I’m halfway through a little book about the imprecatory Psalms of the Old Testament. The book is called, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace, by James E. Adams. In today’s reading I came across this:

“Where do we get the idea that it is wrong to ask God to bring judgment on the wicked? That mentality creeps up on us so subtly that it has become a very common idea in our day. You may have even heard a fellow Christian express such an intense love for friends or relatives that God’s judgment against their evil deeds is rejected. It is possible to perceive such deep feelings of love for another as very “Christian”while failing to realize that what is being expressed actually evidences a lack of love for God.”

I think I’ll make this my quote for the week.

One of the most popular charges leveled against the elect is that of judgmentalism. Because Christianity teaches from the Bible about the nature of sin, and declares that sin requires repentance, some, both unbelievers and even fellow Christians charge many Christians with being judgmental or condemning instead of loving as Christ did. Yet as we shall see from this study, there are times when obedience to Christ, and adherence to God’s word requiresthat a Christian exercise judgment for the purpose of condemnation in turn leading to the hope of repentance.

We shall see from this study that Jesus condemned sin and certain people; that the Apostles condemned sin and certain people, and that we are enjoined to condemn sin and certain people.

Condemning a Lack of Judgment
There are times when Jesus pronounced condemnation about societies or individuals. This fact is sadly overlooked by some who tend to slice up the Bible’s text to give preference to the “positive-feeling” passages instead of the whole text. There were some that Jesus condemned and urged to repentance, and there were some that He openly condemned and left in their condemnation. Many of these examples come from the book of the Bible that many perceive to be the most gentle or representative of love in all its text. Look at these harsh examples from the loving book of John:

• Jesus condemned religious leaders who rejected His testimony about Himself (John 8:21-24), stating directly, “You will die in your sins.”
• He declared that as part of His mission He had “much to judge” (John 8:26).
• Jesus called these same religious leaders sons of the devil (John 8:42-44).
• Jesus declared that He not only came to forgive, but “For judgment I came into this world” to make those who “see” to “become blind” (John 9:39).
• Jesus declared that those who do not receive his words (believe in the testimony He gave about Himself), that “The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12:48).
• Jesus declared early in his ministry that “Whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18).

Jesus’ declarations of judgment were foundational to understanding the consequences of rejecting the testimony about His identity and what He requires of us. The same God who sent Jesus Christ is the same God who gave the Law of Moses and proclaimed grave consequences for disobedience to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Just as one could not expect to reject the Law of God given through the agency of a mere man and not suffer consequences, so too one cannot expect to reject the testimony of the Lord Jesus Himself and escape even greater consequences (Hebrews 10:28-31). Even the Apostle Paul followed in Jesus’ footsteps in this regard, sometimes proclaiming harsh judgment against both believers and unbelievers in certain circumstances. Make no mistake, Jesus and the Apostles did not “condemn the sin but not the sinner.” In fact, they condemned the sinner because of their sin – and they did so openly:

• Two believers, Ananias and Sapphira were condemned by Peter for lying – and they died on the spot (Acts 5:1-11).
• The Apostle Paul condemned a man named Elymas calling him, “Son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy” (Acts 13:4-12). Those were strong words of a clearly judgmental nature spoken to condemn.
• Paul ordered the church to harshly condemn sin within its midst, saying of a man committing incest, “I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing,” and “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh…” (I Corinthians 5:3-5). Thankfully this man repented, which is what the church’s condemnation in this case was designed to do (I Corinthians 5:5, II Corinthians 7:7-13).
• Paul openly condemned those who were leading the Galatians church astray, using the harshest language: “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9). To paraphrase this in modern language, Paul was literally saying, “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him go to hell.” That is personal condemnation.
• The Apostle Peter condemned false prophets and teachers – those who added to the Gospel or perverted its message, calling them “irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed” (II Peter 2:12). Peter dedicated a whole chapter in his letter to the condemnation of false teachers (I Peter 2).
• Jude (the brother of Jesus) also condemned false teachers inside the church saying that they were “Long ago designated for this condemnation” (Jude 4). The majority of his epistle is a letter of harsh judgment against those who pervert the doctrines of Christianity.

