← Back to sermon library

One, remember Exodus chapter 
20, the Ten Commandments, the general principles of God's law. 
And then chapters 21 to 23, how to apply those principles in 
society. So in chapter 21, we have the 
laws concerning slaves or servants in verses 1 to 11. Then we had 
laws on homicide and bodily injury. in beginning in verse 12 all 
the way through verse 32. And then tonight we're going 
to start the laws on property damage and theft. So that goes 
from chapter 21 verse 33 to chapter 22 verse 15. So tonight we'll 
just take up the end portion of chapter 21. So beginning in 
verse 33 and we'll move to chapter 22 at verse 4. But I'll read 
the section beginning in verse 33. And if a man opens a pit 
or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a 
donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good. 
he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall 
be his. If one man's ox hurts another's 
so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the 
money from it, and the dead ox they shall also divide. Or if 
it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its 
owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, 
and the dead animal shall be his own. If a man steals an ox 
or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore 
five ox and four an ox and four sheep for a sheep. 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. If the theft is certainly found 
alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, 
he shall restore double. If a man causes a field or vineyard 
to be grazed and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another 
man's field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field 
and the best of his own vineyard. If fire breaks out and catches 
in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field 
is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. 
If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and 
it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, 
he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then 
the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see 
whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. For any 
kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, 
or clothing, or for any kind of lost which another claims 
to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the 
judges, and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his 
neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, 
a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven 
away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be 
between them both, and that he has not put his hand into his 
neighbor's goods, and the owner of it shall accept that, and 
he shall not make it good. But if in fact it is stolen from 
him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is 
torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, 
and he shall not make good what was torn. And if a man borrows 
anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the 
owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. 
If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good. If it 
was hired, it came for its hire." Amen. Now, remember that there 
were judges in Israel, judges that would take the law and apply 
the law, and so this is not exhaustive and comprehensive speaking to 
every detail. Rather, it's representative, 
and it gives the judges enough information on how to give verdicts 
concerning difficult issues. As well, you see built into some 
of these particular commands or codes, there's a bit of leeway 
in terms of the judge, what he's able to do in terms of punishment 
and sanctions applied to the criminal in view or to the one 
that is negligent. Most of this does deal with negligence 
on the part of somebody in the body politic. And certainly, 
as we move through this section, we see it as a necessary element 
for us to be responsible people when we are dealing with others. 
We want to make sure that we don't endanger persons, we want 
to make sure we don't endanger their property, destroy their 
property through our negligence or things of that sort. As well, 
you'll see a heavy emphasis on restitution. You'll see that 
the Bible or biblical law is very pro-victim. The Bible isn't 
pro-criminal, rather it is pro-victim. In other words, the victim who 
is wronged has recourse or redress under the law to get whatever 
wrong righted. And so this is one of the emphases 
that we see in this particular section. So tonight we're going 
to look at the threat to a neighbor's animal. You see that in 21.33 
to 22.1 and 4. So you've got 22 in verse 1 dealing with a 
man who steals an ox. or a sheep, and then in verse 
4 you see there's a man who stole it and he nevertheless is alive. So that applies to the same sort 
of a thing. We're dealing with damage to 
an animal or the death of an animal in verses 33 to 36 in 
chapter 21. and then verses 1 and 4 in chapter 
22. And if you ask why did Moses 
write it that way, it might have to do with something called chiasm, 
which is a literary convention that is all over the Old Testament. But then as well, after the threat 
to a neighbor's animal, we'll notice secondly the defense of 
a person's home. And incidentally, verses 2 and 
3 in Exodus 22 legitimizes self-defense. And that's something that we 
do well to understand and to know in terms of our own life 
in this world with reference to ourselves, with reference 
to those around us whom we know and love. But let's look first 
at the threat to a neighbor's animal. You have first the death 
of an animal through negligence in verses 33 and 34. Then there's 
the death of an animal by another animal in verses 35 and 36. And 
then you have the theft of an animal in chapter 22, verses 
1 and 4. So in the first place, the death of an animal through 
negligence. Notice it's a pretty simple situation. Verse 33, if 
a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover 
it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall 
make it good. He shall give money to their 
owner, but the dead animal shall be his. Now, when we look at 
a law like this, again, negligence is in view. He dug a pit. But 
it's also the case that the man whose animal wandered into this 
neighbor's farm is not without any blame whatsoever. So there's 
not a generous sort of a compensation paid to the man who lost his 
animal. No, it's pretty straightforward. 
The owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money 
to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. Again, your 
animal shouldn't have wandered into my farm and fell into my 
pit. So it's just that the man who 
owns the pit pay the man, but it's just that the man who owns 
the pit keep the animal that fell into the pit. He shouldn't 
be doubly jeopardized because of this particular situation. 
So again, built into this law code, there is compensation, 
there is restitution, but there's equity involved. A person shouldn't 
be able to sue the guy into oblivion because his animal wandered over 
to his farm and fell into his pit. And then you've got the 
case of the death of an animal by another animal. Again, same 
sort of a thing in verse 35. If one man's ox hurts another's 
so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the 
money from it and the dead ox they shall also divide. Again, 
it's an unfortunate situation, it's an accident, but it is just 
that. So one man isn't deprived in 
a way that is vicious or unkind or unequitable. Rather, they 
make the best out of a difficult situation. So if one man's ox 
hurts another so that it dies, then they shall sell the live 
ox, divide the money from it, and then the dead ox they shall 
also divide. Good, fair principle in terms 
of a just recompense to the man whose animal lost in the barnyard 
fight. And then notice though in verse 
36, there's an aggravated situation in view. Or if it was known that 
the ox tended to thrust in time past and its owner has not kept 
it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox and the dead animal 
shall be his own. Again, it's not malicious in 
the sense that he's a violent offender in the civil order, 
but there is a pinch applied to him in replacing ox for ox. However, he does get to keep 
the dead animal. Now, the issue, again, is criminal 
negligence, not criminal negligence, but negligence in terms of a 
situation that comes as a result of that negligence. Stewart makes 
the comment, he says, both these laws recognize that animal behavior 
was not totally predictable and controllable. We all get that, 
right? You can't predict the actions 
of your animal. So again, these are given in 
this law code to speak to a whole plethora of situations. This 
wouldn't be the only thing. that would ever obtain in a situation 
where there were animals, but this would give a general guideline 
to a judge in terms of adjudicating so that both men got what was 
coming to them. So both these laws recognize 
that animal behavior was not totally predictable and controllable, 
but also attempted to provide a fair and equitable solution 
when someone lost a valuable asset, a farm animal. I think 
that's right. So we've got these laws, these 
principles in order, so that the judges can come to determine 
who is negligent, what the negligent person gets or gives, and what 
the person who loses gets or gives. Now when it comes to the 
theft of an animal in chapter 22, verses 1 and 4, I want to first notice the principle 
of restitution. I've already highlighted that. 
As you move through this particular section, you see that emphasized 
a lot. Restitution. What does that mean? 
It means to make good on the harm that has been done. It means 
to restore the situation as well as one can in order to provide 
redress to the party that lost in a particular transaction. 
The principle of restitution means the victim is compensated 
for his loss. It's intriguing today, you don't 
hear a lot about restitution. You hear about debts owed to 
the state and that a criminal owes his penalty to the state. What about the guy that he violated 
or that he stole from? So the principle of restitution 
means the victim is compensated for his loss. The principle of 
restitution requires the offender to deal personally with the person 
he wronged. It puts a face and it puts concrete 
sort of application to this particular individual's crime. In other 
words, it's not some... impersonal offense against the 
cosmic state, but it's a crime against another human being. 
And so this principle of restitution personalizes it, hopefully to 
the point where the guy who's violated the other person won't 
do such a thing again, because he knows that this other person's 
family suffered. No longer did they have an animal 
that was helpful in terms of the farm. The principle of restitution 
permits the offender to return to normal society after he makes 
restoration. Brethren, that's a good thing. 
