← Back to sermon library

father in heaven we thank you for this lord's day we thank you for the blessed rest that you give us in our lord jesus christ and for this day each week that serves as a foreshadowing down payment for that eternal rest to come we give thanks to you for the public worship of the living and true god we pray that all that we do today would be for your glory that we would come to the father through the son and the spirit and that you would be exalted and glorified help us now as we consider the doctrine of self-defense from scripture give us wisdom as we approach such things we ask that you and pity this nation pity the us and the nations of the earth lord god with reference to violence and criminal activity and all the sorts of things that are going on we cry out to you that in your wrath you would remember mercy that you would continue to protect your people that you would grant great grace to your church to continue to flourish even in the midst of such things and we ask this through jesus christ our lord amen two weeks ago we looked at the doctrine and the legitimacy of self-defense from scripture we looked at the biblical case for self-defense the first text we looked at was exodus 22 verses 2 and 3 which deals specifically with one's defense of self with reference to somebody breaking into their house as well we looked at old testament illustrations the rescue of lot the armed rescue of lot by abram the threat uh to the rebuilding of the wall in jerusalem they held a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other and then the words of solomon in proverbs 24 11. we looked at the teaching of jesus and his commitment to old testament law his assumption concerning uh self-defense and then his command of the disciples in terms of acquiring swords and then the confessional statement westminster larger catechism number 135 what are the duties required in the sixth commandment comforting and suckering the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent and then 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 case of public justice lawful war or necessary defense so the confession or the catechism there highlights the three instances of justifiable homicide that the bible deals with the case of public justice that means capital punishment or death penalty lawful war you see that in deuteronomy chapter 7 you see it as well in romans chapter 13 and then necessary defense defense of ourselves or the defense of others that are being victimized so when we consider now or we've come to consider jesus words in the sermon on the mount in matthew chapter 5 specifically verses 38 to 42 and i'll read that section and then we'll look at a look at it in some detail as this is oftentimes portrayed or presented as a challenge to the the doctrine of justifiable homicide there are those who read too much into this particular text and would suggest that war is always wrong they would suggest that self-defense is not right as well that the the execution of criminal offenders is wrong it's not in the spirit and alongside the ethic of our lord jesus so we need to ask the question is jesus contradicting what the bible says elsewhere concerning those three instances of justifiable homicide so beginning in matthew 5 at verse 38 you have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but i tell you not to resist an evil person but whoever slaps you on your right cheek turn the other to him also if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic let him have your cloak also and whoever compels you to go one mile go with him too give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away now it's important that we understand this passage in the context of the sermon on the mount i'll just give you a sort of a quick outline basically what we have in chapter 5 verses 1 to 12 are the beatitudes in the sermon on the mount this is characteristic or description of kingdom citizens this is not preached in the manner of be this and then you will be saved rather salvation comes by grace through faith in jesus and the result is hopefully persons that look like that and while we may have remaining corruption and struggle that ought to be identifiable in the people of god and then in chapter 5 verses 17 to 20 jesus indicates his relationship to old testament law because as he's teaching as his popularity is growing persons are wondering if he is consistent with moses if he is consistent with the old testament so in matthew chapter 5 verses 17 and 18 he highlights his relationship to the law do not think that i came to destroy the law or the prophets i did not come to destroy but to fulfill for assuredly i say to you till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled very difficult to take from that that jesus has a problem with old testament law rather we should take from that that jesus came to fulfill that law and as well to strengthen or rather confirm that law in his teaching and in his practice he then cautions his hearers against two particular errors in the first place they need to guard against antinomianism which is a disregard of the law verse 19 whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men amen so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whoever does and teaches them he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven so in other words don't be an antinomian don't relax or don't resist or don't reject rather the law and the prophets the teaching of the old testament and then he highlights another error which is called legalism or we might call it neo-nomianism in verse 25 for i say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven and then he sets forth a series of six comparisons or antithesis and basically the anticip the antithesis is not between jesus and moses but it's between jesus and moses interpreters in other words the scribes and the pharisees who had missed the teaching of