How do we then rectify these many examples (and there are many, many more) with Jesus’ words, “Judge not lest you be judged?” (Matthew 7:1) It would seem upon first glance that this is a glaring contradiction. In fact even many Christians take Matthew 7:1 as a guiding principle and use that to re-interpret the already offered examples to mean something different than that which the text so plainly and clearly says.

Are Christians not to judge? On the contrary, in fact Matthew 7:1, when taken in its full context, and other similar passages reveals that we are supposed to judge – but to do so with a “righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Immediately after Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged,” He did two things:

• First, He illustrated His principle with a parable about hypocrisy in judgment, then secondly, in the same breath
• He called certain people “dogs” and “pigs” because they reject truth.

Calling people “dogs” and “pigs” wasn’t exactly nice or nonjudgmental. Jesus was in fact, strongly urging us to use sober and correct judgment. There was never a time when He urged anyone to refrain from making or declaring judgment. He simply taught that our judgment must be made upon right principles, and more importantly right behavior. The Apostle Paul did the same when he pronounced some of his harshest words in Romans 1:18-32 for idolaters, liars, homosexuals, murderers, gossips, etc. Immediately after declaring, “that those who practice such things deserve to die,” he went on in Romans 2:1-2 to condemn those who condemn such practices and commit the same sins themselves. Paul’s focus was on the hypocrisy of those who judge – not the exercise of judgment itself. But Paul himself, not guilty of the sins and people he condemned, had the moral authority to pronounce God’s already revealed judgment against such sin.

Mercy as an Act of Judgment
This brings us to the practice of judgment in light of mercy. Certainly Paul, Peter, Jude, and even Jesus were not primarily concerned with the judgment of people. While they condemned sin in the strongest terms – and even openly condemned certain people – their first acts of judgment were to demonstrate mercy. In fact, mercy is an act of judgment because judgment is not always negative. The scripture says all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ – including the righteous (II Corinthians 5:10).

Demonstrating mercy toward a sinner instead of condemnation reveals that an act of judgment (condemnation) has already taken place. Jesus taught this very directly when He told the Jewish teacher Nicodemus, “Whoever does not believe [in Jesus] is condemned already” (John 3:18). Just prior to this Jesus said, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world” (in other words: to condemn it again, as it was already under condemnation), “but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). Did you notice the order of events? God had already declared us to be sinful and damned. That judgment was final. Jesus’ role was to extend mercy by taking our condemnation on our behalf. He took our place. Judgment is therefore prerequisite to mercy. Mercy is not exercised upon the innocent, but the guilty!

In this sense also we see that God’s judgment is part of His expression of love. For He judged us rightly as people corrupted by sin worthy of death (Romans 3:23, 6:23). His response to our condemnation was not to leave us condemned, but to offer mercy (Romans 5:6-11) by taking our judgment upon Himself (I John 2:2). Yet for those who reject His mercy, only judgment awaits (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Jesus is the Model
There can be no doubt from the scripture that we are called upon to condemn sin and even at times to judge people – especially within the church (I Corinthians 5:12-13). Yet our first response to sin must always be that of Jesus Christ – mercy. “If you see your brother in sin,” the scripture says, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Jesus lays out a process for dealing with sin that is designed to:

• Condemn sin,
• Avoid public embarrassment for the sinner, and
• Encourage repentance so that
• Mercy and forgiveness may be shown, so the
• Person doing the confronting can openly support the person being confronted.

In fact, any confrontation of sin that does not follow Jesus’ instruction and more importantly – His purpose of mercy, forgiveness, and support – is an act of sin itself (Romans 2:1-2). However, even though we are always to confront sin with the hopes of seeing repentance and forgiveness, there are some who will not receive it. Jesus condemned such people with the words, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

Conclusion
To follow Christ we must follow all of His ways. To fulfill God’s plan of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:29) we must imitate His instructions. Do you want to be faithful to the message of the Gospel and the love of Jesus? Then you must express God’s judgment. For without expressing God’s judgment, then you cannot express God’s mercy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be expressed apart from the condemnation of sin and the subsequent offer of mercy. Without understanding our sin, and our condemnation, then what reason do we have to accept mercy?

By understanding and expressing God’s judgment we come to a fuller appreciation for God’s grace (Ephesians 2:4-9). It is God’s mercy and grace that every sinner needs, and we receive it and give it through an act of judgment.