The law of God builds that in. You commit a criminal act, you 
pay the debt in terms of that criminal act, you should be a 
free man to be able to live your life without being a second-class 
citizen. I mean, when there's a person 
that's guilty of a crime and then they are punished for that 
crime, in many instances it's almost like they're perpetually 
punished for that crime. That's not the principle of justice 
that we see played out in the pages of biblical law. And then 
the principle of restitution does not require the civil state 
to provide room and board. And that brings me to consider 
the absence of a prison system in this biblical law code. If 
you read the Old Testament, you'll not find a command to build prisons. You'll not find a command to 
build jails. You'll not find a command to 
do this. Now some would say, well that's 
by virtue of the fact that they were living a nomadic life when 
they were wandering around the wilderness. Certainly they wouldn't 
have built a prison out in the middle of nowhere only to leave 
that prison when they went over to the land of Canaan. But as 
you read through the law code, much of it is about the tenure 
in the land. These are the things that are 
written so that when you get to the land of Canaan, this can 
be your regulating conduct. This is the rule for your life 
in the land. And so there's no sort of a statement 
by Moses, make sure that you build these prisons. We've got 
cities of refuge, the Lord took care of that. Remember, if a 
man accidentally slays another man, the axe head falls off and 
lands in your neighbor's head with no malice aforethought, 
no hatred in your heart, no premeditation. You were still guilty of negligence, 
but you weren't guilty of a capital offense. And so they provided 
these cities of refuge so you could flee there and live there 
without getting executed by the avenger of blood. And so if God 
is going to take care of cities of refuge for the case of accidental 
homicide, certainly would have spoken to prison for the criminals, 
prison for the thieves, prison for those who engage in those 
sorts of crimes. Again, the absence due to their 
nomadic lifestyle is not an argument because the law code was regulating 
life for their time in the land. The lex talionis, remember that? The law of retaliation? Go back 
for just a moment, you see it specified in verse 23. But if 
any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, 
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, 
wound for wound, strike for strike. Remember, the principle there 
isn't necessarily, you got your eye gouged out, so therefore, 
in payment, I'm going to gouge out the other guy's eye. The 
principle is that the punishment must fit the crime. On the one 
hand, it couldn't be too lenient, because that breaks the back 
of any body politic when criminals are not punished. Right? I mean, 
that's something that we crave to see. And it's because we are 
image bearers of the living and true God. He is just and righteous. He deals with offenders. We see 
that. We image bear Him. And we want 
to see criminals get punished. That's a legitimate expression 
of our image of godness. But at the same time, they couldn't 
be too severe. If a man gouged out your eye, 
that didn't mean you cut off both his hands or both of his 
feet. One man says, far from promoting 
unbridled vengeance, the lex talionis prohibits excessive 
retaliation. So the punishment must fit the 
crime. What's the punishment for, or what would be prison? The only possible punishment 
prison could be for would be kidnapping or enslaving somebody 
against their will. But with reference to the normal 
ebb and flow of life in Israel, The emphasis was upon restitution. And the prison system destroys 
the concept of restitution. At least the modern prison system 
does. A man can be charged. A man can be tried. A man can 
go to jail. And a man can then go pay his 
debt to society. And the guy he actually stole 
from has never gotten his. That's unjust, brethren. There's 
not this generic, vague, ambiguous sense where a criminal owes society. The criminal owes the person 
that he wronged, and the emphasis on restitution ensures that the 
one that was wronged gets his due. As well, the prison system 
does not advance rehabilitation. Now, maybe I haven't been paying 
attention, but it doesn't seem to me that persons go to prison 
and come out better and more upstanding in terms of their 
civic responsibility. More often than not, it's a training 
ground for even further training in criminal behavior. Verne Poitras 
in his very helpful book called The Shadow of Christ and the 
Law of Moses. He writes that criminals have 
the most hope for rehabilitation if they feel the justice of their 
punishment. In addition, criminals have a 
greater chance to reform if they are in normal contact with normal 
society. That's why when we look, say, 
for instance, at verse 3, the man breaks in, he gets found 
out, he has nothing to pay. Ideally, the thought is it's 
probably not right then, he'd hand back everything that he 
was trying to steal. But he's found out that he has nothing 
to pay, so he sells himself into the service of this man. He's 
an indentured servant. And what happens then? He gets 
benefit from that. He gets dignity. He's in the 
home of people that fear Yahweh, that probably catechize their 
children. You know a guy that came to that place where he's 
breaking and entering into a person's house? It usually speaks to not 
a great background in terms of, you know, a good strong family. 
