. They've come in order to try 
and upbraid Him. Notice Christ's response specifically 
in verses 6 and 7. So when Jesus stooped down and 
wrote on the ground with His finger, there's a lot of ink 
spilled about what He wrote on the ground with His finger. Guess 
what? The text doesn't tell us. We might have some great thoughts 
on that. He might have been writing the 
commandment. It doesn't tell us. We don't know what he wrote. 
But it says, 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. And then dropping down in verse 
nine, woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one 
condemned you? Now, I just don't have a lot 
of time to develop all of this, but particularly, we ought to 
see that Jesus does two things in this transaction. or in this 
exchange, he one, upholds the law of Moses, and two, exercises 
forgiveness, grace, and mercy. How does he uphold the law of 
Moses? It was absolutely requisite that there be two or three witnesses 
in a capital offense. Absolutely necessary. You couldn't 
put someone to death without two or three witnesses. He is 
calling for witnesses. He who is without sin among you, 
let him throw a stone at her first. I don't think he means 
he who has no sin whatsoever. Probably he means he who is without 
this particular sin. In other words, you need to be 
a qualified witness. You need to be an unbiased witness. 
You need to be functioning according to Deuteronomy 17 and 19. It's 
not saying, those who are without sin in the sense that they are 
universally blameless and have never sinned. It's probably he 
who is without this particular sin. That's how we understand 
what he says to this woman as well. Go and sin no more? Is Jesus a Wesleyan? Does he 
believe in perfectionism? No, he tells the woman, go and 
commit this particular sin no more. In other words, repent, 
forsake, Look and live by the grace of God to the one who is 
dealing with you. So he upholds the law, appealing 
to these witnesses, recognizes the reality that they are not 
there present in order to inflict this punishment upon her, and 
he says, neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. He exercises 
grace and mercy, but he does uphold the Mosaic law. He upholds 
the mandate concerning witnesses. He does require this procedure 
to be in place. So, they put him on the horns 
of a dilemma and he successfully navigates through it. Now, in 
terms of some pragmatic or practical objections, capital punishment 
is not consistent with the Christian's attitude of forgiveness. Wouldn't 
this apply to any form of punishment? It's hard to see how it's an 
act of forgiveness to sentence somebody to life in prison. I 
just don't see that personally. especially a life in prison where 
his own life may be in jeopardy. Capital punishment is not an 
expression of mercy. Those deserving of capital punishment 
have received a lot more mercy than their victims have or the 
persons who died at their hands. And brethren, God commands capital 
punishment. Are we suggesting we're somehow 
more merciful than Him? I just, you know, these sorts 
of things just really blow. Well, it's just not kind. It's 
just not gracious. It's just not good. The kind, 
gracious, good God mandated that civil governments execute criminal 
offenders. Are we gooder, kinder, and graciouser 
than him? Who do we think we are to upbraid 
or to look beyond in terms of what we think? Capital punishment 
does not deter crime. Again, I think statistics would 
suggest otherwise. And then capital punishment will 
prohibit salvation. You've probably heard this. If 
we capitally punish someone, then they won't be saved. This 
is Pelagian and Arminian to the core. And in a recent article 
written by a Baptist pastor named Reverend Mark Woods, it was an 
article in a magazine called Christian Today. I saw the Twitter 
link and I clicked on it thinking it was Christianity Today. But 
lo and behold, there's a magazine out there called Christian Today. 
Well, Reverend Mark Woods is commenting on Dylan Roof. Perhaps 
you saw that in the news over the last few days. Dylan Roof 
was the young man who went into that church in Charleston, South 
Carolina in June of 2015, and he shot and killed nine people 
at a Bible study. I mean, just imagine, we're up 
there studying the book of 1 Kings, and somebody comes in and guns 
us down. It was an atrocious, a wretched act, a wicked, heinous 
thing. He was sentenced to death this 
past week. South Carolina, the jurors on that jury, or the particular 
individuals on that jury, sentenced Dylann Roof to death. Well, in 
his article, Reverend Mark Woods says, I don't believe in the 
death penalty for anything. I think it's useless, a hangover 
from a primitive idea of justice that evolved from the need to 
limit revenge in pre-modern times. I think the state should punish, 
but punishment should always leave open the possibility of 
repentance and reform, and that's not the same as saying there 
should always be the possibility of release. He goes on to just 
argue very poorly in terms of any defense or any sort of validation 
as to why we ought not to execute criminal offenders. But brethren, 
the Church of Jesus Christ should never be carried by, I personally 
don't believe, or I think it's useless, or I don't like it, 
or I don't think it's something that works, or I don't think 
it does. And even if it doesn't deter 
crime, It's still commanded by God, even if not one person is 
deterred. It's still commanded by God. I don't want to bind your conscience, 
but I praise God there's actually a state that takes seriously 
the mandate to execute a criminal offender. Praise God there's 
somebody out there doing what they're supposed to be doing. 
