How Can A Just God Work With King David?

[Clete]

I was recently discussing the justice of the death penalty when the person I was talking with brought up the fact that God didn't have David executed for murdering Uriah the Hittite, nor did He let Saul's involvement in Stephen's stoning, which if it wasn't murder, it was certainly an unjust execution, stop Him from making him the Apostle to the Gentiles.

His argument was, in essence....

If failing to execute murderers is unjust then God must be unjust because there are murders that God didn't have executed and that therefore my strong stance on the death penalty is somehow overstepping what is Godly.

My response was less than terrific because it didn't make sense to me at first. I couldn't make it compute that someone could question God's authority in such matters. After all, the only reason we are to execute murderers (and those guilty of other capital crimes) is because He gave mankind that authority and responsibility and I even told him at the time that I wasn't sure how to respond because his argument made no sense to me.

The exchange has made me more aware of the vast gulf that has opened up in regards to the way people think about justice. There are deep underlying, presuppositional issues that make the topic quite difficult to discuss in any depth, especially with someone who is religiously educated. It seems like it should be a very straight forward topic. I mean, how more clear can you get than "And eye for an eye"? But, it seems there just one bump in the road after another that betrays the existence of underlying issues that are coloring every aspect of the topic.

So, how would you guys explain why God chose to spare David and to choose Saul in spite of their overt wickedness and to what degree should such instances impact our understanding of what criminal justice should look like?

 

[Bradley D]

David paid with the death of a child. Saul later died for his belief in Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was recently discussing the justice of the death penalty when the person I was talking with brought up the fact that God didn't have David executed for murdering Uriah the Hittite, nor did He let Saul's involvement in Stephen's stoning, which if it wasn't murder, it was certainly an unjust execution, stop Him from making him the Apostle to the Gentiles.

His argument was, in essence....

If failing to execute murderers is unjust then God must be unjust because there are murders that God didn't have executed and that therefore my strong stance on the death penalty is somehow overstepping what is Godly.

My response was less than terrific because it didn't make sense to me at first. I couldn't make it compute that someone could question God's authority in such matters. After all, the only reason we are to execute murderers (and those guilty of other capital crimes) is because He gave mankind that authority and responsibility and I even told him at the time that I wasn't sure how to respond because his argument made no sense to me.

The exchange has made me more aware of the vast gulf that has opened up in regards to the way people think about justice. There are deep underlying, presuppositional issues that make the topic quite difficult to discuss in any depth, especially with someone who is religiously educated. It seems like it should be a very straight forward topic. I mean, how more clear can you get than "And eye for an eye"? But, it seems there just one bump in the road after another that betrays the existence of underlying issues that are coloring every aspect of the topic.

So, how would you guys explain why God chose to spare David and to choose Saul in spite of their overt wickedness and to what degree should such instances impact our understanding of what criminal justice should look like?

The answer is grace.

David, and Saul, and Rahab, and others, are the "exceptions that prove the rule."

All of them had faith in God, and specifically in David and Saul's/Paul's case, and almost certainly Rahab's case, they humbled themselves and repented of their sin and asked for forgiveness.

They essentially did what we in the Body of Christ "do" (massive air-quotes here!) to be saved. Except instead of it being the main program going on, they did so outside the "house rules" of Israel.

And Scripture tells us that God is more concerned about men (in this case, any human) repenting of their sin than He is about enforcing the law, for "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"! (1 John 1:9)

Remember, grace undergirded the law.

And David did suffer some punishment through the dishonor of knowing his descendants would bear the sword against each other and the dishonor of the death of his and Bathsheba's son (and in an honor-based culture, that's a big deal). NOTE: God taking his child, apart from Him having the right as Creator to do so, was a mercy, for the child was spared from the adversity that would "never depart from [David's] house."

 

[Clete]

David paid with the death of a child.

Killing a man's child for the crimes the father committed is very evil! So much so that God wrote a whole chapter of the bible on that precise topic. (Ezekiel 18)

Saul later died for his belief in Christ.

So did Peter and James and most all the other apostles. Are you suggesting that they were all guilty of capital crimes?

Clearly, that isn't what you're saying. It's a rhetorical question. The point being that everyone dies of something and our mortality is a different topic than criminal justice and whether God can forgo the normal punishment for a crime and remain just.

