← Back to sermon library

We're slowing down a bit with 
the 6th, the 7th, and the 8th commandments because there's 
a lot of application not only to our personal lives but to 
our situations that we face in this particular age. And so we're 
continuing in the study of the 6th commandment which is very 
simple, you shall not murder. But I wanted to deal with what 
are exceptions to that. There are three things the Bible 
recognizes that is taking the life of another person, but it's 
not murder. Remember that murder is when 
you unlawfully kill somebody with premeditation, with malice 
aforethought, with anger, with awaiting, anything like that. 
That's necessary to establish the crime of murder. But the 
three exceptions, again, I don't even like to call them exceptions 
because it's not technically murder when the civil state executes 
criminal offenders. Tonight, we're going to look 
at self-defense and then God willing, next Wednesday, the 
legitimacy of just war. So I want to read Deuteronomy 
chapter 5 beginning in verse 1. "'And Moses called all Israel 
and said to them, "'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments "'which 
I speak in your hearing today, "'that you may learn them and 
be careful to observe them. "'The Lord our God made a covenant 
with us in Horeb. "'The Lord did not make this 
covenant with our fathers, "'but with us, those who are here today, 
"'all of us who are alive. The Lord talked with you face 
to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. I stood 
between the Lord and you at that time to declare to you the word 
of the Lord, for you were afraid because of the fire and you did 
not go up the mountain. He said, I am the Lord your God 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not 
make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that 
is in heaven above, "'or that is in the earth beneath, "'or 
that is in the water under the earth. "'You shall not bow down 
to them nor serve them. "'For I, the Lord your God, am 
a jealous God, "'visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
the children "'to the third and fourth generations of those who 
hate me, "'but showing mercy to thousands, "'to those who 
love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name 
of the Lord your God in vain, "'for the Lord will not hold 
him guiltless "'who takes his name in vain. "'Observe the Sabbath 
day to keep it holy, "'as the Lord your God commanded you. 
"'Six days you shall labor and do all your work, "'but the seventh 
day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. "'In it you shall do 
no work, you nor your son, "'nor your daughter, nor your male 
servant, "'nor your female servant, nor your ox, "'nor your donkey, 
nor any of your cattle, "'nor your stranger who is within your 
gates, "'that your male servant and your female servant "'may 
rest as well as you. And remember that you were a 
slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you 
out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm. Therefore, 
the Lord your God commanded you to keep this avid day. Honor 
your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded 
you, that your days may be long and that it may be well with 
you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. You shall 
not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, 
you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, you shall 
not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your 
neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female 
servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. 
These words, the Lord spoke to all your assembly in the mountain, 
from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness 
with a loud voice. And he added no more. And he 
wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." Amen. Well, with reference to the commandment 
itself, as I said, it's very simply stated in verse 17, you 
shall not murder. And there are several words in 
Hebrew for killing. And this word murder is appropriate 
here. Again, premeditation, malice 
of forethought, hatred, waiting upon somebody in order to take 
their lives, those are things necessary to establish the crime 
of murder. And so this prohibition is prohibiting 
murder, unlawfully taking another human being's life. But when 
we look at scripture as a whole, we saw, I hope, that the Bible 
legitimizes the death penalty. Genesis chapter 9, whoever sheds 
man's blood, by man his blood will be shed, for in the image 
of God he made man. In Romans chapter 13, we see 
that the civil government has been given the sword by God for 
the execution of God's wrath in history against criminal offenders. Now, with reference to self-defense, 
the Bible is clear here as well. So we're gonna look at the biblical 
case for self-defense, and then look secondly at the teaching 
of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. We looked at that briefly 
when we considered the death penalty, but we'll do a bit of 
a further dive into Matthew 5, 38 to 42. But with reference 
to the biblical case for self-defense, you can turn back to Exodus chapter 
22. Exodus chapter 22. So the law 
of God is clear with reference to self-defense. And I hope to 
establish that as we look at several passages in the Old Testament 
and then several passages in the New Testament as well. So 
Exodus chapter 22 doesn't just follow numerically from Exodus 
chapter 20, but it is very much connected to it. So in Exodus 
chapter 20 is the giving of the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments, 
or the Decalogue, like we're seeing in Deuteronomy chapter 
5. But if you look at Exodus 21, 
specifically at verse 1, it says, now these are the judgments which 
you shall set before them. So basically, you have the general 
principles in the Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20, and then 
you have the application of those general principles in specific 
situations and settings in chapters 21 to 23. In other words, it's 
criminal law. It's the application of the Decalogue 
of the Ten Commandments to life in society. One man, Walter Kaiser, 
says, while these judgments, he's commenting on verse one 
in chapter 21, while these judgments deal mainly with temporal matters, 
they nevertheless are based on one or another expressed commandment 
in the Decalogue. It is most appropriate, therefore, 
that these judicial and political regulations given by God to Moses 
when Moses approached the thick darkness where God was, should 
be set alongside the Decalogue. The two belong together in time 
as well as in interpretation. In other words, it's moving from 
the general to the concrete. It's moving from the general 
to the specific. How do we structure society based 
on those 10 commandments? Now, with reference to chapters 
21 to 23, you have the laws concerning slaves in chapter 21, verses 
1 to 11. Laws Concerning Homicide in Chapter 21, Verses 12 to 17. 
