← Back to sermon library

Continuing in the sixth commandment, remember these are a series of exhortations in the book of Deuteronomy from Moses to the children of Israel as they're on the plains of Moab getting ready to enter into the promised land that God had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And so the largest section is the exhortation to pursue covenant loyalty. It begins in chapter 5, excuse me, and runs to the end of chapter 28. Foundational to that is the Ten Commandments or the Decalogue, and we find that in chapter 5. So I'll begin reading 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 the Sabbath 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, as we look at this sixth commandment, as I said, we're on the fourth part. I'm going to explain that in a moment, but we're simply looking at the explanation of the command and then God willing, we'll pick up the application of the command. to various people groups next week. But we define the word.

Remember, this is the word murder. You shall not murder. It is different than simple killing. Murder has the idea of malice, forethought, premeditation, hatred in your heart. Scripture makes a distinction between accidental homicide and specifically murderous homicide.

And so we're working with that good definition. In terms of the prohibitions of the commandment, the external act is obviously prohibited. You're not supposed to stop another person's heart from beating, but also hating people in your hearts. We're going to look at this a bit more next week. Character assassination, various things like that are also included here. But we're explaining the exceptions.

In Westminster Larger Catechism, it says, 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. Now, definitionally, when we look at public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense, it's not murder. But typically, these are called exceptions to the rule that is given us in Deuteronomy 517.

So we've looked in two messages at the death penalty. We dealt with the positive teaching of it. and then objections to it. And then last Wednesday night we looked at self-defense, that the scripture does legitimize one's defense of himself with reference to those who would do him harm. And so tonight we're going to look at lawful war.

And by way of an introduction, just so we remember that it is a heinous thing, because the Bible authorizes it, it doesn't mean it's the best option. It doesn't mean it's the only option. It doesn't mean it's the option that secures the most benefits. Charles Hodge, in his introduction to this discussion, says, that it involves the destruction of property and life, that it demoralizes both the victors and the vanquished, that it visits thousands of non-combatants with all the miseries of poverty, widowhood, and orphanage, and that it tends to arrest the progress of society and everything that is good and desirable.

God overrules wars in many cases, as He does the tornado and the earthquake, to the accomplishment of His benevolent purposes. But this does not prove that war in itself is not a great evil. He makes the wrath of man to praise Him. It is conceded that wars undertaken to gratify the ambition, cupidity, or resentment of rulers or people are unchristian and wicked. It is also conceded that the vast majority of the wars which have desolated the world have been unjustifiable in the sight of God and man.

Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that war in all cases is to be condemned." So we need to make sure we appreciate that. It's a bad thing. It's a horrible thing when men kill each other. But as he says, it does not follow from this that war, in all cases, is to be condemned. In fact, in scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments, we see war.

And I don't want to say presented positively. I don't mean it in that way. But it's presented in such a way that it is an option available to civil government when it comes to defending the civil polity. So we'll look first at the Old Testament, and then secondly, at the New Testament. and then just try to provide some rules that at least should help us think about what would constitute a just war or a lawful war.

But with reference to the Old Testament, one of the things that I think it's important for us to always remember is that later revelation, so Genesis 1 to 3, and then later revelation legislates certain things that would not have happened had there not been a fall by man. For instance, if there had been no fall in sin in Genesis 1 to 3, there would be no subsequent revelation or legislation dealing with divorce, for instance, because in an unfallen world, people wouldn't get divorced. When you move on in legislation, as you read through scripture, you'll see there are laws pertaining to slavery.

Again, in an unfallen world, there wouldn't be slavery. So war is one of those particular things. In an unfallen world, there wouldn't be war. But in a fallen world, there is legislation given by God in order to make the best possible outcome with reference to a fallen man's condition. And so the intention of God at creation was that there not be war, was that there would not be divorce, that there would not be polygamy, that there would not be slavery. So we get legislation in scripture that speaks to man in his fallen condition, and that for a very specific reason, to restrain the wickedness of man as he finds himself in this present evil age.

So the reality is, is that we live in a sin-cursed world. And the reality is, is that nations invade other nations. The reality is, is that criminals walk our streets. The reality is, is that sometimes we may have to defend ourselves up to and including lethal force.

So those things are, again, not the best possible solution. They wouldn't be necessary in an unfallen situation. But in a fallen world, those things are legitimate. There would be no need for the death penalty in an unfallen world, because there'd be no capital offenses. But in a fallen world, there are capital offenses. Men are wicked. Men are vile. Men rape. Men murder. Men commit pedophilia. So the civil government has been given the sword so that they can execute God's wrath in time and in history.