 

[Clete]

The answer is grace.

David, and Saul, and Rahab, and others, are the "exceptions that prove the rule."

All of them had faith in God, and specifically in David and Saul's/Paul's case, and almost certainly Rahab's case, they humbled themselves and repented of their sin and asked for forgiveness.

They essentially did what we in the Body of Christ "do" (massive air-quotes here!) to be saved. Except instead of it being the main program going on, they did so outside the "house rules" of Israel.

And Scripture tells us that God is more concerned about men (in this case, any human) repenting of their sin than He is about enforcing the law, for "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"! (1 John 1:9)

Remember, grace undergirded the law.

And David did suffer some punishment through the dishonor of knowing his descendants would bear the sword against each other and the dishonor of the death of his and Bathsheba's son (and in an honor-based culture, that's a big deal). NOTE: God taking his child, apart from Him having the right as Creator to do so, was a mercy, for the child was spared from the adversity that would "never depart from [David's] house."

Playing devil's advocate....

Then, we should not be in favor of the death penalty for those who publicly profess repentance toward God and who accept Christ as their savior?

(I have no doubt that this is the tack that the person I was discussing this with would take.)

 

[JudgeRightly]

The argument against that is that God did not repeal the death penalty when he forgave David, Paul, the adulterous woman brought before Jesus, etc. He alone has the authority to forgive those who wronged Him by sinning. Just because He forgave some does nothing to repeal the laws that those people violated. And He still demands that criminals be punished according to the law. Even Paul promoted the death penalty when he was falsely accused, saying "if I have done anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying." He, of all people, would have known what God's thoughts on the matter were, because he received his gospel directly from Christ!

As Paul said (and rightly so): "We establish the law."

 

[Clete]

The argument against that is that God did not repeal the death penalty when he forgave David, Paul, the adulterous woman brought before Jesus, etc. He alone has the authority to forgive those who wronged Him by sinning. Just because He forgave some does nothing to repeal the laws that those people violated. And He still demands that criminals be punished according to the law. Even Paul promoted the death penalty when he was falsely accused, saying "if I have done anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying." He, of all people, would have known what God's thoughts on the matter were, because he received his gospel directly from Christ!

As Paul said (and rightly so): "We establish the law."

And so, if justice demands the death penalty, in what way then is God not unjust?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And so, if justice demands the death penalty, in what way then is God not unjust?

Because He Himself paid the penalty for all sin, including David's, the adulterous woman's, Paul's... by dying on the cross, for "the wages of sin is death" but "the gift of God is eternal life." For those before that event, He was looking forwards to the cross. And of course, for those afterwards, the death, burial, and resurrection had already happened (necessity of the past ). He applies the payment of the cross to those who repent. For "He died . . . once for all." (Romans 6:10)

 

[Clete]

Because He Himself paid the penalty for all sin, including David's, the adulterous woman's, Paul's... by dying on the cross, for "the wages of sin is death" but "the gift of God is eternal life." For those before that event, He was looking forwards to the cross. And of course, for those afterwards, the death, burial, and resurrection had already happened (necessity of the past ). He applies the payment of the cross to those who repent. For "He died . . . once for all." (Romans 6:10)

And so, once again, why do we put professing believers to death when they've committed a capital crime?

This gets circular is the point I'm making here and so I'm not convinced that this is the whole answer.

I think I have another part of it but I'm still mulling it over.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And so, once again, why do we put professing believers to death when they've committed a capital crime?

Because dealing with crime is one thing, and dealing with sin is another. A Christian who repents of his murder has had his sin dealt with, but not his crime.

David was charged with the crime of murder, but being the highest human authority in the land, ultimately, his fate was up to God, both for the crime of murder, and for his sin. God, being sovereign (ruler over all, not Calvinistic "sovereignty"), chose to forgive him, because he humbled himself and repented.

The adulterous woman was repentant, and Jesus, being God, chose to pardon her sin, as her accusers under human law did not follow the law and bring forth two or three witnesses, and so could not legally be held accountable. If it weren't for the fact that Israel was not allowed to put anyone to death under Roman law without the Roman ruler's permission, and had they actually brought two or three witnesses, I have no doubt that she would have been stoned, and justly so.