Laws Concerning Bodily Injury in Chapter 21, Verse 18 to Verse 
32. And then Laws Concerning Property 
Damage and Theft in Chapter 21, 33 to Chapter 22, 15. So the 
text that I want to direct your attention to is specifically 
in Chapter 22 at Verses 2 and 3. It says, If the thief is found 
breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall 
be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, 
there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full 
restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft. So the specific scenario that 
the Eighth Commandment is dealing with, as well as the Sixth Commandment, 
because we see that if the man is struck at night and he dies, 
then there is no guilt for the bloodshed of the homeowner. So 
the Sixth Commandment is at play, and so is the Eighth Commandment 
forbidding theft. And so those two commandments 
are being applied in a particular situation or scenario that happens 
all the time in any body politic. I mean, it'd be great if everybody 
was upright and holy and righteous and didn't break in and didn't 
try to steal your stuff and didn't try to mug you and didn't try 
to rob you and didn't try to rape you if you're a woman. all 
those things would be wonderful but that's not the world we live 
in. There is a world filled with crime and a world filled with 
sin and the Bible provides for us redress on how to deal with 
that and how to cope in such a situation. So notice in verse 
2, if the thief is found breaking in and he is struck He's struck 
by the homeowner. He's not struck because he stood 
on a rake and it hit him in the head. He's struck by the homeowner. 
If the thief is found breaking in and he is struck so that he 
dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. So the thief 
breaks in at night time and he is struck by the homeowner and 
dies. Notice what it says there in 
verse 2 at the end. There shall be no guilt for his 
bloodshed. No guilt for the homeowner's 
bloodshed who struck the intruder and caused him to die. So basically 
the man is off the hook, he is not criminally responsible for 
having dispatched this criminal if it is the hours of darkness. 
The homeowner is not liable because in the hours of darkness he is 
better able to determine why the intruder is in his home. 
If the intruder is in his home to get a glass of water, and 
it's the hours of daylight, you can assess he doesn't have a 
weapon, give him a glass of water and send him on his way. But 
in the hours of darkness, more than likely, you just woke up 
to the sound of a bump. You've come down the stairs, 
or you've walked into the kitchen, or you walked into the living 
room, and there he is. Well, you don't know why he's 
there. And so the idea is that the homeowner is going to put 
up a defense And if he does that, and he actually kills the man 
in the midst of it, then the homeowner is not liable for murder. So it is a justifiable homicide. It is the lawful taking of another 
person's life in this particular exchange. Now, we might say, 
well, buildings and property can be replaced. Again, it's 
nighttime, and he doesn't know if the man is there only to hurt 
his building or his property. But buildings and property are 
grossly underrated. That can be an indirect assault 
upon our lives. Verne Poythress says the destruction 
or expropriation of property is an indirect attack on the 
human life supported by it. In other words, we depend on 
property, we depend on things, we depend on food, we depend 
on shelter. So it's not just some small thing 
that this invader has found in this man's home. Matthew Henry 
says, a man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, 
sets a guard upon it. He that assaults it does so at 
his own peril. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we 
lived in a body politic that we could actually say, as well 
as man's? We see all manner of injustice 
with reference to the non-punishment of criminal offenders in our 
particular situation. And it is vexing. But if the 
Bible does authorize, if you hear somebody breaking in, now 
that doesn't mean you have license to kill him, and I'm gonna give 
you some qualifications in a bit, doesn't mean you get to take 
out all your frustrations because we live in an unjust society, 
but if in that exchange you happen to kill him, the scripture exonerates 
you. That is not murder, it is justifiable 
homicide. Now note in verse three, the 
qualification. So verse two envisages a nighttime 
break in. The sun is down, basically everybody's 
asleep, somebody breaks in, you don't know what his intentions 
are, and in that exchange you kill him. But notice in verse 
three, if the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for 
his bloodshed. He should make full restitution. 
If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. So the 
law makes a distinction here between a nighttime intrusion 
and a daytime intrusion. The homeowner is not justified 
if he kills the criminal during the daytime, unless, of course, 
the criminal is there with a gun and he starts taking shots at 
the man's family. Well, then, of course, the home 
defender can defend against that. But he's able to assess the threat. 
He's able to determine why the man is there. And if he's not 
violent, if he is not intent on committing rape or murder, 
then you don't have the authority to kill him in that instance. 
So the homeowner is not justified at this point if he kills the 
criminal during the daytime. Now, the rationale is because, 
again, the homeowner is better able to assess the level of threat. 
If the guy is there and he's not going to kill, he's not going 
to maim, he's not going to do anything bad, in that way, you 
don't have the right to kill him. You don't have the right 
to produce bloodshed. You can, you know, call the cops. 
There's a whole host of other things. And probably the hours 
of daytime, your neighbors are awake too. If you shout in the 
middle of the night, not all your neighbors are going to hear 
you. But if you shout in the middle of the day, your neighbors 
are going to hear you. And that's an underrated principle 
that we find in scripture. In fact, there's a situation 
in Deuteronomy 22 with reference to sexual crimes or sexual sins, 
where if a woman shouts, then it is confirmed that she was 
being raped. It was a forcible thing. If she 
doesn't shout, then it's difficult to make the case that she was 
not compliant in that particular situation. So in the hours of 
daytime, you can assess the threat. In the hours of daytime, you 
have access to neighbors who can help you to resist this criminal. Matthew Poole mentions this on 
killing the criminal at night, because in that case, the thief 
might be presumed to have a worse design, and the owner of the 
house could neither expect or have the help of others to secure 
him from the intended violence, nor guide his blows with that 
discretion and moderation which in the daytime he might use. 
Now look again at verse three. So the homeowner is not exonerated 
if he kills the man. There will be guilt on him. But 
notice, this does not invalidate the crime of the thief. That's 
not the only point, is to exonerate or not exonerate the homeowner. But notice in verse 3, if the 
son has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. Again, 
if the homeowner kills him in the exchange. But note, back 
to the thief. He should make full restitution. It's not just a text that authorizes 
self-defense, which it does, but it's also a text which demands 
restitution on the part of the thief. In other words, you don't 
get to keep what you stole. You have to give it back. Notice, 
he shall make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft. So the latter part of the law 
prohibits the killing of the offender, but that does not mean 
the offender goes unpunished. The offender must pay back. He 
must make restitution. And if he doesn't have the money 
to pony up the restitution, then he goes into indentured servitude. Notice he doesn't go to prison. 