So in terms of the scriptures with reference to war, the first text is Deuteronomy chapter 20. Deuteronomy chapter 20, again we're going to just look at a few things in the Old Testament. I've always wondered how a person could be a pacifist in light of the scripture. The scripture is not a pacifistic document. The scripture presents Israel oftentimes in war and in fact in Deuteronomy chapter 20 we have principles governing warfare. Now, we're gonna get to that later in our studies in Deuteronomy, so I don't wanna spend a lot of time here, but note the general instructions in verse one.

When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. So it shall be when you're on the verge of battle that the priest shall approach and speak to the people. And he shall say to them, here, O Israel, today you're on the verge of battle with your enemies. Do not let your heart faint, do not be afraid, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them. For the Lord your God is He who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to save you. Very intriguing legislation if it is the case that we are to pursue pacifism. If you see your enemies, you should just say, we don't do that, and start banging your tambourines.

But that's not what we find in the particular passage. These are principles governing warfare. There are specific exemptions given in verses 5 to 9. The first is humanitarian. If a man takes a wife, he doesn't immediately have to go out to the battlefield. The second is psychological.

Notice in verse 8, the officers shall speak further to the people and say, what man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his brethren faint like his heart. You don't want him in battle, you don't want him going against the enemies because he's going to bring down morale amongst all the others. If they're around that Debbie Downer or Dylan Downer, don't want to put Debbie into the war, Dylan Downer, then he may unwittingly but nevertheless affect others around him. And then you've got specific direction for engagement with reference to the enemy, the engagement of enemy cities, the cities outside of Canaan in verses 10 to 15, and then the cities within Canaan in verses 16 to 20.

So there are principles governing warfare. So again, not the best option, not the best thing, but nevertheless, it is regulated and legislated by God Almighty. You can turn back to Deuteronomy chapter 7. Deuteronomy chapter 7. Again, think about being a pacifist. How could you get around these various scriptures where it is assumed that there will be war and that there is direction given by God to his people on how to fight those wars? Deuteronomy 7 specifically has to do with holy war.

And this is God's command of his people to take the land that he promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to go in and to utterly dispossess the land. They were not going to do that by inviting them to go elsewhere. They were not going to do that by giving them large sums of money and sending them to an island. They were going to do that by killing them, by dispossessing them of the land.

And so the instructions concerning holy war is in chapter 7 verses 1 to 5. Notice as well there's a prohibition given with reference to holy war. Verse 1, when the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you. And when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them.

Again, that's not pacifism, that is dispossess the land through violence and through breaking their things. Notice the prohibition, you're not supposed to have political, social, or religious alliances with them. At the end of verse two, you shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them, no political alliance. Verses three and four, no social alliances, nor shall you make marriages with them. "'You shall not give your daughter to their son "'nor take their daughter for your son, "'for they will turn your sons away from following me "'to serve other gods.

"'So the anger of the Lord will be aroused against you "'and destroy you suddenly.'" And of course, no religious alliances according to verse five. "'But thus you shall deal with them. "'You shall destroy their altars "'and break down their sacred pillars "'and cut down their wooden images "'and burn their carved images with fire.

Once we finish the book of Deuteronomy, continuing in the book of Joshua, we see a mostly positive report concerning the conquest. By the time you get to the book of Judges, it's all negative. It's negative over and over and over again. They sin, God raises up foreign oppressors, they cry out because of their pain, and then God provides a deliverer through the earthly judges, who are typical, ultimately, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the command concerning holy war indicates that war is legitimate. And I think that we need to remember what Hodge says in that quote. I think that's a tough one for us because most of the wars that we have seen Most of the wars that we have studied, they seem illegitimate, they seem unjust, they seem unnecessary. But the point is, that notwithstanding, there is a cause and there is a time and there is a purpose for war. And in this particular instance, holy war is commended by God. As well, you've got the defensive wars of Israel.

Amalek comes against them in Exodus chapter 17. David fighting with Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel. In fact, David wanted to build a house for the Lord, and God said, no, because you have shed blood. That's not condemnatory of David having shed blood. David did what God raised him up to do.

He secured the kingdom. He created an environment of peace so that his son Solomon could build the temple for God Most High. So when the Lord says, I'm not gonna let you do it because you're a man of bloodshed, that's not a condemning statement. It is rather a statement concerning function. David was the one tasked with securing the kingdom. David was the one tasked with getting rid of their enemies.

And it would be Solomon that would come and build the temple. And then as well, there are times where war is a judgment from God. If you think about Israel, the covenant nation. In 2 Kings 17, rather, you see the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria.

