Well, should a Christian juror be quick to acquit in the courtroom? It's a question from a young man who wants to know, "Hello, Pastor John. Recently, my nephew, who attends a private Christian university, related to me an encounter he had with his New Testament professor. This professor held that even if a Christian juror knew without doubt, based on the evidence, that a defendant was guilty of a crime, the Christian's duty is to pass along a verdict of not guilty.

As proof, the professor cited Jesus' response to the woman who was caught in adultery and was brought before him in John 8, verses 1 to 11. Since Jesus didn't convict the guilty woman, neither should we convict guilty criminals today." That's the basic summation of the professor's argument. How would you respond?

I would appreciate your thoughts on what God expects from Christian jurors. And I'm curious, have you ever served on a jury yourself? Well, let me just dispense with that first one. No, I haven't, though I've been called up several times and they just never got to me. So I went to the courthouse and sat there and I didn't even get interviewed.

But here's what he's really asking. What's behind this question is not so much a misunderstanding of John 8, rather it's an effort to carry through a consistent pacifism for Christians. That's what's going on here and we need to probe that. In other words, this professor is advocating for Christians never to return evil for evil, or eye for an eye, or any kind of punishment or retribution, but only forgiveness, only release from all consequences for evil in this world.

That's what's behind the question. Is that approach to life taught in the New Testament? So let me first respond to his use of John 8, 1 to 11. And I know that the earliest manuscripts of John don't have this story. It may not be an original story, but for the sake of the argument, I'm just going to treat it as genuine.

A woman is caught in adultery. The Pharisees bring her to Jesus and remind him that this is a capital offense. Leviticus 20, verse 10. She should be stoned to death. Jesus pauses, looks down, draws in the ground, says, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." What Jesus is doing here is setting in motion a massive change in the way the new people of God, his followers, the church, as distinct from ethnic, political, geographic Israel, this new people of God will no longer be governed as a national, political, geographic, body politic with civil laws, regulating, for example, capital punishment the way Israel was.

Rather, the church, the new people of God, will not be a political or ethnic or geographic reality, but it will be governed by the law of Christ, which introduces significant changes from the law of Moses. One of those changes, for example, we see being played out in 1 Corinthians 5, where there is an example of adultery in the church, worse than adultery.

And the punishment that the apostle Paul requires is excommunication, not execution, according to the Mosaic law. That change is what Jesus is now setting in motion when he refuses to participate in the stoning of this woman. So we must ask, when he said that the one without sin should cast the first stone, was he saying only sinless people can pursue retributive justice?

Was he saying that only sinless people can actually be involved in the punishing of wrongdoers? Is he saying no jurors who follow Christ could ever find anyone guilty? Is that what he's saying? Or is he saying, "I am about to forgive this woman because I have authority on earth to forgive sins and fulfill and change the law of Moses.

I am about to transform her with the command to go and sin no more." So, if you are without sin and thus in a position like me, go ahead and contravene my judgment. Now, I think the rest of the New Testament warns us against treating Jesus' words about casting the first stone as if they were a teaching that says only sinless people can exact justice.

The New Testament teaches that God has put civil government in place to punish wrongdoers. Romans 13.4, "The ruler does not bear the sword in vain. He is the servant of God and an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Or 1 Peter 2.14, "Governors are sent by God to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." Now, the Christian pacifist, this professor that we're being asked about, doesn't deny that the civil governments can find people guilty of crimes and punish them.

What the Christian pacifist denies is that God's people, the followers of Jesus, should participate in that. We are called to bear witness to the kingdom of Christ by not participating in the kingdom of this world on its terms, with its standards of retributive justice. That's consistent pacifism. Our standard is, "Repay no one evil for evil." You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." I say, "Do you resist no one who is evil?

If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also." And so the Christian pacifist infers that this is the only way to show Christlike Christian love in this world. This is the only way to bear a clear witness to Christ. Now, frankly, I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

I think all the texts that support it should probably have a greater effect on our attitudes than they do. But I can't go all the way with the Christian pacifist when he tells us that retributive justice should have no place in the Christian life, because I see in the New Testament at least five spheres of life where the Bible portrays proper Christian behavior as including retributive justice, that is, holding people accountable for wrong behavior and applying painful consequences for it.

For example, parenting. Fathers are told in Ephesians 6 to bring up their children in the discipline of the Lord. That word "discipline" we know from Hebrews 12 includes the application of chastisements and consequences, painful consequences for our children. I think a father or a mother would be sinning if they only turn the other cheek for every act of disobedience and insolence from their children.

Of course, discipline is always mingled with mercy, but retributive justice is not excluded from parenting. Second, the marketplace. Christian employers should pay their employees for the work they do and not keep paying them indefinitely for work they refuse to do. If Paul could say to the church, "If they won't work, let them not eat," 2 Thessalonians 3.10, how much more would he say to employees, "Let those who refuse to work not be paid," withholding a salary from an employee who refuses to work is a form of retributive justice.

Third, education. Teachers should not reward failing students with high grades. They may show tremendous patience and mercy, but they do not equate sloth with superior performance. There are consequences for failing to do your work. Retributive justice belongs in education, always for the Christian, of course, mingled with patience and mercy.

Fourth, government, law enforcement. We've already seen it in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Lawbreaking should meet with appropriate consequences, fines, imprisonment, or even execution. This is the way God restrains the rivers of evil in the human heart with common grace. The common grace of retributive justice. Finally, the church.

The church is instructed to perform church discipline, which can include ostracism or excommunication, which is a horrific consequence for unrepentant sin, if one takes the Bible seriously. For those reasons, I can't follow the pacifist into the position where retributive justice has no place in the life of a Christian.

I admit very freely that the mingling of mercy toward our enemies and the application of justice is not easy. We are supposed to love our enemies. We are supposed to return good for evil. So the upshot for me is that I, we desperately need the Holy Spirit to guide us.

When should our witness to Christ involve turning the other cheek? And when should it involve spanking a child or not? Letting an employee go or not? Giving the student a C instead of an A or not? Excommunicating an adulterous Christian or finding some other way to move them forward for now.

And finding a murderer guilty while serving as a Christian juror. That's really good and careful. Thank you, Pastor John. And thank you for joining us today. You can ask a question of your own, search our growing archive, or subscribe to the podcast all at DesiringGod.org/AskPastorJohn. We are going to break for the weekend.

I'm not sure what's up on Monday, but I am your host Tony Rehnke and Lord willing, we will again see you on Monday with longtime author and pastor John Piper. Have a great weekend.