He doesn't go to the state penitentiary. You'll search far and wide in 
the Old Testament for a prison system akin to what we know in 
terms of modern day prisons. You will see an emphasis on indentured 
servitude. You will see an emphasis on corporal 
punishment. And you will see an emphasis 
on capital punishment. I'm not suggesting there weren't 
holding cells. I'm not suggesting there was 
no jail to hold criminal offenders. But 30 years or life in prison? Again, if you find that in the 
Old Testament, I'll give you 10 bucks. But with reference 
to this, that's the specific situation. If he breaks in at 
night, the homeowner exchanges with him, and the homeowner kills 
him, there's no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen 
on him, there shall be guilt for the homeowner's bloodshed. 
Again, If he's there to murder, he's there to kill, he's there 
to destroy, yeah, you can use that force necessary to repel 
the threat. But the criminal must pay. The 
criminal is not sent off to a prison to pay his debt to society. No, he pays his debt to the victim 
that he stole from. Society doesn't get paid back 
for individual debts. Individuals get paid back for 
individual debts. Now, Francis Turretin, I think, 
amplifies this a bit in a section in his Institutes of Elanctic 
Theology. This is the section, defensive 
homicide is not forbidden. In other words, self-defense. 
Defensive homicide, killing somebody in defense of ourselves or in 
the defense of others. We're going to see that it includes 
not just us, but others. But he says that these rules 
should apply. These are the sorts of things 
that need to be present in that particular situation. He says, 
first, it is necessary that the aggressor unjustly assails and 
falls upon us. In other words, there has to 
be a crime committed against you. You can't kill somebody 
because you think they might potentially commit a crime against 
you. He says, secondly, it is necessary that the defender be 
placed beyond all blame, while every other way of escaping morally 
by speaking or flying or yielding is shut against him. In other 
words, if you can get away, if you can detach yourself from 
the situation without killing him, you should take that particular 
pathway. You should try at all costs to 
avoid the bloodshed. He says, thirdly, it is necessary 
that the defense be made during the very attack and not after 
it is over. Because then it becomes vigilantism. Then it becomes mercenary. Then it becomes, okay, I'm going 
to go out under the cover of dark and I'm going to get that 
guy who stole my toaster. And then fourth, it is necessary 
that nothing is done by him either under the impulse of anger or 
with the feeling and desire of revenge, but with the sole intention 
of defending himself. Again, I think that is moderate. 
I think it's balanced. I think it is prudent. And I 
think it reflects the biblical legitimacy of self-defense. In other words, you defend yourself. Now, Turretin also judiciously 
comments on Romans 12, 19, which says, Beloved, do not avenge 
yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, 
Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. He says blameless 
protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 19, but private 
revenge. It's not blameless protection. 
Somebody comes into your house, and you're wiping the dust out 
of your eyes, and there you see a man with a knife, and he's 
got criminal intent, and you get into an exchange with him, 
and he dies in that exchange. That's blameless protection. 
The Bible exonerates you. You are not culpable for that. 
but it's private revenge, it's that letting it go, and then 
I'll visit you in a week and I'll bring my trusty tools and 
hurt you. So the Bible does authorize self-defense. And then there are several places 
where we see it fleshed out. You can turn to Genesis chapter 
14. Genesis chapter 14, the rescue of Lot. Lot was abducted and 
Abram and his armed servants went to rescue him. And Abram 
was a righteous man. I don't think the Bible would 
condone, or the Bible, you know, there are things that the Bible 
just describes without necessarily prescribing, but when we see 
these descriptions over and over again in the Old and New Testaments, 
that has a lot of weight, especially when we see that biblical law 
governing the situation in Exodus 22, two and three. So notice 
in Genesis 14 at verse 13, then one who had escaped came and 
told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the pteramon trees of 
Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and 
they were allies with Abram. Now when Abram heard that his 
brother was taken captive, he armed his 318 trained servants 
who were born in his own house and went in pursuit as far as 
Dan. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his 
servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is 
north of Damascus. So he brought back all the goods 
and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods as well as 
the women and the people." Again, Abram arms his servants and they 
go out in order to recover Lot. If you turn to the book of Nehemiah, 
in Nehemiah, the Jews who had returned to Judah wanted to rebuild 
the city and the temple. And they are in the midst of 
building the city or putting up the wall around the city. 
And they are harassed by basically, I almost said Samaritans, but 
Samarians, Sanballat and various other peoples. Remember, by this 
time, the northern kingdom had fallen. And when Assyria went 
in and took the northern kingdom of Israel, they brought peoples 
and put them into that region. They were not native to the upper 
part of Israel. They were people brought in from 
various other conquests by the Assyrians and put up in the northern 
part of the country. So they've obviously got some 
problems with the Judahites returning and wanting to build the wall. 
And so Nehemiah tells us that they prayed for God's blessing. 
Notice in verse 9. Nevertheless, we made our prayer 
to God, and because of them we set a watch against them day 
and night. It's been attributed to Oliver 
Cromwell that we're supposed to trust in God and keep our 
powder dry. And some say, well, we don't 
have any source. Nobody ever wrote that down. 