One of the most popular charges leveled against the elect is that of judgmentalism. Because Christianity teaches from the Bible about the nature of sin, and declares that sin requires repentance, some, both unbelievers and even fellow Christians charge many Christians with being judgmental or condemning instead of loving as Christ did. Yet as we shall see from this study, there are times when obedience to Christ, and adherence to God’s word requires that a Christian exercise judgment for the purpose of condemnation in turn leading to the hope of repentance.

We shall see from this study that Jesus condemned sin and certain people; that the Apostles condemned sin and certain people, and that we are enjoined to condemn sin and certain people.

Condemning a Lack of Judgment
There are times when Jesus pronounced condemnation about societies or individuals. This fact is sadly overlooked by some who tend to slice up the Bible’s text to give preference to the “positive-feeling” passages instead of the whole text. There were some that Jesus condemned and urged to repentance, and there were some that He openly condemned and left in their condemnation. Many of these examples come from the book of the Bible that many perceive to be the most gentle or representative of love in all its text. Look at these harsh examples from the loving book of John:

• Jesus condemned religious leaders who rejected His testimony about Himself (John 8:21-24), stating directly, “You will die in your sins.”
• He declared that as part of His mission He had “much to judge” (John 8:26).
• Jesus called these same religious leaders sons of the devil (John 8:42-44).
• Jesus declared that He not only came to forgive, but “For judgment I came into this world” to make those who “see” to “become blind” (John 9:39).
• Jesus declared that those who do not receive his words (believe in the testimony He gave about Himself), that “The word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day (John 12:48).
• Jesus declared early in his ministry that “Whoever does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18).

Jesus’ declarations of judgment were foundational to understanding the consequences of rejecting the testimony about His identity and what He requires of us. The same God who sent Jesus Christ is the same God who gave the Law of Moses and proclaimed grave consequences for disobedience to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Just as one could not expect to reject the Law of God given through the agency of a mere man and not suffer consequences, so too one cannot expect to reject the testimony of the Lord Jesus Himself and escape even greater consequences (Hebrews 10:28-31). Even the Apostle Paul followed in Jesus’ footsteps in this regard, sometimes proclaiming harsh judgment against both believers and unbelievers in certain circumstances. Make no mistake, Jesus and the Apostles did not “condemn the sin but not the sinner.” In fact, they condemned the sinner because of their sin – and they did so openly:

• Two believers, Ananias and Sapphira were condemned by Peter for lying – and they died on the spot (Acts 5:1-11).
• The Apostle Paul condemned a man named Elymas calling him, “Son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy” (Acts 13:4-12). Those were strong words of a clearly judgmental nature spoken to condemn.
• Paul ordered the church to harshly condemn sin within its midst, saying of a man committing incest, “I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing,” and “You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh…” (I Corinthians 5:3-5). Thankfully this man repented, which is what the church’s condemnation in this case was designed to do (I Corinthians 5:5, II Corinthians 7:7-13).
• Paul openly condemned those who were leading the Galatians church astray, using the harshest language: “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9). To paraphrase this in modern language, Paul was literally saying, “If anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him go to hell.” That is personal condemnation.
• The Apostle Peter condemned false prophets and teachers – those who added to the Gospel or perverted its message, calling them “irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed” (II Peter 2:12). Peter dedicated a whole chapter in his letter to the condemnation of false teachers (I Peter 2).
• Jude (the brother of Jesus) also condemned false teachers inside the church saying that they were “Long ago designated for this condemnation” (Jude 4). The majority of his epistle is a letter of harsh judgment against those who pervert the doctrines of Christianity.

How do we then rectify these many examples (and there are many, many more) with Jesus’ words, “Judge not lest you be judged?” (Matthew 7:1) It would seem upon first glance that this is a glaring contradiction. In fact even many Christians take Matthew 7:1 as a guiding principle and use that to re-interpret the already offered examples to mean something different than that which the text so plainly and clearly says.

Are Christians not to judge? On the contrary, in fact Matthew 7:1, when taken in its full context, and other similar passages reveals that we are supposed to judge – but to do so with a “righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

Immediately after Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged,” He did two things:

• First, He illustrated His principle with a parable about hypocrisy in judgment, then secondly, in the same breath
• He called certain people “dogs” and “pigs” because they reject truth.