old testament law and he highlights in the first place with reference to these six examples murder in verses 21 to 26. now as just a cursory application with reference to old testament law it never condoned hating your brother in your heart it was always forbidden but pharah say pharisaic interpretations that as long as you don't stop somebody's heart from beating you are not guilty of violating the sixth commandment jesus says no the sixth commandment always prohibited character assassination the sixth commandment always prohibited uh uh hating your brother in your heart those things were consistently taught in the old testament and yet the pharisees had messed it up same thing with adultery in verses 27 to 30. you couldn't commit heart adultery in the old testament you couldn't look upon a woman to lust in the old testament that was as forbidden by the seventh commandment as was as it is in the new new covenant you're not supposed to engage in the actual actual physical act but you're also not to engage in the heart adultery or the the the lusting after somebody in your heart same thing with reference to marriage and divorce he goes through that verses 31-32 oaths verses 33-37 our text retaliation and then love to enemies in verses 43-47 and then he brings it to a conclusion in verse 48. now certainly there's a normative use of the law held out by jesus in this teaching in other words those who are saved by grace through faith in jesus ought to seek by the power of the holy spirit to obey and to comply and to do the things that god calls us to there's also that second use of the law given here or or assumed here in terms of the pedagogical use jesus is preaching the intensity of god's law such that the multitudes would see themselves as sinners before holy god and would flee to christ for redemption in his blood so never forget that aspect of the sermon on the mount it's not simply to describe the characteristics of god's people and how they should try and live but it's also the law matthew 5 to 7 is law and jesus preaches the law with the purpose of showing sinners their sin so that they'll see the need for jesus you see it in the rich young ruler when that young man asks what good thing shall i do to inherit eternal life jesus preaches the law to him again not so that this man can fastidiously keep the law and enter into heaven but so that this man can see his sin and the necessity for redemption through the blood of jesus that's why after the young man rattles off his compliance with the commandments he doesn't mention the tenth and it's the tent that jesus brings to him because that's the problem that this young man had he had many possessions when jesus told him to sell him and and give the money to the poor then he was sorrowful then he was convicted then he was hurt and so we need to remember that aspect of the sermon on the mount that it's yes normative use but as well pedagogical use preach the law so that sinners will see their need for the savior now with reference to matthew 5 38 to 42 he's dealing with the lex talionis or the law of retribution so in the first place he gives a contrast in verses 38 and 39a and then he gives illustrations in 39b to 42. so let's look at what he is saying in the first place notice the principle stated you have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that is as i said the lex talionis that is the the latin uh terminology for the law of retribution if you turn back for just a moment to the book of exodus you will see this exodus chapter 21 exodus chapter 21 specifically at verse 22. a passage that we are hopefully reminded of often in our church concerning the sin and crime of abortion but in exodus 21 at verse 22 if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely yet no harm follows he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him and he shall pay as the judge is determined 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 stripe for strike and then turn over to leviticus 24 leviticus chapter 24 specifically at verse 19 if a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor as he has done so shall it be done to him fracture for fracture eye for eye tooth for tooth as he has caused disfigurement of a man so shall it be done to him and then again in deuteronomy 19 deuteronomy chapter 19. that's the law concerning witnesses verse 21 well verse 20 and those who remain shall hear and fear and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you your eyes shall not pity life shall be for life eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand foot for foot so if you notice in each of these particular contacts it's not our daily interpersonal relationships with people that is in view it is rather matters of jurisprudence it's how to apply god's law in matters of criminal activity and that is precisely what the lex talionis is about the law of retribution obtains with reference to to criminal offenses in a civil polity how do we punish criminals with reference to god's holy law the law obviously demands that the punishment must fit the crime those who reject are those who recoil in horror at the suggestion of the law of retribution actually affirm the law of retribution because those who would say life for life eye for eye tooth for tooth is barbaric and antiquated and we should have nothing to do with it are the same sorts of persons that would say yes the punishment must fit the crime well that's all the lex uh lex talionis is demanding is that the punishment must fit the crime if you kill somebody you should be killed if you poke somebody's eye out you should have your eye poked out if you break somebody's tooth you should have your tooth broken out it is the law of retribution in terms of a punishment that fits the crime but as well the lex talionis provides safety and protection for criminals so that we are not excessive in punishment if somebody breaks somebody else's tooth