Why did that happen? Because the Assyrians were better at battle. They were more savvy. They had more equipment. That stuff could all be the case, but it was because the northern kingdom had sinned against God. So God raises up Assyria, sends them in, and they vanquish the northern kingdom. You'd think Judah would have learned. The southern kingdom should have taken notice. In fact, God makes that argument in Jeremiah chapter 2 and 3. He makes that argument in the book of Ezekiel, that Judah did not learn from the sins and ultimately the judgment of the northern kingdom, and so Judah falls in 2 Kings chapter 24. So the dates are 722 B.C. for the northern kingdom, 586 for the southern kingdom. So judgment by God in the aggression of those invading armies.

But then as well in the prophets Isaiah and Micah, you see that God says that blessing will be known when there's an absence of war. Remember in Isaiah chapter 2, the nations will stream to Zion to learn the law of the Lord. They'll take their weapons and they'll beat them into farming implements and utensils. Instead of killing people, they'll be farming their land.

So the absence of war is a great blessing by God upon the nation of Israel. So again, there are many other passages that we could certainly go through in the Old Testament. But let's move to the New Testament. And the first line of evidence is the favorable view of the military. the favorable view of the military. When military leaders, military men are mentioned in scripture, it's not condemnatory. They're never told by the people of God that you've got to give up your guns, you've got to give up your swords, and you've got to go find another job.

First, in Matthew chapter 8, Jesus commends a centurion.

Now, while you're turning there, this is what a centurion was. A centurion in the Roman army was a professional officer who commanded a sentry, a unit of about 80 to 100 soldiers. serving as the backbone of the Legion through their leadership, tactical command, administrative duties, and enforcement of discipline. They earned their rank through merit, demonstrating qualities like strength, skill, and enduring leadership. Centurions were highly respected, carried a vine staff as a symbol of authority, and wore a distinctive helmet with a transverse crest to be easily identified on the battlefield. Again, these men were commanders of troops, troops that were supposed to go in and kill people and destroy property.

So, centurions were men that were respected in society, and when one comes to the Lord Jesus to get his son healed, Jesus does not say, only if you find another job, go to Walmart, become a cashier, and then I'll heal your son. No, in fact, he speaks commendatory of him in verse 10. When Jesus heard it, he marveled and said to those who followed, assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel. So he doesn't condemn him, rather he heals the boy and he's merciful to this centurion.

As well, John the Baptist in Luke chapter three, John the Baptist is preaching repentance and he is speaking specifically concerning fruits worthy of repentance. Notice in Luke 3 at verse 7, then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, brood of vipers who warned you to flee from the wrath to come. Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance and do not begin to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones, and even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

So the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answered and said, said to them, he who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none. And he who has food, let him do likewise. Then tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, teacher, what shall we do? And he said to them, collect no more than what is appointed for you. Likewise, the soldiers asked him saying, and what shall we do?

So he said to them, do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely and be content with your wages. He doesn't say renounce your soldiering. He doesn't say find another job. He says this is what the fruits of repentance are going to look like in your career or in your job as a soldier. You're not supposed to intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and you're supposed to be content with your wages.

Notice in Luke 14 as well, and again this is not a passage that says just war is lawful. Just like last week when I looked at a couple of passages in Luke, I said this is not Jesus teaching self-defense is lawful, but rather these are assumptions by our Lord concerning the world that is. And notice in Luke 14, specifically in verses 31 and 32, he's talking about following Christ.

He's talking about counting the cost. And in verse 28, backing up just a bit, he says, for which of you intending to build a tower does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish yet. After he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, this man began to build and was not able to finish. Or what king going to make war against another king does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with 10,000 to meet him who comes against him with 20,000. Or else while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple.

Again, the emphasis is on discipleship. The emphasis is on counting the cost. The emphasis is not on the justness of legitimate war, But rather it's an assumption, just like Jesus assumes the place or the abiding validity of self-defense when he talks about that well-armed man. If the well-armed man knew what hour the thief was going to break into his house, the well-armed man would stop him. Not with tea and cookies. He'd stop him with the well-armed-ness that he possesses.

So Jesus assumes the legitimacy of kings going to battle, and he uses that as an analogy with reference to counting the cost. A king that's going to go to battle better make sure he's going to win the battle, because if he goes to battle and he doesn't win the battle, he's going to look like a fool, and he's going to decimate his own population. It's a bad thing. And then turn over the book of Acts, Acts chapter 10, the case of Cornelius.

Again, a centurion. He is not counseled. He is not scolded. He is not given a job application for McDonald's. He is rather saved by God's grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. But notice in Acts 10.1, there was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people and prayed to God always.