There's a bumper sticker that I see once in a while that says, 
you know, kids that learn how to hunt and fish and trap usually 
don't mug little old ladies. You get them in the right direction 
early on, not every single time, it's not foolproof, but for the 
most part, those career criminals don't usually have good backgrounds, 
good happy lives. And so this criminal now in the 
home of somebody that fears Yahweh may actually learn a few things. 
Poitras then goes on to say, they then have opportunity immediately 
to engage in just, socially profitable work and contributions to others. The abnormalities of prison life 
can never become a viable environment for training in righteousness. 
It just isn't. It's not conducive to rehabilitation 
and developing a person for life on the outside. Typically it's 
developing him for further crime or a job at the car wash. Because 
nobody wants to hire somebody that just got out of 10 years 
in prison and has a teardrop on his eye. It's not usually 
who we're knocking down the door to hire. So this idea of restitution. Now, in terms of prison, I've 
thought through this. I used to be a lot more adamantly 
opposed, and I still am. But there may be a place for 
one. or a few for violent criminals 
or pedophiles or persons like that. Now, if they're violent 
to the point of murder, they should be executed. I mean, that's 
just, you know, you don't need to house or, you know, pay for 
somebody for life in prison who deserves the death penalty or 
capital punishment. Now, pedophilia might arguably 
be a capital offense. You get me in the, you know, 
alone sometime and we can have that talk. But there might be 
a situation where it would be counterproductive for a criminal 
to go and live with the family that he has victimized. And the 
case of pedophilia definitely presents itself as that. And 
certainly, he's not a fit candidate for any other family that has 
children either. Well, you know, he violated our 
children, so we don't want him here to be an indentured servant. 
But you go ahead and have him over there next door. No, you 
wouldn't do that. So there might conceivably be 
a place in terms of a violent or a repeat offender, some sort 
of a thing like that. But when you look at this old 
covenant law, there weren't prisons. I mean, there were jails. There 
were holding cells. There were those types of things. But a prison 
system where billions of dollars are spent every year to house 
and clothe and feed all these people that You know, the taxpayer 
gets the double burden. He gets robbed by these guys, 
and then he has to pay the taxes to support the guy. It really 
is a lose-lose scenario on the part of just about everybody. 
Now, in terms of the particular crime, the criminal steals an 
animal, according to verse 1. If a man steals an ox or a sheep 
and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five ox and 
four ox and four sheep for a sheep. Now drop down to verse 4. If 
the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it 
is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. There's 
a bit of a disparity in terms of the payment price. Why is 
that? Well, in the first instance, 
the criminal does two crimes. He not only steals the actual 
animal, he either sells it or he kills it. That's a double 
whammy. The other guy in verse 4 stole 
it, but it's still alive. So the owner really isn't out 
anything. Again, this is a code designed 
to equitably apply the law and to give the judges some leeway 
to understand there's some mitigating circumstances. Maybe the guy 
in verse four had a change of mind. Yeah, I stole your goat 
and, you know, I got convicted and I want to hand it back to 
you. That could happen, brethren. Weird things in this world happen. 
But in terms of verse 1, the criminal steals an animal and 
then kills it or sells it. With reference to verse 4, there 
is a single offense. Poole says it was but a single 
crime, whereas the other, verse 1, was an aggravated and complicated 
crime, where one sin and injury was added to another. So he stole 
it, and then he either killed it or he sold it. So it's gone. 