But a lot of people say, we'll give it to Cromwell because it 
sounds Cromwellian anyway. Trust in God, but keep your powder 
dry. Right? Trust in God, but keep 
your powder dry. That's precisely what we see 
in Nehemiah. So verse nine, nevertheless, 
we made our prayer to God, and because of them, we set a watch 
against them day and night. And then drop down to verses 
13 and following. Therefore, I positioned men behind 
the lower parts of the wall at the openings, and I set the people 
according to their families with their swords, their spears, and 
their bows. And I looked and arose and said to the nobles, 
to the leaders, and to the rest of the people, do not be afraid 
of them. Remember the Lord, great and 
awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your 
wives, and your houses. And it happened when our enemies 
heard that it was known to us and that God had brought their 
plot to nothing, that all of us returned to the wall, everyone 
to his work. So it was from that time on that 
half of my servants worked at construction while the other 
half held the spears, the shields, the bows, and wore armor. And 
the leaders were behind all the house of Judah. Those who built 
on the wall and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so 
that with one hand they worked at construction and with the 
other held a weapon. Every one of the builders and 
his sword girded at his side as he built, and the one who 
sounded the trumpet was beside me. There doesn't seem to be 
any condemnation upon the practice of Nehemiah and the wall builders, 
the city builders at this juncture. Turn to Proverbs chapter 24. Proverbs chapter 24, verse 11. Again, speaking of defense, speaking 
of not only defense of self, but defense of others. Proverbs 
24 verse 11, deliver those who are drawn toward death and hold 
back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, surely we did not 
know this, does not he who weighs the hearts consider it? He who 
keeps your soul, does he not know it? And will he not render 
to each man according to his deeds? Deliver those who are 
drawn toward death and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. 
I don't know if you saw that arena a few weeks ago in Charlotte, 
South Carolina, that was, you know, murdered on a train and 
there were people that just sat there. That's not what we're 
supposed to do. And I'm not saying, you know, 
take a bullet for Jesus or, you know, put your neck out there 
to get it slashed. But is there no humanity? Is there no defense? Is there no, you know, assistance 
rendered? You see these video clips of 
somebody getting beat in the street and instead of somebody 
helping them, they all have their cell phones and they're recording 
it to upload it to YouTube later. Put the phone down and help people. 
That is a biblical necessity. And then turn back to 1 Samuel 
chapter 13. This isn't really about self-defense 
directly, but it is at least indirectly. It's an instance 
of gun control. I realize they didn't have guns, 
but indulge me here. It was the control of weapons 
by the Philistines. Notice in 1 Samuel 13 at verse 
16, Saul, Jonathan, his son, and the people present with them 
remained in Gibeah of Benjamin. But the Philistines encamped 
in Michmash. Then raiders came out of the 
camp of the Philistines in three companies. One company turned 
onto the road to Ofrah, to the land of Shul. another company 
turned to the road to Beth-horon, and another company turned to 
the road of the border that overlooks the valley of Zeboim toward the 
wilderness." Now I think the big connection here is how hooped 
Israel is according to 1 Samuel 13, and how great Jonathan's 
victory is over the Philistines in 1 Samuel 14. That's the main 
emphasis. However, look at what we find 
with reference to Philistines and Israelites, verse 19. Now, there was no blacksmith 
to be found throughout all the land of Israel. For, this is 
the rationale, this is the reason, this is the because, for the 
Philistines said, lest the Hebrews make swords or spears. Huh, the 
Philistines shut down the blacksmiths, the Philistines shut down the 
ironsmiths, why? Because they were quite content 
with having an unarmed or disarmed Israelite population that couldn't 
fight back. I don't want to get weird here, 
but when they say, oh, we want to control guns because we care 
for you, that's not true. It's because they want to hurt 
you the same way that the Philistines wanted to with reference to the 
Israelites. So all the Israelites, verse 
20, would go down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, 
his mattock, his ax, and his sickle. And by the way, I'm not 
telling anybody to go buy a gun. I'm not telling anybody to go 
out and get into brawls. I'm telling you what I believe 
the scripture teaches at a very important point, whether you 
choose to do this or not. This is what the text says. There's 
a reason why the Philistines didn't want the Israelites to 
have swords or spears. And it wasn't because they were 
concerned with Israelite crime and didn't want them to hurt 
each other. That's not it at all. So all the Israelites would 
go down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, 
his mattock, his axe, and his sickle. And the charge for sharpening 
was a pym for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and 
the axes, and to set points of the goads. Gil says, with reference 
to the Philistines doing this, this they did to prevent their 
having arms and the use of them, that they might not rebel against 
them and fight with them and overcome them. It was a piece 
of policy to keep them subject to them. So Nebuchadnezzar, when 
he conquered the Jews and carried them captive, took care particularly 
to carry away their smiths, and left none but the poorest sort 
of people in the land. 2 Kings 24, 14. 2 Kings 17 is 
the fall of the northern empire to the Assyrians. 2 Kings 24 
is the fall of the southern empire, or the southern kingdom rather, 
to the Babylonians. And Nebuchadnezzar did that. 
He got rid of all the ironsmiths and the blacksmiths and anybody 
that could make a pointed object that would put up any resistance 
to Babylonian threat. So now turn to the New Testament 
and we'll look at the teaching of Jesus. Now, I'm not suggesting 
that what we're going to see is a text like Exodus 22. Jesus 
is not teaching on self-defense in the passages that I'm about 
to deal with. He is not. I'm not saying he 
is teaching on self-defense. This is what you ought to do 
if you're a homeowner in Chilliwack in the 21st century. This is 
what you should do and how you protect your stuff. That's not 
it. But I do believe that Jesus assumes 
that people will defend themselves. Jesus assumes that people will 
do what is necessary to keep criminal offenders out of their 
homes. So notice in 1120, he's being 
accused for casting out demons by Beelzebub according to verse 
15. And then he says in verse 17, every kingdom divided against 
itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a 
house falls. If Satan also is divided against 
himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say, I cast 
out demons by Beelzebub. And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, 
by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they will be 
your judges. But if I cast out demons with 
the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon 
you. When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, 
his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes 
upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor, 
in which he trusted, and divides his spoils. He who is not with 
me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." 
The point is simple in terms of the spiritual application. 
Jesus is the stronger man than the strong man who's fully armed. 