About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, Cornelius, look at verse seven, he's attended by another soldier. Verse seven, and when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. So when he had explained all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa. And of course, Cornelius has what he has, Peter has what he has, and then they come together.

Peter preaches the gospel, he summarizes in verse 43, to him all the prophets witness that through his name whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Interestingly, they were not surprised that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on a soldier. They were surprised that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on Gentiles. Soldiering was commonplace. Nobody questioned soldiering. Nobody had pacifistic tendencies in the Roman Empire.

But we see that God saves them, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. then they asked him to stay a few days.

Again, favorable view of the military in the New Testament documents. Turn over to Acts 23. Acts 23, the apostle Paul learns of a conspiracy to end his life. Notice specifically in verse 12 in Acts 23. And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.

Now, there were more than 40 who had formed this conspiracy. It's an amazing thing, isn't it? 40 people took an oath not to eat or drink until they killed Paul. I've often thought, if we had that kind of zeal in the church, if we had that kind of zeal for positive things, who knows what might happen.

But back to the text, verse 14, they came to the chief priests and elders and said, we have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul. Now you therefore, together with the council, suggest to the commander that he be brought down to you tomorrow, as though you were going to make further inquiries concerning him, but we are ready to kill him before he comes near. So when Paul's sister's son heard of their ambush, he went and entered the barracks and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, I want you to stop being a centurion and bang a tambourine and go to the airport and ask for money.

It's not what he says. Again, there's a favorable view of the military. It's our strange, weird ways of interpreting the Bible that has yielded a disfavorable view of the military. Again, there's a lot to disfavorably view military about, but in principle, that's what we're talking about. Not practical application, but in principle, It's not bad, it's not wrong, and it's actually commendable that a nation has a standing army so that it can withstand foreign invasion. That's a good thing.

So Paul called one of the centurions, verse 17, to him and said, take this young man to the commander for he has something to tell him. So he took him and brought him to the commander and said, Paul, the prisoner called me to him and asked me to bring this young man to you. He has something to say to you. Then the commander took him by the hand, went aside and asked privately, what is it that you have to tell me? And he said, the Jews have agreed to ask that you bring Paul down to the council tomorrow as though they were going to inquire more fully about him, but do not yield to them for more than 40 of them lie in wait for him. Men who have bound themselves by an oath that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him. And now they are ready, waiting for the promise from you.

So the commander let the young man depart and commanded him, tell no one that you have revealed these things to me. And he called for two centurions saying, prepare 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen and 200 spearmen to go to Caesarea at the third hour of the night and provide mounts to set Paul on and bring him safely to Felix the governor.

Paul does not object to this. Paul does not say, no, I don't believe in the military, and I don't believe in the use of force, so I'm going to go ahead and take my chances. No. He uses that. He's a Roman citizen. It was brought to him by the centurion, and Paul accepts it.

Again, there is a favorable view of the military in the New Testament documents, as well as in the Old Testament. Now, secondly, the function of the civil magistrate. You can turn to Romans 13. Romans 13, we looked at this a bit with reference to the death penalty.

Verse 1, let every soul be subject to the governing authority, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil, and I would supply works. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid. For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

So as we saw with reference to the death penalty, this legitimizes, this authorizes, and this is God's equipping of the civil magistrate with the sword to execute capital punishment. Now, that doesn't mean in every instance capital punishment is the answer. There can be lesser sentences, there can be lesser punishments and penalties for specific crimes. I think the Bible necessitates or demands execution, but the fact that he bears the sword and he doesn't bear it in vain means he is God's avenger to execute God's wrath within the civil polity with reference to criminal offenders.

By extension, that same magistrate with that sword is to protect the civil polity from foreign invasion. In fact, Thomas makes this statement. just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending the common wheel, that means the well-being, against internal disturbances when they punish evildoers, so too it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common well-being against external enemies. So civil government functions to punish criminal offenders within the body politic. But civil government also exists to defend the body politic from foreign invasion.

And I would argue that's all they exist for. They shouldn't exist for every other thing that you have going on in your life. If they don't do those things well, which they don't presently, but they do all this other stuff, they're not doing their job. So they're to protect people. in the commonwealth from being brutalized by criminals, but they're supposed to protect the commonwealth from foreign invasion.

In fact, Turretin says, from the very fact that Christ did not take away but confirm the authority of the magistrate, he also approved of the right of carrying on war, since it pertains to the magistrate to defend his subjects against unjust violence, which certainly cannot sometimes be done without war. So Romans 13 authorizes in a new covenant setting, the civil government wielding the sword against criminal invaders.