The owner doesn't get it back. Whereas in verse 4, he stole 
it, but for whatever reason, he's found, he's caught, he has 
a change of heart, he's able to give the animal back. So the 
owner's not out an animal. Now, why the disparity in terms 
of ox and sheep? Well, I'm going to lean on Stuart 
here. I thought he had some pretty 
compelling arguments. The sheep wanders more and is easier to 
steal. It's not as crucial to farm management to have sheep 
as it is an ox. The ox does the work of an ox. Sheep aren't as industrious and 
aren't as productive and aren't as crucial. I don't have a farm, 
never had oxen, never had sheep, but I gotta think that if my 
sheep ran off for a few days, I wouldn't miss them as much 
as if my ox did because I rely on that ox for things more important 
than I did for the sheep. And so when it comes to the recompense 
or the restitution, if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters 
it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four 
sheep for a sheep. I think that's pretty compelling. 
And then in verse four, if the theft is certainly found alive 
in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall 
restore double. So again, he's being punished 
for a crime. He's restoring double. It hurts 
him. There's a pinch to him in terms 
of the restitution involved or the restoration of that particular 
offense. But his crime was singular versus 
the double crime in verse one. Now, in terms of the defense 
of a person's home, in 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. Now, when it comes to the legitimacy 
of self-defense, this passage is not alone in the Bible. This 
passage is part of a biblical theology of the doctrine of self-defense. Now, again, you might not think 
this is too crucial to understand because it's so intuitively obvious 
that everybody has the right to self-defense. Well, I'm not 
convinced that that's necessarily the case anymore. In other words, 
if you defend yourself in your home, you better make sure that 
all the I's are dotted and all the T's are crossed because it 
could be you going to prison and not that person or that person 
that you hurt or killed. So notice specifically the situation 
if the thief is found breaking in. And notice the time when 
he does. 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. So verse 2 envisages a thief 
breaking in under the cover of darkness, right? He's breaking 
in. The contrast between verses 2 
and 3, and the contrast as to whether or not the homeowner 
is criminally responsible has to do with the time of day. If 
it is dark, if it is not light, then that is a different scenario 
than if the sun has risen. So notice what happens in verse 
2. If the thief is found breaking in and he is struck by the homeowner 
so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed 
on the part of the homeowner. In other words, if you hear a 
noise, and you wake up, and you rub the sleep out of your eyes, 
and you come out to your main living area, and somebody's in 
your house, and you kill him, you are not criminally responsible 
for killing him. You don't know what his intentions 
are. You don't know what his purposes 
are. You don't know if he's simply 
there to steal, or you don't know if he's there to rape your 
family, to cut your throat, and to, you know, assume your identity. 
You just don't have any clue. As well, when it's the hours 
of light, there's other neighbors around. You could perhaps yell 
out. You could scream. You could do anything to try 
to alert others around you to come and help you in this particular 
scenario. So the thief breaks in at nighttime. 
He's struck by the owner, and he dies. The owner is not liable 
because it's dark, and he does not know the intention of that 
particular intruder. The homeowner is not liable for 
murder. Thus, we would call this a justifiable 
homicide. Whenever I preach on the death 
penalty, I indicate that there are three instances in the Bible 
for justifiable homicide. You've got the death penalty, 
you've got just war, and you've got self-defense. So again, the 
Bible is pro-criminal. The Bible doesn't say you are 
not only responsible for hurting that man, but he tripped on the 
threshold coming in, and he hurt his knee, and you're gonna be 
held responsible for that too. There's actually been cases like 
that, where persons have broken into other person's houses, and 
then the person breaking in has sued the homeowner because they 
got hurt while they were breaking in. So when it comes to the law 
of God, we should appreciate the simplicity of it. We should 
appreciate the pro-victim nature of it. And with reference to 
this particular situation, you heard this during the Summer 
of Love. People say, well, buildings and property can be replaced. 
Human life can't. Yeah, but that guy came into 
my property with the intention of who knows what, and in the 
midst of that exchange, I dispatched him, I killed him. He shouldn't 
be criminally responsible for that. Poitras says the destruction 
or expropriation of property is an indirect attack on the 
human life supported by it. Right? We do need food. We do need shelter. We do have 
sort of a dependence upon or an attachment to our refrigerators. We have to sustain life. So if 
somebody tries to destroy that or tries to part us from it, 
then that is a criminal offense. Matthew Henry said, 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. We had an illustration of this 
in the last week. Remember what Governor DeSantis 
said in Florida to the prospective looters? He said, this is a Second 
Amendment state. If you try to loot in the wake 
of this hurricane, you better be careful coming around the 
corner because you never know what you might meet there. We 
are a law and order state that holds to the Second Amendment. 