But for the illustration to work, he assumes that fully armed people 
guard their own domiciles. He doesn't discount that. He 
just says that when a stronger than he comes, which is Jesus 
in his first coming to overthrow the kingdom of Satan, when a 
stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from 
him all his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoils. 
Look at chapter 12 in Luke's gospel, Luke chapter 12. Same sort of a thing. It's not 
a text like Exodus 22, 2 and 3. Here's when you're responsible. 
Here's where you're not responsible. Here's what you do if it's daylight. 
Here's what you do if it's nighttime. Again, I think it's just assumed 
by Jesus that persons will protect themselves. They will protect 
those close to them, and they'll protect their own homes. Notice 
in 1235, let your waist be girded and your lamps burning, and you 
yourselves be like men who wait for their master when he will 
return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks, they 
may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants whom 
the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say 
to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, 
and will come and serve them. and if he should come in the 
second watch or come in the third watch and find them so, blessed 
are those servants. But know this, that if the master 
of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would 
have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into." 
Again, the point is not self-defense, but the assumption is And for 
Jesus to just make that assumption, again, I think it's not just 
localized to Exodus 22, 2, and 3. It's not just confined to 
the arena of special revelation and the word from God that comes 
to us through propositional truth. It's general revelation. It's natural law. It is just 
the way things are. It's built in us to try to prevent 
harm. We don't drink poison. We don't 
stand on train tracks. Somebody comes at us with a knife, 
we move. If somebody aims a gun at us, 
we duck. There's just a built-in mechanism 
by which we seek to defend ourselves. And I think that Jesus assumes 
that. And then of course, Luke 22, 
36, which is an enigmatic statement. And I'm not suggesting we should 
put it on t-shirts and brandish our firearms because Jesus said 
to in Luke 22, 36. But Luke 22, 36 is in the scriptures. Then he said to them, but now 
he who has a money bag, let him take it and likewise a knapsack. 
And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy 
one. Now, some say this is the spiritual sword. It's the word 
of God. That's a tough one for me to 
get my mind wrapped around. It's probably a physical sword, 
not for offensive purposes. You can guys go rob banks and 
fill our treasury. No, no, it's defensive in case 
an animal jumps out from behind a bush or a criminal jumps out 
from behind a bush. He says specifically. Now some 
will say, but he cautioned Peter about using the sword in the 
garden in John 18. Yeah, he did caution Peter about 
using the sword in John 18 because he was on a particular mission 
and that messianic mission must be completed. The hour had come 
and he must drink the cup of God's wrath. And there is nothing 
that is to get between him and that particular task. So it's 
a unique specific observation, unique, specific application 
in this context, but it doesn't invalidate what Exodus 22, 2, 
and 3 says. It doesn't invalidate what Jesus 
assumes in terms of self-defense and the other passages, where 
he just uses it so simply and so easily. And it doesn't invalidate 
the rest of Scripture that does indicate that we are to not only 
deliver ourselves, but to deliver others who are stumbling to death. 
The Westminster Larger Catechism asks the question, what are the 
duties required in the Sixth Commandment? Comforting and helping 
the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. Again, 
at some point in Christian history, these things weren't shocking. 
These things were just as normal as it is to drink water on a 
hot day. Westminster Larger, 136, what 
are the sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment? The sins forbidden 
in the Sixth Commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves 
or of others, except in the case of public justice, capital punishment, 
lawful war, which God willing we'll see next week, or necessary 
defense. Again, these things were just 
in play. It was in vogue. The thought 
that you couldn't defend yourself in the rest of the history of 
the world, or in any other country presently in the world, of course 
you get to defend yourself. You don't go to jail because 
you defended yourself. That's not the way it should 
happen. But that's what's happening today. People are defending themselves 
or others and ending up in criminal court and at times ending up 
in jail. Now turn to Matthew 5, Matthew 
chapter 5. Everybody's heard of pacifism. 
Pacifism is that view that the Bible forbids any violence whatsoever. Pacifism is usually associated 
with people that do not think gun ownership is right. They 
think that joining the military is not right. They think that 
war is not right. And I'm not suggesting each of 
those things are necessarily right. But again, sin-cursed 
world, bad men, bad things, bad crimes, bad issues all around 
us. Does the Bible provide redress 
for us to be able to deal with that sort of a thing? Yes. Well, 
a passage that you might think would be useful to the pacifists 
is Matthew 5 and the Sermon on the Mount. So basically, in terms 
of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5 to 7, just 
a brief overview. The general principles concerning 
Christ and the Old Testament law. I think that's the emphasis. 
Jesus' popularity is spreading, he's becoming famous, and the 
people want to hear, what's your take on the law? Well, Matthew 
5, 17 and 18, he gives us his view of the law. Do not think 
that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come 
to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, 
till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by 
no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. So he's upholding 
the integrity of the moral law of God. And then he goes on to 
deal with specific warnings, antinomianism in verse 19, which 
is basically teaching against God's law, anti-law, antinomianism. But then he condemns legalism 
in verse 20. You've got to be more righteous than the scribes 
and the Pharisees. You've got to have a righteousness 
of another. You've got to have an alien righteousness 
imputed by God, through faith alone. And then he moves on to 
specific examples, and he's got six examples. Murder, verses 
21 to 26. Adultery, verses 27 to 30. Divorce, 
verses 31 and 32. Oaths, verses 33 to 37. Retaliation, verses 38 to 42. Love to enemies, 
verses 43 to 47. And then a conclusion, at least 
in chapter 5, in verse 48. He then moves on to acts of piety, 
fasting, and prayer. And then he gives the model prayer. 