they shouldn't be executed by the civil state if somebody steals something from walmart they shouldn't have their hands chopped off there is one instance of punitive amputation in scripture and it has nothing to do with theft and so we need to understand that it not only demands that the punishment must fit the crime but it also demands that criminals shouldn't be punished above and beyond what their crime is worthy of in fact van drunen says far from promoting unbridled vengeance the lex talionis prohibits excessive retaliation that's wrong too draconian matters and uh executing everybody for so you know small offenses that's not good we shouldn't want that if you spit on the sidewalk you shouldn't go to prison for 20 years that is just ungodly and unconscionable there's a great illustration of this principle in deuteronomy 25. deuteronomy 25 verse 1 if there is a dispute between men and they come to court that the judges may judge them and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence according to his guilt with a certain number of blows you don't just get to willy-nilly go off on the guy because he committed a criminal activity there must be a uh confines there must be parameters there must be restriction and then the tax gives a specific limit or a specific number 40 blows he may give him and no more lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these and then notice and your brother be humiliated in your sight brethren the idea in the law of retribution isn't to humiliate it is to visit with a proper punishment the criminal's behavior we don't want to humiliate them that's not the purpose of the function of civil government relative to the restraint of criminal activity in a body politics it's not about humiliation because they are still image bearers of the living god criminals still bear that image and therefore they should have certain rights and protections that the the law of god affords to that so going back to our text jesus highlights the lex talionis the law of retribution and then in verse 39 he says but i tell you again the contradiction or the antithesis is not between jesus and the lex talionis but between jesus and the pharisees who had taught the lex talionis to apply to everyday matters if matters concerned with civil and criminal jurisprudence are extrapolated and put into the bosom of every man in his home relative to every particular sort of difficulty he will face in his life that cannot be operatable that cannot be functionable that is not the way it is supposed to be so when he asks the question in verse 39 or tells us uh but i tell you not to resist an evil person we need to ask the question does this mean without qualification does this mean that if somebody is threatening us to put a knife in our heart or to put a gun to our head we just grin and bear it i do not believe for a moment that's what jesus intends in this particular situation is jesus laying down the principle of pacifism in all matters here and if he is then we have to affirm that the bible contains contradictions because there are three instances of justifiable homicide and if what jesus is saying here is completely contradictory to that then yeah we've got big problems with scripture is self-defense legitimate or is it not and is matthew 539 a prohibition against self-defense i think not at all what had happened in this particular time frame again under the teaching of the scribes and pharisees is that the practice of using the lex talionis for every day life for every instance of interpersonal relationship imagine that if your wife burns your toast you now need to burn her toast if your wife burns the chicken now you don't let her have something new at the store or if your husband didn't clean the garage you don't do his laundry you see how the principle falls apart when it's applied into interpersonal relationships i don't smile at you on a sunday morning so you resolve never to uh smile at me again that is not the way to do life brethren that is the way to do matters of jurisprudence in a body politic in terms of criminal activity the illustrations that jesus uses indicate that it's our personal conduct in daily life not matters of crime punishment war etc the lord jesus tells his disciples that they are not to exact the demands of the lex talionis for everyday life events could you imagine living that way or having somebody impose that on you i guess on the one hand you'd never leave your socks on the floor again if it meant your wife was gonna you know get rid of every other sock you had i guess it meant that you know as a wife you'd make sure you never burn the chicken because your husband would never buy a chicken again you cannot live that way it's a matter of civil jurisprudence applied to the personal relationships that are in the that are in view here spurgeon describes it this way states it this way but when the lex talionis came to be the rule of daily life it fostered revenge and our savior would not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals listen to what he says here and i think that this will help you we could stop here and i think you've already got the the point of the passage he says good law in court may be very bad custom in common society in those interpersonal relationships john murray says the lex talionis was part of the order of public justice and not private revenge and then greg bonson states the pharisees were want to appeal to the old testament principle of equitable punishment in civil court to justify personal revenge and vindictiveness christ is speaking to the situation of interpersonal relations and prohibited the act exacting of due punishment for wrongs suffered so if you understand that context i hope hopefully it will it will disavow you of any notion that the bible presents passivism as somehow the norm for the christian life and then if we look at the examples of jesus and paul we will see that