Get out of my healthcare, get out of my schooling, get out 
of my life and do what you're supposed to do. Praise God for 
that. Dylan Roof unmercilessly or mercilessly 
killed, murdered nine people. But the whole Arminianism and 
the Pelagianism behind the scenes, brethren, if he sentenced him 
to death, give him a day, preach the gospel to him. We as Calvinists 
in reform believe that God saves the elect. They get executed, 
we can't say, well, maybe they... No, God saves the elect. If it's in that final eleventh 
hour prior to them going into the gas chamber or the electric 
chair or whatever it is, God will save His people from their 
sins. We can rest assured, this is built upon a faulty theology, 
that if we execute them, it will keep them from salvation. No, 
it might be the means by which they enter into salvation. Perhaps 
the gravity of their sin and their crime and their wretchedness. 
when they're waiting to walk that green mile, a minister of 
the gospel comes and preaches the truth of that. Maybe that's 
what'll seize upon them as it did with Perkins. Roger shared 
with me that he was reading about William Perkins, witnessing somebody 
that was about to be executed, and this man's countenance was 
terrible. It was horrible. Why? Because he was a wretch, 
and he was about to die for his crime. Perkins says, let me talk 
to him for a while. Perkins gives him the gospel, 
and God saves this man. He walks up to that, and his 
countenance has changed. Praise Almighty God, the means 
by which he uses to save sinners might just include capital punishment. We're not Pelagians. We're certainly 
not Arminians. We'll say we're certainly not 
Pelagians. We're certainly not Arminians. We ought not to let 
this ever scare us from obeying God's law. Right? Get it? So some biblical, some 
practical, we end by saying the death penalty in the civil magistrate. 
Gordon Clark said, 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. Abolition of the 
death penalty presupposes the falsity of Christian principles. A Puritan, Thomas Watson, says, 
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 let the 
sword of justice rust in the scabbard. And then with reference 
to the death penalty and the church, I know that we'll be 
looked at, and perhaps some of you may be struggling with this 
sermon even now. Well, you can't really say these 
sorts of things, can you? You can't really suggest that 
the Bible's civil polity or its view on such things ought to 
be applied in society. I mean, we're already looked 
at as weirdos. If we start saying that the state 
should execute criminal offenders, boy, we'll really be written 
off as, you know, kooks and nut jobs. What does God's Word say? I mean, if you haven't accepted 
that yet, you're going to be looked at as weird in a society 
that hates God. Can I welcome you to the Christian 
life? You take a stand on the Word of God because God commands 
it. Robert Haldane in his commentary on Romans, so much good stuff 
written on this, says with reference to Romans 13, this refutes the 
opinion of those who think that it is sinful, nay that it is 
murder to put criminals to death. He says God here sanctions the 
practice. And if it is right in the civil 
magistrate to punish with death the violators of the fundamental 
laws of society, it is right in Christians to countenance 
and cooperate with the magistrate in effecting such punishments. 
It is right in Christians to countenance and cooperate with 
the magistrate in effecting such punishments. Some have this idea 
that a Christian could never participate in any of these sorts 
of things. Why not? It's a lawful activity commanded 
by God. Certainly Christians can participate. 
The same truth is taught by our Lord when he says, my kingdom 
is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, 
then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered 
to the Jews. He says this intimates that worldly power may be maintained 
by arms and that it is lawful to use them for this purpose. And then finally, we ought to 
understand the death penalty is not the gospel. The death 
penalty is a societal application of God's law with reference to 
criminal offenders. I think in some sense it does 
typify for us or it serves as an analogy to the final capital 
punishment that faces sinners in the age to come. And if you 
are not a believer, you cannot be saved by embracing the validity 
of capital punishment. You must come to Christ. But 
capital punishment certainly serves to illustrate for us what 
God thinks concerning crime. And when we extend that to the 
eternal state, we ought to see what God thinks of sin. And it 
is intriguing to me that so many, or some at least, who reject 
capital punishment, nevertheless affirm the doctrine of hell. 
I mean, brethren, the doctrine of hell makes capital punishment 
look like a walk in the park. The doctrine of hell is something 
that is absolutely horrifying, and the only means of escape 
is through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, let us pray. 
Our Father, we thank you for the Word of God. We thank you 
for its consistency in the Testaments, and we pray that you'd help us 
to be sound interpreters, and also to live in light of the 
things that we learn. We ask God in heaven that you 
would go with us, that you would watch over us in this coming 
week, that you would bless those in our church that are struggling 
with physical trials and challenges, give grace to your people here, 
and we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. We'll close with 
a brief time