And then he continues on in chapter 6 to prohibit worry or carnal 
anxiety. And then chapter 7, he brings 
the sermon to a close. but in Matthew chapter five, 
specifically at verse 38. We read, you have heard that 
it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but 
I tell you not to resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you 
on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone 
wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your 
cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him 
too. Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow 
from you, do not turn away. Now, you should note this pattern. 
Look at verse 21 in chapter 5. You have heard that it was said 
to those of old. Verse 27, you have heard that 
it was said to those of old. Verse 31, furthermore, it has 
been said, and then in verse 33, again, you have heard that 
it was said to those of old. I think at times people pit Jesus 
against Moses when it comes to this Sermon on the Mount. They 
say, well, Jesus is strengthening, or He's elevating, or He's putting 
a bit more oomph on the law. And so it's Jesus against Moses. That's not it at all. Everything 
Jesus teaches here is exactly what Moses teaches in the Old 
Testament. It's said by the scribes and the Pharisees who had taken 
the law and made it only external without any heart commitment. 
So when Jesus says, you're not supposed to lust after a woman 
in your heart, Moses said that, Solomon said that, the Old Testament 
says that, but the Pharisee said, as long as you don't actually 
go into your neighbor's wife, then you haven't broken the commandment. 
Same thing with murder. As long as you don't stop the 
pulse of your neighbor, you're OK. That's why Jesus deals with 
calling them fool, or raka, or assassinating his character, 
or sullying his reputation. But again, the law of Moses already 
made those applications. You weren't supposed to hate 
your neighbor in your heart, according to Leviticus 19. So 
Jesus' issue is not Jesus against Moses. It's Jesus against bad 
interpreters of Moses. And I would also suggest that 
what you're finding here in Chapter 5, I mentioned this when we considered 
the death penalty, is our day-in, day-out personal ethics, our 
relationships with one another. This is not rule for the civil 
state. This is not rule for judges and 
for police officers and for criminal courts and appellate courts and 
lawyers. That's not what's in view in 
Matthew 5, 38 to 42. So note, verse 38, he states 
the principle, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 
This is called in Latin the Lex Talionis, which simply means 
the law of retribution. You have heard that it was said 
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is said that 
in Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19. The principle is applied to matters 
of jurisprudence. The principle is applied to matters 
of courts, criminal courts, civil courts. It's a law principle. Jesus is telling us as private 
individuals in our day in, day out, bumping into one another, 
We're not supposed to break out teeth or gouge out eyes. We're 
supposed to live harmoniously with people, insofar as it depends 
upon us. He's not suggesting that if you 
get brutally mugged in the middle of Chilliwack, don't call the 
cops. Don't report it, don't look for 
any, that's not the point of the passage. The point of the 
passage is in your day in, day out. In your day in, day out, 
when you relate with others, your wife, your kids, your workmates, 
your friends, your neighbors, even people that are a pain on 
the road or in the market, you are not supposed to engage in 
this civil jurisprudence criminal conduct with everybody that you 
meet with. The law demands that the punishment 
must fit the crime. We read that and we get horrified. 
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And we imagine there 
was some Israelite, an old covenant Israel, and he had a pair of 
pliers in his back pocket on the one side and he had a cutting 
tool in his other pocket. You know, somebody needs a tooth 
out, let me go take care of that. We hear that and that's how we 
think. Oh, that's barbaric. Somebody actually pulled teeth 
out? Somebody actually gouged out? It's a very simple principle 
that, again, everybody up to the history of now has understood, 
that the punishment must fit the crime. The punishment must 
fit the crime. You murder, you should be executed 
by the civil state. You steal from Walmart, you shouldn't 
be executed by the civil state. You should pay back, you should 
make restitution, you should go into indentured servitude 
if you can't, That's for another time. But the bottom line is, 
as Van Drunen says, far from promoting unbridled vengeance, 
the law of retribution prohibits excessive retaliation. It's a safeguard. In fact, turn 
to Deuteronomy 25. You're going to go back to Matthew 
5. So if you've got a pen or a finger and you want to put 
it in there, you're going to be going back. But notice in Deuteronomy 
25, this is corporal punishment. bodily punishment. inflicting 
pain on a criminal. Notice in 25.1, if there is a 
dispute between men and they come to court that the judges 
may judge them and they justify the righteous and condemn the 
wicked, then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten 
that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in 
his presence according to his guilt with a certain number of 
blows, 40 blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed 
this and beat him with many blows above these and your brother 
be humiliated in your sight. You're just wandering down the 
street. Somebody offends you, and that's it. I throw him on 
the ground, and I just start beating him with my belt. No, 
no, no, no. There's a proper trial. He's brought to court. 
Judge is here. There's proper supervision when the stripes 
are being applied. There's a judge, an official 
watching to make sure that you don't give him 41 or 51 or 101. 
There's proper proportion. He is beaten in his presence, 
notice, according to his guilt. It doesn't have to be 40. Maybe 
he only did something requiring 10. But it's according to his 
guilt. You see, the punishment must 
fit the crime, and the crime demands a certain punishment. 
But as well, notice the proper limit. 40 blows he may give him 
and no more. Again, you can go with 10, but 
you can't go with 41. There's a seal, you cannot exceed 
this. But then notice the proper dignity 
involved. The end of verse three, 40 blows 
he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and 
beat him with many blows above these and your brother be humiliated 
in your sight. Do you see that God even speaks 
to the dignity of a criminal offender who is being corporally 
punished? He shouldn't be humiliated. He 
shouldn't be like an animal. You shouldn't treat him like 
a dog. If you would give a dog a hundred lashes, you don't do 
that to a man. He's still an image bearer and 
he's still your brother in this body politics. So you do not 
exceed this and you do not violate this lest your brother be humiliated 
in your sight. So the lex talionis, far from 
being a goon squad with cutting tools and pliers, is simply a 
principle of justice in the realm of justice in terms of the punishment 
must fit the crime. So back to our text, verse 38, 
you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth 
for a tooth, but I tell you not to resist an evil person. Again, 
brethren, he's not talking about if you are left bleeding out 
in the middle of five corners, you know, hobble home and, you 
know, wipe off your blood and just get, you can call the cops. If what he is saying there, but 
I tell you not to resist an evil person, does this mean with no 
qualification at all? I can never resist an evil person. if somebody is beating me to 
death I just have to take it? That's not what He's saying. 
