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