they themselves didn't turn the other cheek look at john 18 for a moment john 18 which i should probably remind you is a matter of jurisprudence it is a matter with reference to uh criminal proceedings in a law court i mean it's a kangaroo court to be sure but that's where it's being applied and so in chapter 18 at verse 22 and when he had said these things one of the officers who stood by struck jesus with the palm of his hand saying do you answer the high priest like that jesus answered and i answered him if i have spoken evil bear witness of the evil but if well why do you strike me i mean if he's consistent he should just turn the other cheek and let that man strike him there acts chapter 16 acts chapter 16 verse 37 the apostle paul after having been beaten and wrongfully imprisoned paul in verse 37 they have beaten us openly uncondemned romans and have thrown us into prison and now do they put us out secretly no indeed let them come themselves and get us out see in a matter of criminal court in a matter of jurisprudence paul says you're wrong when it comes to his interpersonal relationships he talks about those who had been preaching in a way that wasn't good because they hated paul and they had ambition selfish ambition relative to paul in philippians 1. what's he say there it doesn't matter to me insofar as they preach the truth as it is in jesus in his interpersonal relationships paul was willing to forebear long paul was willing to take a lot of abuse paul was willing to to suffer at the hands of of brethren and and men alike but with reference to this application of the lex talionis when it is used improperly in a civil court he says no you can't do that that's absolutely positively wrong chapter 23 in the book of acts verses 2 to 5. acts 23 2 and the high priest ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth then paul said to him god will strike you you whitewashed wall for you sit to judge me according to the law and do you command me to be struck according to the law and those who stood by said do you revile god's high priest then paul said i did not know brethren that he was the high priest for it is written you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people i think i've told you before that some suggest they didn't know because he had you know problems with his eyes we know that he had problems with his eyes he tells us as much in the book of galatians but the argument here is that he didn't know this was the high priest or he would have never answered that way no he answers that way because he says you're not acting like the high priest high priests don't engage in that kind of activity so therefore i didn't know based on your horrible conduct so with reference to criminal or civil court when it comes to jesus and paul they play according to the lex talionis that is how they operate but with reference to jesus and paul in matters of personal relationships on a daily basis that's not the principle they live by they're willing to undergo a great deal of abuse at the hands of friends and even enemies when it comes to their their personal conduct the parallel passage to this is in romans chapter 12 and you can turn there i've already alluded to this and i think that if you get this again it certainly enforces the case i'm trying to present here that there is no contradiction with reference to the justifiable instances of homicide and what jesus teaches in matthew 5 38-42 notice in chapter 12 verse 17 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 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 that's obvious interpersonal relations isn't it it's obviously dealing with those things those offenses that believers receive against themselves in their daily conduct and then notice 13 1 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 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 do you want to be afraid of the authority unafraid of the authority do what is good and you will have praise from the same for his gods minister to you for good but if you do evil be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain free is god's minister in an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil so if pacifism is what is enjoined upon us by jesus and by paul then the pacifist should never ever invoke the civil government to get involved in criminal activity and raise the sword against that criminal you see both things are taught chapter 12 interpersonal relationships do not avenge yourselves but give place to wrath not never emphasize wrath but give place to wrath for vengeance is mine i will repay says the lord one of the means by which god visits with wrath against criminal offenders and those who do great harm is through the civil government and it's wielding of the sword so we have a parallel with reference to the to the interpersonal relationships here in matthew 5 and romans chapter 12. turretin explains blameless protection that means self-defense is not prohibited in romans 12 19 but private revenge if we take the pacifist understanding of matthew 5 38 to 42 we shouldn't lock our doors we shouldn't get big dogs we shouldn't lock our cars we should never call the police we should just allow everybody and anybody to victimize us and do whatever it is that pleases that if that understanding is how we under if that is the correct interpretation to matthew 5 38 42 to 42 then basically we're going to live in hell on earth now when it comes to the sorts of things that we are witnessing today the good question comes up what if blm or antifa calls upon us to give a defense or to tell us if we're christians or not brethren i would suggest in that instance lawful self-defense obtains just last night in portland the blm and antifa seized control of a street right before a police precinct a precinct passers-by were made to stop and in order for them to be able to keep going in their cars they had to raise their arms