Is Jesus laying down the principle of pacifism in all matters here? 
See pacifism is wrong because the Bible says so, but it's also 
wrong because it never goes far enough. I guarantee you if somebody 
you know takes a swing at your head you're going to block it. That defeats pacifism. You should 
take it like a champ. If they come with a knife to 
get you in the neck, just take it. The pacifism is a pipe dream. It may sound good in a world 
filled with unicorns and fairies, but in a world filled with muggers 
and rapists and killers, and again, this is not universally 
stated. And does the Bible contain contradictions? Jesus says, I tell you not to 
resist an evil person. And yet he assumes self-defense, 
at least in Luke 11 and 12. Again, he's not teaching it there, 
but he does assume it. He assumes that's going to happen. 
So there's no contradiction. So whatever he's talking about 
here, probably doesn't mean you're getting mugged on the side of, 
you know, Wellington or out in front of Wellington in front 
of that free grace Baptist church. And you just bleed out and you 
got a cell phone in your pocket, but don't call a cop because 
Jesus says, don't resist an evil person. Now, the illustrations 
that Jesus uses in the subsequent verses up to verse 42 indicate 
our personal conduct in daily life. Again, not criminal courts, 
not appellate courts, not judges, not cops, none of that. We import 
that meaning because we've already decided that what Jesus means 
here is that guns are bad and you should never defend yourself 
and never ever go to war. And again, I'm not for guns and 
killing and going to war, but to use this passage to try to 
legitimize that kind of a theory, they just don't go far enough. 
So basically, what is happening is that within Jesus' day, The 
Pharisees, the scribes, the bad interpreters of Moses were taking 
these principles that were confined to criminal courts, to judges, 
to magistrates, to lawyers, to defendants, to plaintiffs, to 
cops, and bringing them into daily life. Hey, you cut me off, 
I'm gonna cut you off, because, you know, lex talionis. No, no, 
no, no, no. Spurgeon says it this way. When 
the lex talionis, or the law of retribution, came to be the 
rule of daily life, it fostered revenge, and our Savior would 
not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals. Listen 
to this, this is gold. Good law in court may be very 
bad custom in common society. You can't live that way. Your 
wife burns your toast so you get up early the next morning 
to burn her toast because the law of retribution? That's not 
what he's talking about, brethren. When he says resist an evil, 
I tell you not to resist an evil person. It cannot mean be brutalized 
and, you know, be violated and criminally, you know, assaulted 
without calling the cops. You can do that. Bonson says 
the Pharisees were wont to appeal to the Old Testament principle 
of equitable punishment in civil court to justify personal revenge 
and vindictiveness. Christ is speaking to the situation 
of interpersonal relations and prohibited the exacting of due 
punishment for wrongs suffered. John Murray says the law of retribution 
was part of the order of public justice and not private revenge. Again, it seems so patently obvious 
when we consider the sermon, when we see the internal nature 
of it with reference to what does murder look like? Well, 
it's not just the external cessation of another human being's life, 
but it's a character assassination. It's a hating him without cause. 
When it comes to adultery, it's not just not going into your 
neighbor's wife, but not having lustful thoughts about your neighbor's 
wife, not having lustful thoughts about your neighbor's husband, 
not having lustful thoughts about people. So he's talking about 
you specifically, personally, each and every day. You could 
be guilty of murder. You can be guilty of adultery 
if you don't go out and lay with your neighbor's wife and you 
don't kill him. You still can be guilty of that, you and your 
personal life. So then notice, and just I don't want to run 
us too much longer here, but remember in John 18 when Jesus 
is smacked on the face? He didn't turn the other cheek. 
He just didn't. Paul appeals for civil justice 
in Acts 16.37. You're beating Roman citizens 
without a trial? You guys, I mean, I could just 
hear Paul's ingredient. You're beating a Roman citizen 
and you haven't had a trial? For whatever the Romans' problems 
were, they had a good jurisprudence system. And to violate that jurisprudence 
system was unwise, and Paul reminds them of that. As well, the Apostle 
Paul rebukes the high priest when he is struck on the mouth 
in Acts 23. He doesn't just take it. Oh, well, thanks, high priest. 
Can I have another one? I'll turn my other cheek. Paul 
uses military protection in Acts 23 upon hearing a threat on his 
life. Then his nephew found out. His 
nephew heard that certain persons had vowed that they weren't going 
to eat until Paul was dead. So does Paul say, well, you know, 
the Lord told me not to resist an evil person. No, he says, 
nephew, go tell the authorities. What does the authority do? Assigns 
200 troops to Paul to escort him to Festus. Brethren, it's 
not a universal principle. It is a day in, day out principle 
of our lives. I would suggest the parallel 
is Romans 12, 17 to 21. The believer's response to wrong 
suffered and then Romans 13, 1 to 4 is the magistrate's execution 
of wrath on criminal offenders. Now quickly look at the illustrations 
that Jesus uses. He speaks of the believer and 
personal insult, verse 39b. But I tell you not to resist 
an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn 
the other to him also. Now the fact that you are slapped 
on your right cheek in a right-hand dominant society would indicate 
that violent crime is not what is in view here. OK, if I'm going 
to slap Mac on the face because I want to violently hurt him, 
I'm not going to slap him. I'm going to use a closed fist. 
But if I slap him with my right hand, it's most likely a backhand. 