Calling people “dogs” and “pigs” wasn’t exactly nice or nonjudgmental. Jesus was in fact, strongly urging us to use sober and correct judgment. There was never a time when He urged anyone to refrain from making or declaring judgment. He simply taught that our judgment must be made upon right principles, and more importantly right behavior. The Apostle Paul did the same when he pronounced some of his harshest words in Romans 1:18-32 for idolaters, liars, homosexuals, murderers, gossips, etc. Immediately after declaring, “that those who practice such things deserve to die,” he went on in Romans 2:1-2 to condemn those who condemn such practices and commit the same sins themselves. Paul’s focus was on the hypocrisy of those who judge – not the exercise of judgment itself. But Paul himself, not guilty of the sins and people he condemned, had the moral authority to pronounce God’s already revealed judgment against such sin.

Mercy as an Act of Judgment
This brings us to the practice of judgment in light of mercy. Certainly Paul, Peter, Jude, and even Jesus were not primarily concerned with the judgment of people. While they condemned sin in the strongest terms – and even openly condemned certain people – their first acts of judgment were to demonstrate mercy. In fact, mercy is an act of judgment because judgment is not always negative. The scripture says all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ – including the righteous (II Corinthians 5:10).

Demonstrating mercy toward a sinner instead of condemnation reveals that an act of judgment (condemnation) has already taken place. Jesus taught this very directly when He told the Jewish teacher Nicodemus, “Whoever does not believe [in Jesus] is condemned already” (John 3:18). Just prior to this Jesus said, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world” (in other words: to condemn it again, as it was already under condemnation), “but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). Did you notice the order of events? God had already declared us to be sinful and damned. That judgment was final. Jesus’ role was to extend mercy by taking our condemnation on our behalf. He took our place. Judgment is therefore prerequisite to mercy. Mercy is not exercised upon the innocent, but the guilty!

In this sense also we see that God’s judgment is part of His expression of love. For He judged us rightly as people corrupted by sin worthy of death (Romans 3:23, 6:23). His response to our condemnation was not to leave us condemned, but to offer mercy (Romans 5:6-11) by taking our judgment upon Himself (I John 2:2). Yet for those who reject His mercy, only judgment awaits (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Jesus is the Model
There can be no doubt from the scripture that we are called upon to condemn sin and even at times to judge people – especially within the church (I Corinthians 5:12-13). Yet our first response to sin must always be that of Jesus Christ – mercy. “If you see your brother in sin,” the scripture says, “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Jesus lays out a process for dealing with sin that is designed to:

• Condemn sin,
• Avoid public embarrassment for the sinner, and
• Encourage repentance so that
• Mercy and forgiveness may be shown, so the
• Person doing the confronting can openly support the person being confronted.

In fact, any confrontation of sin that does not follow Jesus’ instruction and more importantly – His purpose of mercy, forgiveness, and support – is an act of sin itself (Romans 2:1-2). However, even though we are always to confront sin with the hopes of seeing repentance and forgiveness, there are some who will not receive it. Jesus condemned such people with the words, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17).

Conclusion
To follow Christ we must follow all of His ways. To fulfill God’s plan of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:29) we must imitate His instructions. Do you want to be faithful to the message of the Gospel and the love of Jesus? Then you must express God’s judgment. For without expressing God’s judgment, then you cannot express God’s mercy. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be expressed apart from the condemnation of sin and the subsequent offer of mercy. Without understanding our sin, and our condemnation, then what reason do we have to accept mercy?

By understanding and expressing God’s judgment we come to a fuller appreciation for God’s grace (Ephesians 2:4-9). It is God’s mercy and grace that every sinner needs, and we receive it and give it through an act of judgment.

The execution of Saddam Hussein drove me back to the Bible. It was alarming to read the reaction of so many people to Saddam’s execution. Regardless of whether he was executed with “dignity,” or whether the men carrying out the deed were vengeful or politically contrary, none of it matters in the sense that in the end Saddam Hussein received the just penalty for his crimes. In fact, he technically received less than justice, which I explained in my commenterry, The Rightness of the Rope for Saddam Hussein.

