Sermon Tone Analysis

“God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea.

Into your hand they are delivered.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.

And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man.

From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image.

“And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.’”[1]

On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, with a 7 to 2 decision, discovered abortion of the unborn to be a constitutional “right” long hidden in the Constitution of the nation.

Since that time, evangelical churches throughout North American have observed the third Sunday of January as “Sanctity of Life Sunday.”

It has been my practise for a number of years to address issues concerning the sanctity of human life on this third Sunday of the month of January.

Though I am quite clear that abortion is murder—deliberate killing of the most vulnerable member of society—I am convinced that normalising abortion destroys the fabric of society, leading to disrespect for the weak and for the elderly.

Thus, I have addressed the biblical view of euthanasia and suicide, both assisted and unassisted, during these sermons.

I have not previously addressed the biblical view of capital punishment, governmentally sanctioned execution because of grievous crimes.

The message today will address this contentious issue, as I look to the Word of God for understanding of the responsibility imposed on those who govern us.

I seek also to lay a foundation for us as Christians to serve as salt and light in any debates surrounding this issue in days to come.

Angel Nieves Diaz was convicted of murdering Miami bar manager, Joseph Nagy.  Twenty-seven years after that murder, Angel Nieves Diaz was executed by the State of Florida.

His final statement was, “The state of Florida is killing an innocent person.

The state of Florida is committing a crime, because I am innocent.

The death penalty is not only a form of vengeance, but also a cowardly act by humans.

I’m sorry for what is happening to me and my family who have been put through this.”

Mr. Diaz’s cousin, Maria Otero, expressed her outrage at his execution to reporters.

“Who came down to earth and gave you the right to kill somebody?”

she asked, referring to Governor Jeb Bush.[2]

Her question, and the sentiment expressed by Mr. Diaz demand an answer.

Angel Diaz was denied a retrial on a variety of legal grounds, the appellate judges noting that the trial judge had commended him for his competence and skill in directing his own defence.

Moreover, though he had rejected a court appointed lawyer, he did receive a thorough examination by both psychiatrists and psychologists who pronounced him competent to defend himself.

Whatever view we hold at this time concerning the death penalty, there was no rush to judgement in executing Mr. Diaz.

The death of the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, hanged under authority of the Iraqi government, has galvanised debate on the ethics of government-sanctioned execution.

Hussein, convicted of the murder of 148 Shiite Muslims, was sentenced to death by hanging.

His execution, captured in graphic detail via a covert cell-phone recording, has been repeatedly shown on the Internet.

Government and religious leaders express their dissent to his death.

Especially vocal are protests against capital punishment issued by the Vatican.

These protests have a patina of religious legitimacy, but those protesting failed to provide scriptural justification for their opposition.

God requires */a reckoning/* for the life of every human being.

We rightly understand that murder is condemned in this statement.

However, we struggle to define the parameters of the */reckoning/* that must be given for life.

For instance, is it ever right to take human life?

What if we are defending another life—a member of our own family, for instance?

Can we take a life in the defence of someone who is vulnerable?

What if a mother’s life is threatened by the child she is carrying?

Is a doctor permitted to kill the child */in utero/* in order to spare the mother’s life?

Can the state hold a murderer accountable by taking his life, or by taking her life?

Time constraints prevent answering all of these questions, but I do hope to address the issue of capital punishment.

Perhaps the reason questions such as these are difficult to answer is that we live in a culture that exalts personal gratification at the expense of corporate rights and responsibilities.

British civil law, drawing heavily upon New Testament principles, demanded that participants in the civic contract seek the “common good” instead of seeking individual fulfilment.

During the past several decades, the view promoting the common good as socially desirable has been jettisoned in favour of a contemporary view that elevates individual desire as the highest good to be sought in society.

Accordingly, we have multiple views of what is good, and the loudest voice almost always prevails.

These modern views exalt the individual at the expense of the common good.

One example of that exaltation of the individual at the expense of the common good is found in the realm of marriage.