That is an insult. It is an insult. I know there's 
some interpretations going on now. As far as I know, this is 
what's going on. So it's not violent crime. So 
whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other one to 
him also. So if somebody puts a gun in your ear, hey, you got 
another one to put in my other, that cannot be what Jesus is 
talking about. It just can't be. It cannot possibly 
be, because it would invalidate so much other Bible. It would contradict very specifically 
so much other Bible. Frantz says this is more a matter 
of honor than physical injury. So basically what he is saying 
is in a sin-cursed world, as the people of God, you're going 
to be faced with insult from time to time. You're just going 
to have to deal with that. Now again, if it turns from insult 
to severe injury and criminal activity, call the cops. Get, you know, hide yourself. 
The Lord is not advocating giving away, giving way to violent criminals. He is not calling for no military 
service, and we'll see that, God willing, next week. He is 
telling us to bear up under personal injury or personal insult that 
we may face on a daily basis. Notice in verse 40, the believer 
and his rights. Notice in verse 40, if anyone 
wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your 
cloak also. Now, I think what's in view here 
is that the Lord Jesus discourages a sue happy people who are more 
insistent upon their personal rights than upon advancing his 
kingdom through forbearance and long suffering. Again, if somebody's 
gonna sue you in a matter that is going to jeopardize you and 
your family and bring indirect murder upon you, you have the 
right to fight back. You have the right to lawyer 
up. Murray says this, the lesson, talking about verse 40, the lesson 
is surely not Listen to this, is surely not that we are to 
avoid all appeal to public justice as administered by magisterial 
authority. But in line with what we have 
found in verses 25 and 26, our Lord is inculcating the virtue 
of forbearance, even with reference to those who do us injustice, 
and the necessity of resigning ourselves to privations which 
spring from the miscarriage of justice. Again, it's a sin-cursed 
world. People do nasty things. And Jesus 
says, if anyone wants to see you and take away your tunic, 
let him have your cloak also. I doubt Jesus would apply that 
to your house, to your car, to your food, to the well-being 
of your children. Again, it's the day in, day out 
life that we live. Next is the believer in the governing 
authority, verse 41. And whoever compels you to go 
one mile, go with him too. The example refers to the Roman 
practice of commandeering civilians to carry their kit, to carry 
their luggage, their military bag, a prescribed distance, one 
Roman mile. That was commonplace. How do 
you think the Jews like that? Sure, let me carry it a mile. 
I'd love to do that. So when Jesus says, if he does 
that, go with him too. Again, the idea is don't be the 
vindictive, petty person that the Pharisees have exemplified, 
and the Sadducees, and the scribes, and the other religious teachers 
in this community. We've got to bear and forbear. 
We've got to be patient, and we've got to be loving and kind. 
Now, if he puts a gun to your head and says, I want you to 
march this kit 10 miles, yeah, you can call a cop. You can say 
no at that point. Now, the same verb is used with 
reference to the crucifixion, Matthew 27, 32. Now, as they 
came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. or follow Jesus. That's not having 
a counsel given. In fact, soldiers come off good 
in many places in the New Testament. Cornelius, remember him? Max 
Head? It wasn't repent, stop soldiering, 
and believe the gospel, and then the Holy Spirit will come upon 
you. No, it wasn't bad. It wasn't 
condemned. When John the Baptist, look at 
Luke 3. I don't want to give away everything. People are coming to him, asking 
him, what's the fruit of repentance look like? Verse 14, likewise, 
the soldiers asked him, saying, and what shall we do? So he said 
to them, do I intend to make anyone recuse falsely and make 
contempt for your wages? If ever there was a great time 
to condemn soldiering, it would be right there. Get out of the 
military. Go join the hippies. Go, you know, bang tambourines. You know, comb the countryside. 
He doesn't say that. He says, don't intimidate anyone 
or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages. I mean, that's 
what the fruits of repentance look like for a first century 
soldier. So the Bible, again, I think we jump into passages. We universalize passages without 
giving any thought to context, without giving any thought to 
other books of the Bible. but without giving any thought 
to assumptions that our Lord legitimately makes about self-defense, 
about revealed law, God through Moses, in terms of what if a 
man breaks into somebody's house? We've got Solomon telling us 
to deliver those who are stumbling toward death. We've got Abram 
arming up with his guards to go fetch Lot. We've got Nehemiah 
and his crew on, you know, that's why Spurgeon called it the sword 
and trowel of this magazine. You have a sword in one hand 
and a trowel in the other. They're building the wall, and 
they're watching for any threats to that building process. So I don't say this so you run 
to guard and tackle the wall tomorrow morning. And if you 
want to, great. But we should think clearly on 
biblical ethics. There's a lot of non-clear, or 
very unclear, or very muddy and muddled thinking when it comes 
to what the Bible teaches with reference to these things. why 
we're spending a bit of time on this. I pray, and then if 
there's any questions. Father, we thank you for your 
word, we thank you for its consistency, we thank you for its clarity, 
and we pray that you would help us to receive these things, help 
us to understand, help us to be able to respond to the various 
things that we hear within the church and outside the church, 
with reference to what Christians believe. Pray that you would 
go with us now, watch over us in the remainder of this week, 
and pray for all of our brothers and our sisters, She would just 
bless your people here with peace. I know that much sickness is 
going around with the young ones, and pray God that you would watch 
over them. We ask in Jesus' name, amen. Well, any questions or comments? Sorry, Matt, you got a slap on 
the face tonight. It's a comment. I think it has 
a lot to do with our delicate sensibilities and just getting 
offended by our brother. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, I'm going 
to get back now. You've got to just deal with 
it. Yeah. And then you think you 
might have conquered that vice, and then actually, you're counting 
pony, and you're all, you know, you're giving up negative vibes, 
and you say, I'm going to lose something, and you don't. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We 
always have them.