How do you think that was met with by the left? Oh, whore of 
whores, how dare him? saying you could shoot looters. 
No, that wasn't rejoicing in it. He was saying if a looter 
breaks in. See, this is where we've gotten 
to. If the guy defends himself, he's the bad guy. What about 
the looter that entered into somebody else's house in a time 
of a calamity and an emergency to steal from him? So I think 
Matthew Henry's on the right path. 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. That's all that Governor 
DeSantis said. Now notice the qualification. 
So the situation is the thief breaks in at night. The justification 
to the homeowner is if he defends his property, defends himself, 
and kills the man in the exchange, there is no, it says, there shall 
be no guilt for his bloodshed. He's not criminally responsible. 
But now notice the qualification in verse 3a. If the sun has risen 
on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. Now, of course, 
if the man was entering with a knife, a gun, or some other 
way to kill the homeowner, well, that would be a different ballgame. 
But he's called a thief. Now, it's daytime, so the homeowner 
is better able to assess the potential threat. The homeowner 
may be surrounded by others that can hear his cry for help, so 
it's a different ballgame. So if he comes in at night, his 
intentions are not known, The homeowner, you know, rubbing 
the sleep out of his eye kills him in that exchange. But if 
the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. 
And then notice, he should make full restitution. This is the 
criminal. Not the homeowner. He should 
make full restitution. So while it's daylight, and he 
can't get killed for it, that doesn't mean he just goes to 
Walmart that day. There needs to be restitution, 
remember? You can't just take from somebody 
and not get punished. You can't just commit criminal 
activities and just go scot-free. So he should make full restitution. Verse three, if he has nothing, 
then he shall be sold for his theft. So when it comes to this 
particular law, it does legitimize self-defense. Now Francis Turretin, 
a reformed commentator, makes the observation or draws out 
some principles in terms of defensive homicide is not forbidden. I 
think these are good principles for us to have in our head. He 
says, first, it is necessary that the aggressor unjustly assails 
and falls on us. There has to be a crime. In other 
words, somebody has to actually endanger you before you can engage 
in defensive homicide. He says 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 leave 
and not have to kill the fellow, that's probably the better option. 
Three, it is necessary that the defense be made during the very 
attack and not after it is over, right? That's a different ball 
game, okay? You do it in that immediate exchange. You don't say, okay, all right, 
you just go do your thing, buddy. I'm going to go down to the local 
gunsmith. I'm going to get all, I'm going 
to go and I'm going to let you have it. No, it has to happen 
at the time of the crime. Again, defensive homicide. And 
then he says 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." Now, again, 
I'm not sure what it would be like to have somebody coming 
at me with a knife, but I get his point, right? This idea of 
vengeance, this idea of premeditation or malice or those sorts of things, 
that does not fall under the auspices of a crime in progress 
that you don't really even have time to sort of process. You 
just act, and you kill the person, and that is defensive homicide. When he comments on Romans 12 
19, Romans 12 19 says, For it is written, vengeance 
is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Turretin, I think, wisely 
comments, blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 
19, but private revenge. It's not blameless protection 
that's being condemned, but this revenge aspect. That's what's 
being condemned. commented on there in Romans 
12.19. Now, I take Romans 12.19 as a parallel passage to Matthew 
5.38-42, which is oftentimes utilized to teach that, no, self-defense 
isn't legitimate. If somebody comes, then you let 
them have all that you have. I don't think that's what Jesus 
is teaching in Matthew 5.38-42 at all. I think it has to do 
with what we find here in Romans 12. Now in terms of some specific 
concrete applications of an armed defense in terms of, you know, 
persons using arms to defend themselves or to defend others, 
you've got the case of Abram and Lott. where Abram got his 
servants armed and ready to go to go rescue Lot. In the case 
of the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah, 
they prayed, verses 4 and 5 in chapter 4, but they also kept 
their powder dry. They worked and they held weapons. And then the words of Solomon 
in Proverbs 24 11 to defend the helpless. Brethren, self-defense 
is a good thing. The defense of others near and 
dear to us is a good thing. That is not opposed by God in 
the Bible. And when we turn to the pages 
of the New Testament, we see the same sort of thing in play. 