The same applies to Paul as well, though he committed his murders under the authority of the Roman government, and so was never charged as well, but was dealt with directly by Jesus Himself.

Moses also comes to mind, but again, he was never formally charged with murder, though in his case, he was defending the innocent, and was justified in doing so, though his response was sadly to cower and run.

This gets circular is the point I'm making here and so I'm not convinced that this is the whole answer.

Not really.

God gave human governments the authority to punish criminals who commit crimes. If those criminals are never charged, or if the criminal is the highest authority in the land and thus no one is above him to hold him accountable, then justice cannot be meted out, not because the law is incompetent or incomplete (a la your suggestion in the monarchy thread about the law having a section for dealing with wicked kings), but because authority flows downhill from God and His law, to governments, to its citizens. When the government is one man (definition of monarchy) then there is no one above him, he is the highest authority, and to reiterate, no one is above him capable of punishing him, not because a system could not be designed that puts someone higher than him, but because such a position would undermine his authority as king of the land, and he would no longer, by definition, be the highest human authority in the land, the person or persons who would be "made higher" would be the highest authority, and the government would no longer be a monarchy, by definition.

On the other hand, God did not give human governments the authority or standing to punish sin. That role belongs solely to Him, because He is the one who is harmed (think "definition of injustice") when someone sins, and He alone had the authority to deal with sin.

I think I have another part of it but I'm still mulling it over.

Ok.

 

[Derf]

The adulterous woman was repentant, and Jesus, being God, chose to pardon her sin, as her accusers under human law did not follow the law and bring forth two or three witnesses, and so could not legally be held accountable. If it weren't for the fact that Israel was not allowed to put anyone to death under Roman law without the Roman ruler's permission, and had they actually brought two or three witnesses, I have no doubt that she would have been stoned, and justly so.

There's another issue on this one that needs to be addressed. She was supposedly "caught in the act", and that only works if the man is actually caught, too, but no man was brought forward. According to the law, both were to be put to death. So where was he? I've heard it suggested that this was the subject of Jesus' writings in the sand mentioned in the account, that one or more of the men there had been involved with the woman or with a similar infidelity, but we don't know for sure.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's another issue on this one that needs to be addressed. She was supposedly "caught in the act", and that only works if the man is actually caught, too, but no man was brought forward. According to the law, both were to be put to death. So where was he? I've heard it suggested that this was the subject of Jesus' writings in the sand mentioned in the account, that one or more of the men there had been involved with the woman or with a similar infidelity, but we don't know for sure.

That was the point I was making. They did not follow the law by bringing only her, and thus, she could not lawfully be charged with the crime of adultery.

 

[Clete]

Because dealing with crime is one thing, and dealing with sin is another. A Christian who repents of his murder has had his sin dealt with, but not his crime.

David was charged with the crime of murder, but being the highest human authority in the land, ultimately, his fate was up to God, both for the crime of murder, and for his sin. God, being sovereign (ruler over all, not Calvinistic "sovereignty"), chose to forgive him, because he humbled himself and repented.

The adulterous woman was repentant, and Jesus, being God, chose to pardon her sin, as her accusers under human law did not follow the law and bring forth two or three witnesses, and so could not legally be held accountable. If it weren't for the fact that Israel was not allowed to put anyone to death under Roman law without the Roman ruler's permission, and had they actually brought two or three witnesses, I have no doubt that she would have been stoned, and justly so.

The same applies to Paul as well, though he committed his murders under the authority of the Roman government, and so was never charged as well, but was dealt with directly by Jesus Himself.

Moses also comes to mind, but again, he was never formally charged with murder, though in his case, he was defending the innocent, and was justified in doing so, though his response was sadly to cower and run.

The fact that dealing with sin vs dealing with crime are two separate issues is very clearly true but I'm fairly sure that you missed my point, which was to implicitly employ the fact that they are two separate issues as the basis for my question.

In other words, if dealing with sin doesn't deal with crime then why did you bring up the fact that God dealt with sin when asked about criminal justice and God's ability to forgo the death penalty?