Whereas all history pointed to the necessity of strong homes to produce men and women of character capable of taking their place in society to continue the advance of goodness, the contemporary view demands that individuals must do what makes them feel good.

Consequently, we justify same sex marriage, serial adultery, and children are expected to raise themselves.

*The Noahic Covenant and Capital Punishment* — Some people reject capital punishment saying we should not impose an ancient religious law on a modern society.

Though there are elements of the Mosaic Law that are ceremonial and of limited utility outside of a theocracy, we must not to reject those aspects of the Law that address governmental responsibilities.

Though the Law of Moses did set the penalty of death for a number of crimes, the demand for the death of those taking human life preceded Sinai.

Noah and his family had been spared when God judged the ancient world.

The flood brought the Dispensation of Human Conscience to an end; and when the ark settled on Ararat, a new beginning for mankind dawned.

Noah’s first act was to build an altar and present an offering to God in gratitude for His mercy [*Genesis 8:20*].

God’s response to Noah’s worship was to institute a covenant with mankind [*Genesis 8:21, 22*].

God did not restrict this covenant to Noah, nor even to Noah and his immediate family; rather, God instituted a covenant with all mankind.

Theologians refer to this covenant as the Noahic Covenant.

With this Covenant, God instituted human government, making man responsible to govern himself, no longer simply relying on his conscience or doing what he felt like doing.

History before the Flood was characterised by extreme violence.

In *Genesis 6:11*, we read, “The earth was filled with violence.”

Examples of the violence that marked that world include the fact that Abel’s murder went unavenged [see *Genesis 4:8-16*], and that Lamech overreacted when insulted [see *Genesis 4:23, 24*].

Now, a strict retribution was introduced.

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,

by man shall his blood be shed.”

[*Genesis 9:6*]

 

This was a divine Covenant.

Man did not covenant with God, but rather, God covenanted with man.

God pledged that He would never again strike down all living creatures as He had when He sent the Flood.

He also instituted human government as a provision to restrain the wicked impulses of mankind.

Specifically, government was to restrain man from acting on the spontaneous impulses that arise from anger and rage.

What were the provisions of this Noahic Covenant?

God pledged that fear of man would be upon all the animals, upon all the birds, and upon all the fish.

The animals were given to man as food, as part of this covenant.

This leads me to believe that before the Flood, the animals were not wild, but that they were rather domesticated.

Moreover, it would lead me to anticipate that before the Flood, mankind maintained vegetarian diets.

Before, someone gets the idea that the Bible advocates a vegan lifestyle; I remind you that those vegetarians were all killed because they were so wicked and violent.

God continues by proscribing man from eating the blood.

With this provision, God is not prohibiting blood in the diet; rather, God is commanding man to take care to ensure that the animals that are to be eaten are killed in a merciful manner.

The blood represents the life force of the animal.

The idea is that one must not eat the flowing blood of a living creature.

The meaning of the restriction is that one “must not eat the life of an animal together with its flesh.”[3]

The fear that the world will be overpopulated is grossly overblown.

There is no warrant in this Covenant for women to slaughter their unborn children.

In Scripture, children are described as a blessing, not a curse.

To have many children and grandchildren was evidence of God’s favour [e.g.

*Genesis 24:60*; *Psalm 127:3-5*].

God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars [*Genesis 15:5*], and the patriarchs invoked the blessing of fruitfulness of their heirs [*Genesis 15:5*; *18:4*].

God covenanted with Israel to give them many children if the people would obey His laws [*Leviticus 26:9*; *Deuteronomy 7:13*].

There exists a vocal element in modern society that no longer considers children to be a blessing, just as that same element appears to inveigh against capital punishment.

Such people have rejected God’s oversight of life and the responsibility of government to hold mankind accountable for the shedding of blood.

When God begins the quatrain found in the sixth verse with the words, “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” he speaks of wilful and unwarranted shedding of blood.

This is not referring to */accidental bloodshed/*, for which kind of manslaughter the law would later provide [*Numbers** 35:11 ff.*].