You can turn to Luke's Gospel in Luke chapter 12. Luke chapter 
12, the point of the passage is not the legitimacy of self-defense. I'll tell you that right off 
the bat. The point of the passage, however, 
is illustrated in the assumption of the legitimacy of self-defense. So notice in Luke 12 at verse 
35, 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, brethren, the point is not the legitimacy of self-defense. It's the assumption of our Lord 
that persons will defend their property. You have fences, you 
have locks, you have dogs. Those are not anti-Christ. That's 
not against God. In a sin-cursed world, brethren, 
there are certain necessities. In the sin-cursed world, as we've 
reflected on the law code, you see that there are laws concerning 
divorce. Why? Because in a sin-cursed 
world, people get divorced. There's laws protecting a polygamous 
situation. Not that it was the case that 
there should be polygamy, but in a sin-fallen world, there's 
going to be polygamous. So you have laws built into the 
code that provides redress for the innocent party. And when 
it comes to protection of self and property and others, that's 
an assumption. It's a given in a world that 
is corrupt. Right? That's not a bad thing. 
So what Jesus assumes is something that the Bible everywhere legitimizes. And then turn over to Luke chapter 
22. Luke chapter 22. Verse 35, and he said to them, 
when I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did 
you lack anything? So they said, nothing. 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, commentators do funny 
things here. They say, well, that's a spiritual 
sword. I don't know how you're going 
to repel a bandit on the road with a spiritual sword, brethren. 
I just don't get that. And the possession of a sword 
does not automatically imply as an offensive weapon, right? There is self-defense. Not everybody 
who owns guns goes out and engages in mass shooting. Not everybody 
who owns guns robs banks with those guns. You get the point, 
right? Just because Jesus says to have 
a sword doesn't mean that these are going to be the disciples 
of glory that are going to go out and cut down everybody that 
fails to comply. It's a defensive piece of property. The sword was not to be utilized 
in an offensive manner, but defensively. And when it comes to this particular 
passage, some will cite the incident in Matthew 26, the contrary. If you go back to Matthew 26, 
specifically at verses 51 to 54. Matthew 26 verses 51 to 54. Suddenly one of those who were 
with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck 
the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus 
said to him, Put your sword in its place, for all who take the 
sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot 
now pray to my Father, and He will provide me with more than 
twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures 
be fulfilled that it must happen thus? In that hour Jesus said 
to the multitudes, have you come out as against a robber with 
swords and gloves to take me? I sat daily with you teaching 
in the temple and you did not seize me. But all this was done 
that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Now the messianic 
mission must be accomplished. Right? Peter can't cut off everybody's 
head that's come to seize the Lord of Glory. They have to seize 
the Lord of Glory. The hour had come. Remember in 
John's Gospel, they tried to seize him, but his hour had not 
yet come. The hour had come. So Peter draws 
the sword, goes for Malchus's head, misses and gets his ear. 
And Jesus says, put the sword away. Not because you can never 
use a sword to protect your wife from being raped or protect your 
friend from being shot. Not that you can never use the 
sword to defeat an enemy intruder under the cover of darkness. 
But that the Son of Man should not be stopped from going to 
the cross. There are instances and things 
that happen with reference to the messianic mission that are 
different and unique in terms of what Christ came to do in 
terms of the salvation of his people. And then the final thing 
is just a good confessional statement. The Westminster Larger Catechism 
says, what are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment? Comforting 
and succoring. I think that means just helping. 
Comforting and helping the distressed and protecting and defending 
the innocent. And in Westminster Larger Catechism 
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, 
lawful war, or necessary defense. So this has a rich and long pedigree, 
not only in the Reformed tradition, but in the Scriptures itself. 