God gave human governments the authority to punish criminals who commit crimes. If those criminals are never charged, or if the criminal is the highest authority in the land and thus no one is above him to hold him accountable, then justice cannot be meted out, not because the law is incompetent or incomplete (a la your suggestion in the monarchy thread about the law having a section for dealing with wicked kings), but because authority flows downhill from God and His law, to governments, to its citizens. When the government is one man (definition of monarchy) then there is no one above him, he is the highest authority, and to reiterate, no one is above him capable of punishing him, not because a system could not be designed that puts someone higher than him, but because such a position would undermine his authority as king of the land, and he would no longer, by definition, be the highest human authority in the land, the person or persons who would be "made higher" would be the highest authority, and the government would no longer be a monarchy, by definition.

I don't buy much of any of that line of thinking, especially in relation to this topic.
First of all, there is no human king that is not under God's authority and Israel's king could very easily have been killed by God for having committed murder. In fact, the story of David and Bathsheba makes it clear that God taking that action would have been justice. (II Samuel 12:5)
Secondly, of all the people we're discussing, David is the only one who was a monarch and so even if your thinking here was correct, it wouldn't apply to Paul or Rahab.

On the other hand, God did not give human governments the authority or standing to punish sin. That role belongs solely to Him, because He is the one who is harmed (think "definition of injustice") when someone sins, and He alone had the authority to deal with sin.

John 20:23


So, I ask you again, given the fact that it is clearly so that criminal justice requires the death penalty in capital cases, whether the convicted offender is saved or not, how is it that God remains just when He overrides that aspect of criminal justice in certain cases? Why does God get to override the death penalty and remain just and we don't?


Incidentally, I keep digging here, not because I don't have an answer but because your answers help me think it through more thoroughly. I'll give my answer soon.

 

[Clete]

There's another issue on this one that needs to be addressed. She was supposedly "caught in the act", and that only works if the man is actually caught, too, but no man was brought forward. According to the law, both were to be put to death. So where was he? I've heard it suggested that this was the subject of Jesus' writings in the sand mentioned in the account, that one or more of the men there had been involved with the woman or with a similar infidelity, but we don't know for sure.

It is important to point out that in the case of the adulteress, Jesus did not override the law. On the contrary, He followed it to the letter. Guilt in such cases must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses and when all those witnesses went away, so did the case against her.
Now, this result was clearly orchestrated by Christ as His statement "Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone." was no mere suggestion, in my view, and so it isn't completely unrelated to the topic at hand, its just not as strong an example as the others that have been mentioned because there is a good, criminal justice related, reason why she wasn't put to death.

 

[Clete]

That was the point I was making. They did not follow the law by bringing only her, and thus, she could not lawfully be charged with the crime of adultery.

I disagree.

The man caught with her, obviously should have been charged as well, but there is no legal requirement to bring charges against neither if you can't (or don't) charge both. What if the man had escaped or been killed by the husband, does that mean that the woman should go free? Obviously not, right? One injustice does not excuse, much less require, another.

 

[Clete]

Okay, so in addition to all of the excellent input you guys have offered, why couldn't a sufficient response to this argument be as simple as saying...

Mankind is subject to God's criminal justice system, God is not.

If you remember my previous essay entitled "Our Moral God", I discussed that the basis of right and wrong is not the law, nor is it any other sort declaration given by fiat, nor is it some mysterious/unknowable/unsearchable wisdom but that good and evil are based on life. That which promotes life is the good, that which negates it is the evil, and that the sense in which morality is based on God's character is in the fact that God Himself is Life itself.

On that basis then we can look at the death penalty and see that it isn't about killing people, but rather it is about preserving life. Capital crimes either directly cause, or lead inexorably to, excess death in a society. Those who commit capital crimes negate life and are thus evil by definition. Evil is a negation of the good, death is a negation of life, and the death penalty is the negation the negators.

That all makes complete sense but it cannot apply to God. At least not in the same sense that it applies to mankind. God Himself is Life itself. All that lives does so because God has both created it and given it life. Both the living being itself and that being's life belong to God, by right. We are not guaranteed nor are we owed our next breath. God owns all of the created order and is the absolute sovereign over it all and, as such, can sustain or stop some or all of it at His sole discretion. The only say we human beings have in the matter is that which God Himself permits.