And we ought to expect that. That's why we pay taxes. In fact, Paul says that very thing. If you drop down to verse six, for because of this, you also pay taxes. For they are God's minister attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due, taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Now that we're paying taxes and we're not sufficiently protected, we'll probably deal with when we get to the eighth commandment in our studies, which says you shall not steal.

That obviously applies to private individuals, but it must by extension apply to governments. If government is funded by taxes, they have some sort of fiscal responsibility to the people paying those taxes. And if we are called and commanded by God through Paul to pay our taxes for the things specified in Romans 13 for, and we're getting gypped, I'm not suggesting we go out and engage in a big protest or revolution. I'm not suggesting that.

But I am suggesting the people of God need to think more biblically about civil government. The people of God need to think more biblically about what the responsibilities are for those who are under God, over man, for the glory of God, and for the public good of man. We need to think through such things, and we need to have better answers to the God-haters as we present the biblical case. And then the harmony between this passage and the Sermon on the Mount.

We dealt with that last week with reference to self-defense. Specifically, the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says in verse 39, not to resist an evil person. We saw that that is not a universal thing. It is personal, private, day-in relationships that you have on the regular. It has nothing to do with the civil magistrate.

It has nothing to do with mitigating Romans 13.4. Notice that Paul in Romans 13 doesn't say, well, you know, you're not supposed to resist evil people, so just get brutalized in your city and just get invaded by, you know, foreign invaders. That's not consistent exegesis.

Again, Turretin says, the private duty of believers is one thing, Matthew 5. The public duty of a magistrate, another. Remember, when we looked at Romans 13 with reference to capital punishment, I tried to set it in its larger context. If you back up to chapter 12 and verse 17.

Notice, repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. This is the parallel to Matthew 5. This is your personal day in ethics with people around you. That does not mitigate Paul's politics in Romans 13. In fact, he says rather give place to wrath. How do we do that? We sing the imprecatory songs. How do we do that? We pay taxes to civil government because he wields the sword and he's the avenger of God's wrath to execute God's wrath in history.

That is a legitimate connection that you find here. Your personal ethics, day in, day out, Romans 12, Paul's politics in Romans 13. The two are not at odds. The two work together. What I do as a private individual is much limited by what Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount. What the magistrate does in the exercise of his function and his prerogatives is delineated here in Romans 13 and other places in the scripture. He is not supposed to, you know, not resist an evil person. He's supposed to punish evil persons. He's not supposed to turn his other cheek.

If one nation invades us, we don't say to another nation, well, come on over and invade us. Join the fun. That's not the way to read the Bible. You don't pit Jesus against Paul when Paul says exactly what Jesus is saying with reference to our personal ethics. It's not the reality that Paul is suggesting that in Romans 12, or that Jesus is suggesting in Matthew 5, to get rid of locks on your doors, to get rid of dogs, guard dogs, to get rid of any defensive weapons in the home, get rid of police forces, get rid of judges, get rid of Supreme Courts, get rid of the sword out of the civil polity. That's a bad reading. Pacifism is wrong at every step of the way and that anybody ever adopted it with an open Bible to me is a mind blower. I just don't get it.

It's right up there with women in the ministry. That's a big thing right now, women in the ministry. That's one of the clearest passages in all of scripture in 1 Timothy 2. How do you possibly navigate your way around Paul saying, I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man? How do you possibly suggest that that can't be what it says? It's the same with pacifism.

So again, back to verse 19. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heat coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now, we put these chapter divisions in here, but they're not, you know, the Spirit didn't give us the 13 there. There's no adversative, there's no contrast, there's no Paul saying, okay, now I'm gonna deal with a completely different subject. It is, to the degree that he's dealing with the civil magistrate, but the connection is strong between 13.4 and 12.17 and 19. Don't avenge yourselves as private individuals.

The civil magistrate is God's avenger to execute his wrath in the civil polity. You can't miss the connection. The same sorts of words are used. Verse four, for he is God's minister to you for good, but if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God's minister, literally a deacon, an avenger to execute wrath.

Huh, didn't Paul just tell us not to avenge ourselves? Yeah, exactly. And didn't Paul tell us to give place to wrath? Yeah, exactly. Well, how do we do that? By singing the Imprecatory Psalms and by recognizing the function and role of the civil magistrate to execute wrath upon criminal offenders and foreign invaders. As Van Drunen says, Paul's point in Romans 13, 4 is that God commissions the civil magistrate to do the very things he prohibits his Christian readers from doing a few verses earlier, Romans 12, 17, and 19. It's not that the doing of those things are bad, it's that the doings of those things are sanctioned by God with specific responsibilities attached. If you're in the civil government and your job is to wield the sword, wield it for the glory of God.