Jesus assumes it, uses it as a component in terms of watchfulness 
relative to the coming of the Son of Man, and when it comes 
to these particular issues, we need to think biblically. When 
it comes to our current situation, we need to be judicious, we need 
to be wise, we need to exercise prudence, and all those things 
to be sure. But brethren, the Bible authorizes 
and legitimizes the issue of self-defense. Now that doesn't 
demand that in every instance you kill the individual. If you 
can subdue him without killing him, that's probably the better 
way to go. But if in that exchange, in the cover of darkness, you 
hit him or you strike him in such a way that he dies, according 
to our passage in Exodus 22.2, the man is not guilty. There's no requisite design in 
terms of killing that man as a criminal offender. So, in conclusion, 
when we look at these particular laws, we see, first, the importance 
of the Eighth Commandment. You shall not steal. And stealing 
doesn't always mean, hey, I grabbed your ox, I'm going to take it 
over to my farm. It could be through negligence. It could 
be through irresponsibility. But to deprive somebody of their 
livelihood, to deprive somebody of their goods, is not a good 
thing. So the Bible does not forbid 
the ownership of private property. The Bible does not condemn us 
for having stuff. Now, certainly we have to hold 
our stuff loosely. We can't worship our stuff and 
bow down to our stuff and be given over to the service of 
our stuff. You can't serve God and mammon. Those who love money are going 
to bring problems upon themselves. But the Bible does not condemn 
owning private property, but it defends it. And then the Bible 
mandates sanctions for those who damage or steal another person's 
property. So there must be punishment in 
civil society in order to discourage others from engaging in criminal 
activity. Turn to the book of Ecclesiastes 
for just a quick second, where you see this principle in scripture 
that we can certainly, I think, understand all too well. Ecclesiastes chapter 8 at verse 
11. Because the sentence against 
an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart 
of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. You hear 
often, well, the death penalty doesn't deter anybody. It deters 
at least one person. There is no repeat offender if 
you execute them. That'll never happen. But it 
does have an effect upon others when they know that if they engage 
in a particular criminal enterprise, they're going to be punished. 
We haven't ever seen in our lifetime the application of the death 
penalty to know whether or not there is a deterrent effect. 
But the Apostle tells us for certain that there is. Romans 
13, 1-4. If you do evil, what does he 
say? Be afraid. Well, brethren, there's 
no fear of God before the eyes of men, and there's certainly 
no fear of the civil government before the eyes of men, when 
so many crimes go unpunished. Because the sentence against 
an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart 
of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. You're doing 
no one any favor. when you don't punish crime. 
It proliferates. It grows exponentially. You see 
the reports, brethren. You see the various major cities 
in America. You see the cities in Canada. 
You see all over the earth where there's not punishment meted 
out for particular crimes. It doesn't help society one bit. It doesn't do anything to curb 
the wickedness of man. And so we see as well the legitimacy 
of self-defense. And then I hope we all appreciate 
the pro-victim orientation of biblical law. The Bible is for 
the victim. The Bible's not for the criminal. 
I mean, it is. It doesn't say, you know, humiliate 
him and tar him and feather him and parade him all throughout 
the streets. Of course, that might actually be it. No, I'm 
kidding. When it comes to these particular things, though, we 
see that the Word of God provides in that law redress for persons 
that have been victimized by others. That, you know, if we 
can't take a one-for-one exact application of the judicial laws 
of Moses, hopefully we see the general equity built in Again, 
we see the wisdom principle built in. We see the fact that we ought 
to be for the victim and not for the criminal in terms of 
justice. Well, I'll pray and then if there's 
any questions we can deal with that. Our Father in heaven, we 
thank you for your word. We thank you for the fact that 
it speaks to these various issues. of life in the body politic, 
and help us to be wise, help us to be faithful in our understanding 
of these things, and help us to stand in awe at your holiness, 
and your righteousness, and your justice, not only in the spiritual 
realm, but with reference to temporal matters, with reference 
to the property damage that people incur, the accidental homicides 
that happen, all these things, God, you speak to these things 
because you are ultimately just and right. We thank you for this 
and we praise you through Jesus Christ our Lord.