In His wisdom God has commanded the death penalty for capital crimes and that is the only reason the death penalty is allowed. There was a time when it was not allowed and then there came a time when it was commanded. Prior to that time men had not been given the authority to take another man's life for any reason. This was done to demonstrate to mankind the result of such a policy and the wisdom of the death penalty. That was a costly lesson to learn, right?! How many thousands suffered through their lives within a totally corrupt and evil society and how many met their demise in a watery grave?

The answer to that question is, "Far fewer than would have died (or never lived at all) otherwise!" Indeed, it was the entire human race (save one family) that suffered the death penalty so that those who came after might live longer, better, more civilized lives throughout the rest of history. The point here being, in short, that if God had to delegate the authority to mankind to form a goverment and execute ciminals then on what basis could anyone object to His overriding that authority and taking a particular case into His own hands? Aren't the results of His doing always more or less similar? Just as the wiping out of virutally the whole race of mankind lead to billions of better lived lives throughout history, the results of God foregoing the death penalty in a hand full of cases had a similar effect. While David was himself an unrighteous man, he did, in fact, rule as a righteous and just king over Israel and God had very specific plans for David's blood line that would bring eternal life to countless millions, even billions of people.

In the case of Saul, it was the government that executed Stephen, and while Stephen's execution was unjust and Saul's consent was foolish and wrong, it doesn't make Saul a murderer. It does, however, appear that there are those who met their deaths as a result of Saul's impassioned persecution of the followers of Christ prior to his conversion, and so the argument still applies. Indeed, Paul, by his own Holy Spirit inspired testimony, is the "chief sinner". Even so, once again, the result of God's mercy towards Saul, who became Paul, has been Christianity itself! Saul, the Jew "died" and Paul, the Greek speaking Roman was brought to life. No way that parallel is a coincidence!

There's one last point I want to make in this somewhat rambling and sort of scatter brained post, which has to do with the fact that our physical death isn't the end of the story. Indeed, at most, our physical death is merely the end of the beginning. God is dealing with things on a very much larger scale than our short physical lives can hardly compare with. God is dealing with mankind across centuries and mellenia of history even during this caporal existence and even that kind of time scale shinks into obscurity when compared to eternity. The point being that God is a really big God and He's doing really big things with really big plans in mind and if He sees fit to keep a man alive then so be it! As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the exceptions that have been made to the death penalty prove the rule rather than nagate it and whether a criminal ever sees justice in this life or not, he absolutely will do so in the next. It will either be Christ who suffered that man's due punishment or he will suffer it himself and that punishment will make anything we human beings could have done to the criminal pail into practical non-existence by comparison to that which he will recieve from Him Who is the only truly rightous Judge.

 

[Right Divider]

In the case of Saul, it was the government that executed Stephen, and while Stephen's execution was unjust and Saul's consent was foolish and wrong, it doesn't make Saul a murderer.

That is not true.
The Jews were under Roman rule and Stephen was not executed by the Roman rulers. The Jews had no authority to execute anyone. They were not the government in charge.
Jesus was also executed under the authority of the Roman government (unjustly, of course).

 

[Derf]

Okay, so in addition to all of the excellent input you guys have offered, why couldn't a sufficient response to this argument be as simple as saying...

Mankind is subject to God's criminal justice system, God is not.

If you remember my previous essay entitled "Our Moral God", I discussed that the basis of right and wrong is not the law, nor is it any other sort declaration given by fiat, nor is it some mysterious/unknowable/unsearchable wisdom but that good and evil are based on life. That which promotes life is the good, that which negates it is the evil, and that the sense in which morality is based on God's character is in the fact that God Himself is Life itself.

On that basis then we can look at the death penalty and see that it isn't about killing people, but rather it is about preserving life. Capital crimes either directly cause, or lead inexorably to, excess death in a society. Those who commit capital crimes negate life and are thus evil by definition. Evil is a negation of the good, death is a negation of life, and the death penalty is the negation the negators.

That all makes complete sense but it cannot apply to God. At least not in the same sense that it applies to mankind. God Himself is Life itself. All that lives does so because God has both created it and given it life. Both the living being itself and that being's life belong to God, by right. We are not guaranteed nor are we owed our next breath. God owns all of the created order and is the absolute sovereign over it all and, as such, can sustain or stop some or all of it at His sole discretion. The only say we human beings have in the matter is that which God Himself permits.