Watching the reactions on the news, and reading through dozens of blogs from the Middle East to the Americas, you would think that Iraq had executed an innocent man. Of course most commentary was focused on the behavior of the hooded men, the political motivations and implications. But so what? So the masked-men were jerks and made Saddam’s last moments more bitter than he expected. In the words of Michelle Malkin, “Boo-freaking-hoo.” The behavior of Saddam’s hangmen doesn’t change the fundamental rightness of the penalty he received.

This is how it always is with sinful man. Sinful man, that is, the person who approaches the world from a view that is different from God’s, always protests God’s justice. In fact, sinful man often protests mercy as less than merciful – such as those who complained that Saddam Hussein wasn’t receiving humane enough treatment in prison, or didn’t get to talk to his monstrous daughter before receiving his rope-burn.

These issues drove me back to the Bible during the week of execution to re-examine the death penalty as a justice concept from the scriptures. I pulled out old Bible studies on justice and mercy, and decided to take a close look at the first death penalty recorded in the Bible, and the first capital crime. What I discovered in this go around gave me reason to pause and think carefully. The most important thing I came away with from this study was not about the death penalty, or God’s ideas about justice and mercy, rather, it was man’s reactions to God’s justice and mercy.

Murder & Mercy
Read: Genesis 4:1-16.
The Old Testament’s Mosaic Law prescribed the death penalty for certain crimes including premeditated murder, rape, incest, witchcraft, kidnapping, adultery, homosexual encounters, bestiality, violence against parents, blaspheme, and breaking the Sabbath – ouch. Yet the laws that spelled out this detail were not in place when the first murder was committed. In fact, the first murderer did not receive the death penalty.

Cain, the eldest son of Adam and Eve, murdered his brother Abel for no other reason than his jealousy of his relationship to God (4:4-5). For his premeditated murder of his younger brother, God exiled him (4:11-12). He did not receive the death penalty. It might be argued that God was still in the process populating the earth and this need prevented a death sentence from being handed down. Yet the scripture is clear that God did not “need” Cain to populate the earth as Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters after Cain and Abel (Genesis 5:4-5).

Upon confronting Cain about the murder of his brother, God’s first act was to attempt to draw out a confession from Cain. “The Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’” (4:9) Certainly God knew where Abel was – probably standing next to him! The question was nearly identical to the question He asked Adam in the garden after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, “Adam, where are you?” (3:9) This brings us to our first point:

• God’s preferred means of dealing with sin is to solicit confession for the purpose of demonstrating grace.

(Grace and mercy are different. Mercy is not receiving what is deserved. Grace is receiving more than we deserve, in good favor.)

When Eve sunk her teeth into the fruit God didn’t boom through the trees, “Get your lips off that!” Nor did He shout at Cain, “Murderer!” His first reaction in both cases was to try and coax a confession. In fact, throughout the Bible God’s first approach and requirement – even in the Mosaic Law – was to encourage confession, repentance, and restitution. When you think about it, we have a very crude (and often misused) form of this in our modern law – the plea bargain. In exchange for a confession a criminal may receive a reduced sentence.

In the Bible, when confession was not forthcoming things would become more difficult for the sinner.

The Mosaic Law required that the victim or victim’s family, under state supervision, execute a sentence of death. If God had applied this law to Cain, Adam and Eve would have had to execute their firstborn son. This was unlikely to happen, leaving only one person at the time that could carry out such a sentence – God (God did this once as we shall see later). Adam and Eve had already seen that God’s punishments could be severe (2:17), but it was also equally demonstrated that God’s practice of dealing with sin was merciful. Though God declared they would die if they ate the fruit, they did not immediately die – in fact they lived 10 times longer than we do! By allowing them to live God was also making preparation for the promised Savior – their descendant – who would atone for their sin and the sin of the world (3:15-16).

Cain followed in his father’s footsteps as a “tiller of the ground.” He brought sacrifices from what he harvested, however, his sacrifices did not please God (4:3-7). The scripture intimates that Cain did not bring the first fruits (best), but just a simple nondescript offering. This signified that Cain was first in Cain’s life.

His brother Abel did not follow in his father’s footsteps – he followed in God’s. Abel it seems, took his cues from God’s sacrifice of an animal to make coverings for Adam and Eve – he became a shepherd (3:20, 4:2). If scholar’s assumptions are correct and man did not eat meat at this time, then Abel’s profession had only one purpose – sacrificial worship. When Abel brought an offering, he brought God the best of his flock (first fruits), and the “fat portions.” This signified that God came first in Abel’s life. Interestingly, Cain brought offerings from a profession that was given to his father as the result of a curse. But Abel brought offerings from a profession that God modeled for redemption. This brings us to our second point:

• Sinful man always places his desires above God and above others.