If you're a private individual that's cut off on Wellington, you don't shoot that person driving the car in the name of Jesus. You have to be forbearing. You have to turn the other cheek when it comes to personal insult. You have to go that second mile so that you go along to get along.

But with reference to civil government, their job is clearly delineated. And again, to add a bunch of other things to Romans 13, 4. Well, you know, cradle to grave sort of legislation on every jot and tittle of our lives. And they don't do what verse 4 says. And Christians somehow are okay with that and continue to vote for these people. They're rebels against God's order. God demands that people function the way that he calls them to function.

So the harmony between the Sermon on the Mount and this particular passage, I think it's obviously clear. Now, in terms of rules concerning just war, you'll notice there's not a Roman 17 where Paul gives you the rules for just war. I leaned on a couple of guys in the history of the Church.

But with reference to the reality of unjust wars, I thought Turretin was fitting and appropriate. He says, unjust and hasty wars undertaken without just and necessary cause from mere ambition or avarice, excuse me, in order to extend the boundaries of an empire, we detest as mere highway robberies. It's highway robbery to engage in a war unlawfully. It is highway robbery to engage in an unjust or hasty war. He says undertaken without just a necessary cause.

He's right. We can't legitimize that. We can't say, oh, yeah, that's great. Let's go decimate these people when there's no cause. You know, every time we read these updates from Myanmar, you can't actually believe that what's happening there has been done with justness and lawfulness. and with sufficient predicate. It just reeks of an unjust and hasty war, which equals highway robberies. Now, in terms of just wars, Augustine made this observation.

Remember that 5th century church father And I love the way he couches this, because I don't think we would talk this way. True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged. That statement right there probably causes, I mean, imagine reading that in a pacifist church. Huh? True Christians look on peaceful those wars that are waged? The waging of war isn't peaceful. We just don't talk like that.

He's saying true religion. In other words, if you are a biblical-minded Christian thinking properly, then true religion will look upon a war and determine whether it's just or not just based on certain things. So he says, true religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace or punishing evildoers and of uplifting the good. Right? That's pretty basic. I'd like to think we all operated within that context. Yeah. Secure peace, punish evildoers, uplift good.

Not, you know, whatever billion political motivations that a nation has to continue to maintain perpetual war. He goes on to say, the passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an un-Pacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war. So he says there's a way that you can determine whether there's a just war or an unjust war. And again, there's no Roman 17 with a detailed exhaustive list, but these are things at least we should think about. Hodge says, no plea of honor, glory or aggrandizement, policy or profit can excuse much less justify war.

Nothing short of necessity to the end of the preservation of national existence. In order to make a war right in God's sight, it is not only necessary that our enemy should aim to do us a wrong, but also that the wrong he attempts should directly or remotely threaten the national life, and that the war be the only means to avert it. Again, I think those are simple principles. We don't need, you know, a billion lists and rules. I mean, probably a few more, and I'm going to add a few more. Thomas says that these things need to be necessary in a just war.

First, the authority of the civil magistrate. In other words, we can't just go out and start a war with Iran.

It's the authority of the civil magistrate. Now, there's questions here about the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. In the history of the church, there were those who invoked the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. So let's say you're living under a tyrannical magistrate. The idea being is that there's a lesser magistrate, one that isn't on the same level as king or emperor, as governor, as ruler, and that lesser magistrate, if he has a backbone, can help deal with the tyranny.

That would take us far afield. Just going to read what he has here. He says, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged, for it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. So private individuals can't wage war. We can't just get a bee in our bonnet and say, OK, that's it, Iran. I'm just picking on Iran. It could be anywhere. Kenya. Not those poor brethren in Kenya. They don't have any money to fight a war. Not that we have a lot of money to fight a war, but the authority of the civil magistrate.

Secondly, the justness of the cause. The justness of the cause. Listen to this. A just cause is required. Namely, that those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. You don't just go obliterate people for no reason. Again, these are not, wow, I can't imagine the brilliance. No, it's simple. And then third, the rightfulness of intention.

It is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention so that they intend the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil. Those seem basic, the authority of the magistrate, justness of the cause, and a rightful intention. We don't just go to dance on the graves of the enemies. It's to actually secure peace and good and safety or whatever. And then in a book by a modern author, a Dutch reform fellow by the name of Douma, I thought he had a nice list in his book on the Ten Commandments.