In His wisdom God has commanded the death penalty for capital crimes and that is the only reason the death penalty is allowed. There was a time when it was not allowed and then there came a time when it was commanded. Prior to that time men had not been given the authority to take another man's life for any reason. This was done to demonstrate to mankind the result of such a policy and the wisdom of the death penalty. That was a costly lesson to learn, right?! How many thousands suffered through their lives within a totally corrupt and evil society and how many met their demise in a watery grave?

The answer to that question is, "Far fewer than would have died (or never lived at all) otherwise!" Indeed, it was the entire human race (save one family) that suffered the death penalty so that those who came after might live longer, better, more civilized lives throughout the rest of history. The point here being, in short, that if God had to delegate the authority to mankind to form a goverment and execute ciminals then on what basis could anyone object to His overriding that authority and taking a particular case into His own hands? Aren't the results of His doing always more or less similar? Just as the wiping out of virutally the whole race of mankind lead to billions of better lived lives throughout history, the results of God foregoing the death penalty in a hand full of cases had a similar effect. While David was himself an unrighteous man, he did, in fact, rule as a righteous and just king over Israel and God had very specific plans for David's blood line that would bring eternal life to countless millions, even billions of people.

In the case of Saul, it was the government that executed Stephen, and while Stephen's execution was unjust and Saul's consent was foolish and wrong, it doesn't make Saul a murderer. It does, however, appear that there are those who met their deaths as a result of Saul's impassioned persecution of the followers of Christ prior to his conversion, and so the argument still applies. Indeed, Paul, by his own Holy Spirit inspired testimony, is the "chief sinner". Even so, once again, the result of God's mercy towards Saul, who became Paul, has been Christianity itself! Saul, the Jew "died" and Paul, the Greek speaking Roman was brought to life. No way that parallel is a coincidence!

There's one last point I want to make in this somewhat rambling and sort of scatter brained post, which has to do with the fact that our physical death isn't the end of the story. Indeed, at most, our physical death is merely the end of the beginning. God is dealing with things on a very much larger scale than our short physical lives can hardly compare with. God is dealing with mankind across centuries and mellenia of history even during this caporal existence and even that kind of time scale shinks into obscurity when compared to eternity. The point being that God is a really big God and He's doing really big things with really big plans in mind and if He sees fit to keep a man alive then so be it! As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the exceptions that have been made to the death penalty prove the rule rather than nagate it and whether a criminal ever sees justice in this life or not, he absolutely will do so in the next. It will either be Christ who suffered that man's due punishment or he will suffer it himself and that punishment will make anything we human beings could have done to the criminal pail into practical non-existence by comparison to that which he will recieve from Him Who is the only truly rightous Judge.

That's all good stuff, Clete, but I think there's more to it. There was an agreement between David and Bathsheba that her son would sit on the throne. We don't know when the agreement was made, but I expect it was part of the deal early on, maybe when Bathy first discovered she was pregnant, maybe when David first had her brought in. It explains a few things about David's behavior when that child was dying. Eventually the agreement was carried out with Solomon. So God was working within the boundaries of human wills, and bringing about His divine will.

 

[Clete]

That is not true.
The Jews were under Roman rule and Stephen was not executed by the Roman rulers. The Jews had no authority to execute anyone. They were not the government in charge.

Well, yes and no. It's not as if Stephen was the first person every to be put to death for religious reason in Israel since Rome took over. The Jewish leadership knew how to get done what they wanted done. The point is that it was an official act done by the governing leadership of Israel, not some hit done by the ancient equivalent of a Mob Boss.

Jesus was also executed under the authority of the Roman government (unjustly, of course).

No argument there, of course.

 

[Clete]

That's all good stuff, Clete, but I think there's more to it. There was an agreement between David and Bathsheba that her son would sit on the throne. We don't know when the agreement was made, but I expect it was part of the deal early on, maybe when Bathy first discovered she was pregnant, maybe when David first had her brought in. It explains a few things about David's behavior when that child was dying. Eventually the agreement was carried out with Solomon. So God was working within the boundaries of human wills, and bringing about His divine will.

There are indeed lots of details but the broad strokes are that God is not subject to the criminal justice laws that He has placed us under. Justice is God's cat, not ours, and He can skin it in the manner in which He sees fit.