Cain didn’t bring the first fruits he kept them for himself. Cain was jealous of his brother’s fortune with God, wanting to have God’s fortune to himself, but did not want his brother to have it. Yet Cain was also unwilling to do that which would give him God’s favor.

Adam and Eve received exile and a delayed death sentence. Cain the murderer only received exile. But there’s another interesting aspect to the difference in punishments between Adam, Eve, and Cain. Adam’s punishment was to have the ground cursed because of his sin (3:17-19). But Cain’s punishment was to be cursed from the ground (4:11).

Cain’s punishment denied him the ability to sustain his life, and draw fulfillment from it. Additionally, since he was “cursed from the ground,” we can assume that his days as a farmer were over. The very profession he used to bring his offerings from was now removed from him. This was God’s way of saying to Cain, there is no sacrifice for your sin. This is true because Cain showed no remorse, sorrow, or repentance for what he had done. Nor did Cain even feign to ask for forgiveness. Cain’s only response to God was not that he was sorry, but that God’s response to him was unjust. Look at what Cain said when he found out he was to be exiled instead of killed, “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (4:13). This brings us to our third point:

• Sinful man always views God’s justice as unjust, and often views God’s mercy as unjust.

The scripture also affirms this: “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely” (Proverbs 28:5). By not exercising a sentence of immediate death God was giving Cain many more years of life to consider his sinful state so that he might eventually come to repentance. The New Testament echoes this concept in Romans 2:4, “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” God granted a mercy to Cain that he did not deserve. Cain’s response was to protest both God’s justice and God’s mercy.

Cain also assumed a punishment for himself that God did not declare. He protested, “From your face I shall be hidden” (4:14). In fact God said no such thing. The punishment He gave was designed to lead Cain to repentance. All Cain had to do was recognize God’s unmerited favor toward him and respond. God’s face was not hidden from Cain. In fact, God was looking upon Cain with mercy in hopes that Cain would have a chance to see him face to face. Sadly, Cain rejected God’s kindness, signified when the writer says, “Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord” (4:16). God did not leave Cain; Cain left God. This brings us to our fourth point:

• Sinful man rejects God’s means of gaining His favor – repentance, obedience, and good character.

God already instructed Cain on how to gain his favor in 4:6-7. Instead of doing what God said to do to gain his favoring attention, he did the very thing that would gain God’s wrathful attention.

Cain’s error was the error of all sinful men who desire selfish benefit regardless of consequences. Sinful man rejects the notion of eternal consequences for their action. This is unlike the character of God who took the consequences of our actions upon Himself when Jesus Christ was crucified as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. God was the one who initiated the death penalty for certain crimes. And it was God the Son who received the penalty of death for the crimes we have committed. In fact, God even applied the principle of “life-for-life” to Himself, signifying that the death penalty, a life for a life, was a just principle.

Long after the days of Cain and Abel, God declared that the sin of man had become too great and that He would act to intentionally kill every living thing on earth. The scripture says:

“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land” (Genesis 6:5-7).

This is the first time the Bible says that God would take direct action to kill men. God in His justice decided to carry out the just punishment for sin on a world that only pursued “evil continually.” Yet after the flood, when Noah and his family were released to repopulate the earth, God declared a new law, a law that foreshadowed the coming of Christ:

”Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).

While God did not sin by subjecting the penalty of death upon sinful men (death, spiritually speaking, is a form of exile); He did give Noah a foreshadowing of what was to come. God had shed man’s blood in the deluge, and by man His blood – the blood of Jesus Christ – was to be shed.

The penalty of death for sin, especially the kind of gross sin where there is only evil continually, is a just penalty. At times men must suffer the penalty for their sin. But we can be thankful that for the chosen of God, those whom He has redeemed by His own sacrificial blood, that penalty of death is already paid.

The penalty of death sometimes suffered under secular law is a just penalty when prescribed for just reasons. God’s mercy does not negate the justice of the principle. And God did not prefer mercy over justice. He preferred both equally, which is why death is sometimes prescribed, and why the Son of God took that prescription for us. This is a stark contrast between the attitude of sinful man, who rejects God’s justice and mercy, and the righteous God, who embraced justice and mercy with outstretched arms on a cross.