Basically, a just war must be engaged, one, by a legitimate government. Again, back to Aquinas' principle there. Two, it must be waged for a legitimate cause. Again, I don't think we even get this. I don't think that those leading us think through these sorts of lists. Maybe they do. I don't know. I could just be missing something.

Third, with a legitimate purpose. I mean, these endless wars. Define your purpose. Go in and do what you're supposed to do. Why should we have forever wars?

Fourth, with consideration of benefits and costs. That's a good one, right? If you're going to destroy your own country with taxation and devastation, it's kind of like that king in Luke 14. You've got to count the costs and make sure there is sufficient benefit for what you're engaged in. Fifth, with means proportionate to the offense. means proportionate to the offense.

If we're a nuclear power and the country that we engage with, if it doesn't demand a nuclear obliteration, it would be wrong for us to do that. In other words, when we think through just war biblically, we don't divorce our minds from the orbit of Christian ethics. We still need to operate with some degree of humanity and dignity. And then, of course, recognizing the difference between civilians and soldiers. You're not supposed to shoot civilians. You're not supposed to cut the heads off noncombatants.

These are just basic principles that should be at play in any discussion whatsoever of just war. If these discussions aren't being had at the highest levels, then Yeah, we're in worse shape than I could imagine. In terms of our confession of faith, it gives a general statement concerning civil government in Chapter 24, Paragraph 1. It says, God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him. Never forget that. They're not over Him. Means they're always subject to God's authority. They're always subject to God's authority. They don't have the right to take to themselves godhood, deity, or divinity.

They are under him, over the people by station and function, for his own glory and the public good. and to this end has armed them with the power of the sword, for defense and encouragement of them that do good and for the punishment of evildoers." That's Romans 13, 1 to 4. And then in chapter 24, paragraph 2, the legitimacy of waging war. They say it is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. You could hear pacifists say, well, it's not right for a Christian to be in the government. Anabaptists thought the same thing. It's not right for Christians to participate in government.

Government is intrinsically, inherently, and always evil. Well, no. Again, practically, most of the times it is. But in principle, God ordained government, right? In principle. What we find in Scripture is that God ordained the monarchy. God ordained the judges. God ordained the various commonwealths and situations that we find providentially in world history. You know, Jesus speaking his wisdom in Proverbs 8, 15 says, Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Remember when Paul's writing Romans, Nero is on the throne. Nero is the emperor. He's the Caesar of Rome. Now, he wasn't as bad as he would get, In fact, at one point early on he was not too bad at all. He had good advisors, he lowered taxes, he was, you know, good on a lot of points. We'd have voted for Nero, you know, prior to him going bananas, but so Paul is basically saying providentially God's ordained civil government.

So the confession, remember our confession was written to distance themselves from Anabaptists. The first one, they say, that was the title page. We're writing our confession because we've been accused of being Anabaptists and we're not Anabaptists. One of the things that Anabaptists thought was that government is always wrong.

It's inherently, intrinsically, essentially wrong. And so the Reformed Baptist said, no, in principle, it's biblical. I mean, it certainly does go wrong in a whole host of cases, because man is sinful and we don't do what we're supposed to do. But principally, it is legit. So they say, it is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto, in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace.

Again, those emphases, justice and peace. not roads, not medicine, not food, not shelter, not school, not all that. And again, we can debate all those particulars, but in principle, what is their function? Justice and peace. Justice and peace. Do you ever vote for anybody at this point in your life because they're strong on justice and peace? Probably not.

I mean, we should, because that's basically what they're there for. So they say, in the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. So for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

So the confession does not back down from what scripture teaches. Again, got to make a distinction between what practically happens, it's bad, but in principle, right? In principle, does God command it? Does God sanction it? Has God providentially provided it? And if so, how are we supposed to think through these things? And I think that's what we need to come to grips with.

So the instances of lawful homicide or justifiable homicide or the exceptions to the commandment in Deuteronomy 517, you've got capital punishment, the civil government exercising the power of the sword to punish criminal doers in a body politic. You've got self-defense. When Jesus says, turn the other cheek, as I mentioned last week, if somebody puts a 38 in this ear, don't tell them to put another one in the other ear because I want to obey scripture. No, you have a right to defend yourself. We see it in Exodus chapter 22. We see it all throughout the Bible. We see it assumed by Jesus. Self-defense is legit. It is authorized. That's one of the most principal, basic, fundamental things.

We don't ingest poison. We don't walk on train tracks when there's a train rolling down the track. We try to defend ourselves. If what Jesus is teaching is pacifistic, then not resisting an evil person means inviting criminals over at all times to engage in criminal activity in your home.