It is both sad and interesting to see the world’s reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein. I’ve long been an advocate of the death penalty. If carried out with caution and extreme care, it is a proper tool for administering justice and preventing future evils against societies.

There are a lot of good arguments for the abolitionist view of capital punishment, some of which I sympathize with. But I think the arguments for the retentionst view are far stronger, and much more in line with the Bible’s teaching – though retentionsts do have some faults of their own. Clearly, the manner in which most capital punishment is carried out in modern societies does not meet the biblical standards. The death penalty is often assigned on circumstantial evidence – though often very strong. The biblical standard is multiple witnesses if guilt for execution is to be established. This does not mean that a person is not guilty and should not be punished, only that the standard necessary for a death penalty hasn’t been met. The penalty is often carried out too quickly, sometimes within hours or days of a sentence – especially in the Islamic world. But the Islamic world isn’t known for its mercy. In Saddam’s case I think a quick execution was justified. The facts surrounding his nearly 30 years of murders were more than enough to warrant the gallows, even though the actual trial only focused on an incident of 148 deaths.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, the biblical evidence necessary for Christians to support his execution was met, and passed, and circled several times.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was guilty of mass murders, attempted murders, atrocities, and much more. Saddam’s guilt has never been in question. Estimates on the number of people killed by Saddam’s orders range as high as 1 million. No matter which side of the capital punishment debate you hang from, there is no way that any punishment of Saddam, either death or life in prison, could ever pay for those 1 million deaths. Letting a man live who has committed unspeakable crimes and giving him something to pass the time with doesn’t seem just – nor does an execution completely just in this case. You can only execute someone once, and you can’t spend a million lifetimes in prison to pay for such mass murder (unless your a Buddhist—but that’s not reality). That being the case, where is real justice? Can it even be done? Contrary to what my many of my brothers and sisters in Christ may think, Saddam’s torment in hell won’t be for sins he committed on the earth. Man doesn’t go to hell for specific sins he commits. He goes to hell for rejecting Christ. His sins won’t make it any easier for him in hell, but that’s another topic entirely.

The world has reacted to Saddam’s execution with its usual mixture of politics and ideological spew, even a good measure of hypocrisy. The British government condemned the execution, though not in so many words. The Fins, who hold the EU presidency, also condemn the death penalty. The Vatican called the execution “tragic,” making one wonder what it would call Saddam’s atrocities. Russia called on the Iraqis not to execute Hussein, which is hard to take seriously considering the radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. India expressed “disappointment,” which I don’t remember it expressing when Saddam was gassing Kurds. But neither did they send troops to Iraq to put a stop to Hussein’s murders. Except for Kuwait and Iran the Arab world is strangely silent. All but the last two nations protested the execution of a mass murderer – but you know they aren’t shedding any tears over his hanging. They are just glad to be rid of him.

So what is it about the world’s values that the execution of a man like Saddam Hussein brings derision instead of praise for at least some semblance of justice done? It’s one thing to protest or deny a death penalty in the case of a single murderer (we can make a very good case for that in many instances), but when that murderer is responsible for the death of nearly a million, demonstrates no remorse, sorrow, or repentance, but only pride and approval for his murders, then how can people justify allowing that person to live at the expense of the society or societies he so harmed? Where is the justice in that?

Where is the mercy that society needs in such a case as opposed to the criminal of such unconscionable proportions?

At what point do the abolitionists say, “Hey, wait a minute, a million murders and thousands of rapes – yeah, we can kill him.” Two million? Ten million? If Hitler had lived or Stalin had been brought to trial, would you vote to execute in punishment for the 6 million and 20 million murdered or give him a cell, paper and pen to write his memoirs?

Its one thing to say that capital punishment is demeaning to human dignity (in some cases that is true). But can it not be argued that keeping a person alive after he’s slaughtered millions is a far more shameless denial of human dignity? Where does the abolitionist find a balance of dignity between one mass murderer and his 1 million victims? At what human number does a man like Saddam surrender his dignity?