And it can't be what it means. So death penalty, self-defense, and just war. And I think this study or studies like this underscore the responsibility of civil government. It's the gravity of the task. We shouldn't vote for buffoons. We shouldn't vote for people that can't speak a full sentence. We shouldn't vote for people that haven't thought through, when do we go to war? Why do we go to war? How do we go to war? We shouldn't vote for people that don't have some degree of ability when it comes to engaging under God, over men, for the glory of God and the public good.

The necessity of the task, the better our government, the more that we can expect a degree of safety. And again, providentially, things happen that are exceptions to the rule. But if we have a government functioning kind of like they're supposed to, it's probably going to be safer on the streets, and it's going to be safer from foreign invasion. And then in terms of qualification for the task, It shouldn't just be that somebody who has the most money wins elections, or who has the most commercials, who makes the most false promises. We as God's people ought to think biblically and principally when it comes to voting, when it comes to who it is that we want to govern over us. with reference to the public good. So those are exceptions.

God willing, we'll continue next week in application, finish up the sixth commandment, and then move on to the seventh. Probably spend some time there as well, because it, like the sixth, has a lot of violations and transgressions and various misapplications going on in the world around us. Well, let's pray.

Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for your clarity with reference to these things, with reference to capital punishment and self-defense and just war. We pray that you'd help us to think biblically concerning these things, and we do pray that you'd have mercy upon the civil government in this land, We pray that you would grant them a degree of wisdom, a commitment to justice and peace, the things that the Bible actually commands them to think about. And we pray that you would be merciful here.

And we ask this in Jesus' name. Amen. Any questions or comments on any of that material? Yes, sir. I'm sure you asked things like, was World War II just war? It depends on... matter of perspective. Yeah, each commonwealth has their perspective and their particular things, right?

If it's strictly a defensive posture, yeah, there's no crime there. There's no violation or transgression of just war policy. If I'm invaded in my home and I defend myself, that's legit. If I go out at night looking for people to beat up, then I've overstepped my boundaries.

So yeah, I think that it cannot be, I mean, you picked the hugest example ever. Yeah, various components, various elements that were involved, some legitimately defending their own country, others perhaps not. So yeah. but to just look at it and give a ruling or a verdict and say, well, it was bad. There were things that were bad. There were things that probably weren't so bad. That's how I would understand it. And it's way outside of my pay grade to think through all the implications. That's one of my hopes. I almost said die.

I'm not going to learn about World War II when I die, but sometime between now and the grave, I'd like to do a lot more study on World War II personally. Yes, sir? What about the American Revolution? Yeah, the place of revolution, that's that lesser magistrate doctrine that comes into play. You know, I have my opinions and views, but I'm not necessarily sure that, you know, I'm 100% right. You might. You know, it's interesting. During COVID, there was a new book published. It was Oxford University. So it was an academic book published or written by a guy named Gary. I think it's Seaward.

And it's called Justifying Revolution. And it was really good on the American Revolution. And, you know, and he pointed out that in Britain, even they some Some Brits viewed it as just a civil war. Right? Because, I mean, it was an extension of Britain, and they were like, no, this isn't right. And intriguingly, also, you know, clergy participated overwhelmingly in that American Revolution.

There were a couple exceptions. John Wesley was one of them. There were a couple of exceptions, but for the most part, it was a good book. You read that, didn't you, Nathan? It was good. He didn't get preachy or scoldy. It was a historical approach and just kind of the nuances and the things involved. I thought it was very helpful.

But there always needs to be a lesser magistrate. Yes, and I think that was present at the time in the Americas. Yeah, the idea of lesser magistrate is very important so that you're not just a private individual. finding a good lesser magistrate is getting increasingly more difficult as the days go on. But yeah, I think ideally that would be the way to go with revolution. But no, I don't personally don't think that revolution is always necessarily evil. There's got to be a mechanism whereby people that are being tyrannized can throw off tyranny, because if they're under God, over people, for God's glory, and the public good, and public good has nothing to do with anything that they do, at some point, you know, and again, if you've got a lesser magistrate that has backbone and is willing to lead such an enterprise, I think that would be the best way.

Yes? a government engaging in an unjust war, but you're somebody that's in a military service position. That's a tough one. Very tough. Yeah, for me as a father and as a grandfather, I believe in military service. I do. I think as we've just seen, there's nothing unbiblical about it. But the government would be very determinative in the direction that the government is going. Whether or not I would ever, you know, encourage a young man to pursue that. I couldn't in good conscience in some senses say, yeah, go fight, you know, this war. It has to be just. And if a government is demonstrably not just, it'd be hard to reconcile that with go serve that government in that capacity. It's inconsistent. All right.