Some people protest that the position that some evangelicals (like myself) take on capital punishment is not in line with the Bible’s teaching on forgiveness and mercy. Certainly not all evangelicals agree on this issue. Some emphasize the teachings of the Old Testament Law that prescribe capital punishment for a limited number of crimes. Some emphasize Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness and mercy, “Judge not lest you be judged” and so forth. Regrettably, I think that neither side really gets the full picture because neither side looks at the issue systematically. The Bible has a lot to say on this topic and it’s not an “either or” scenario. The Old Testament Law allowed judges to exercise discretion in capital cases and families could forgive and not execute punishment. The New Testament and Jesus himself placed an equal emphasis on God’s justice and wrath along with His forgiveness and mercy.

I think Scott B. Rae, Ph.D., associate professor of biblical studies and Christian ethics at the Talbot School of Theology sums up the proper biblical position the best. In his 1995 book, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, he states:

This demand for justice is not inconsistent with the New Testament emphasis on showing mercy and forgiveness, and vengeance belonging to God. However, the abolitionists are likely correct in maintaining that when family members of a murder victim express a demand for justice, they are often masking a desire for revenge that does not reflect the teachings of Jesus. Nevertheless it is true that the victim’s family has personally experienced the imbalance caused by crime, and thus their demand for justice may be a legitimate demand.The problem with bringing Jesus’ ethic for forgiveness to bear on the issue of the death penalty is the way in which abolitionists confuse personal and social ethics. The New Testament teachings on revenge and forgiveness are part of a personal ethic that forbids individuals from taking revenge and that requires forgiveness when wronged. But that ethic cannot be applied to the State. The responsibility of the State is to punish criminals, not forgive them (Chapter 9, “Capital Punishment,” page 186, “Capital Punishment Expresses and Appropriate Demand for Justice in Society.” Emphasis mine).

My favorite story in all of the Old Testament is the story of King Manasseh in II Kings 21:1-18 and II Chronicles 33:1-20. It is an amazing story. Manasseh was the Saddam Hussein of his day, and in many ways he was worse, even offering his own son as burnt offering in a pagan religious ceremony. Manasseh, like Saddam Hussein, embodied the very idea of evil. In fact, the word “evil” is used eight times in these two passages to describe the depth of…well…evil that Manasseh committed.

The Lord did not put Manasseh to death! The Assyrian King Esarhaddon carried him away into exile to Babylon. The Assyrians were exceptionally cruel to their prisoners, especially conquered kings – beyond the kinds of atrocities we hear about today. Manasseh’s suffering woke him up to the evils he had committed while he was king. The scripture says:

“When he was in distress, he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to Him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.”

The Bible records that Manasseh used the rest of his days as king to reverse the evils he had committed. He was truly a changed man. God was merciful to him, so merciful in fact that Manasseh reigned longer than any king of Israel or Judah – 55 years (even longer than David, the man after God’s own heart) – and Manasseh became an ancestor of Jesus Christ. That’s mercy. That’s grace.

Manasseh, for all of his evil, had a trait that Saddam Hussein did not possess – Manasseh had repentance, Saddam did not. Manasseh was truly, from the depths of his heart, sorry for what he had done. A court of men might have dispatched him anyway, but God saw fit to use him, so He restored him, making him a far greater man than he was before. We don’t know how long Manasseh spent in prison, but the time must have been at least a few years. Saddam spent 3-years in prison before his execution. His time was spent defending his evil, not reconsidering it. Perhaps if he had been tortured and abused like Manasseh had been his pain could have made him see the light. Regardless, at the end of his three years he was no different than when he was captured – a defiant old man full of pride in his accomplishments of evil. “What a waste” doesn’t begin to describe it.

It is quite clear that Saddam’s crimes were worthy of death. It is also clear that a punishment of death was not worthy enough of the multitude of crimes he committed. But if some kind of justice is to be done you have to start somewhere. In Saddam’s case, regardless of the faults with Iraq’s legal system and its unholy reliance on the evils of Islamic law, some measure of justice still had to be meted out. The last thing Iraq needed was a Saddam Hussein in prison somewhere, his presence behind bars motivating baathist followers, and waiting for a second chance at bloody glory. For all the justice he denied to the hundreds of thousands of his people through the painful, gruesome, merciless murders he committed, a snapped neck in a noose was an exceptionally small price to pay.

And no one should feel sorry for him.