and support a blm and antifa they had to confess blm now i'm old enough to remember that there were people at one time who understood that marxist communism was antichrist and if you confessed marxist communism then you had renounced faith in jesus christ for whatever reason today the woke among the church think it's cool to confess allegiance to blm brethren it's not cool it is an affront and an offense to the living god this is not a matter of a person giving you a personal insult or giving you some little thing that happens during the day this is an all-out attack upon our faith and therefore as god's people i would suggest you confess your faith and you be prepared to defend yourself accordingly because as we've seen through scripture self-defense is lawful up to and including if it needs to be the case lethal force utilized against a perpetrator i know this may scare some of us i know it may not be something that we're looking forward to but brethren these are the times in which we live and if we have the doctrine down we need to think about these sorts of things and the personal applications we may need to make with reference to the various abuses going on in civil society around us so with reference to this particular instruction by jesus but i tell you not to resist an evil person he is not speaking concerning the law courts he's not speaking concerning defund the police jesus wasn't the prototypical defund the police agent jesus installed the police jesus gave the sword to the civil government jesus demands the protection of judicially a judicially innocent people in a body politic those are non-negotiables brethren that is what we all need to affirm and see now let's look at the illustrations that he gets he tells them verse 39 but i tell you not to resist an evil person now he says but whoever slaps you on your right cheek turn the other to him also if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic let him have your cloak also and whoever compels you to go one mile go with him too give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away so with reference to this particular situation in the first place it is the believer's response to insult okay it is the believer's response to insult i don't think things have changed tremendously from the first century to the 21st century i think that it's probably always been the case i don't know why in god's created order that we are a predominantly right-handed strong people there are lefties among us there might be lefties here we have a lefty my oldest daughter but for the most part we're right-handed if i'm going to strike you on your right cheek that most likely involves a backhand if i'm going to strike you on your right cheek to hurt you i'm going to use a fist or i'm going to use my left hand it's probably a backhand that's in view and thus it's not likely the disfigurement of leviticus 24 19 that demands the lex talionis in leviticus 24 20. it is an insult to one's person that's what's in view not disfigurement not forever harm not the sort of brutalization that occurs when persons don't tow lines that other persons demand france says this is more a matter of honor than of physical injury if somebody disfigures you or is in the process of disfiguring you please defend yourself or if you see somebody else that is being disfigured or potentially being disfigured please defend them you see the monstrous implication of the pacifist reading of matthew 5 is that we assume the posture of the bad guys in jesus teaching in the good samaritan if we're seeing somebody brutalized in the middle of the street we have a responsibility to try and help that person not just to walk by and say well jesus said not to resist an evil person they're just being slapped and disfigured and raped and brutalized but but jesus says i'm not supposed to lift a hand to help them what a vile and a wretched and a vicious way to interpret scripture relative to the second great commandment which is you shall love your neighbor as yourself i'm thankful that there are non-pacifists out there that'll actually help me if i'm getting brutalized by a group of blm thugs praise god for non-pacifists because they help keep the world going pacifists would gladly give it over to the thugs to the rapists to the criminals and murderers and we'd have nothing but hell on earth as a result so brethren it's not disfigurement with reference to the slap on your right cheek this is the reality the christian who lives the way he should in this world ought to expect a certain amount of insult and injury and should willingly suffer such things for the sake of the kingdom that's going to happen people aren't going to like you they're going to insult you they're going to say bad things about you they're going to misrepresent you they're going to slander you they're going to accuse you again we don't apply the lex talionis in each of those instances and say well i'm going to slap them back i'm going to ruin their reputation i'm going to go after them you have to appreciate there's a realm concerning the civil polity and then the realm concerning individual daily ethics the second thing is the believer's response concerning his rights notice in verse 40 if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic let him have your cloak also essentially what jesus is discouraging here is a sue happy or litigious context in which persons live well i'm going to sue you i'm going to take you to court over something that really isn't that big of a deal i mean brethren that is the kind of stuff that that should frustrate and irritate the people of god or the non-people of god who have a degree of common sense why would we fill the courts with litigious sorts of people that are so happy over every little thing that obtains jesus says you need to be willing to relinquish some of your personal rights again you live in a world where there is great hostility to you and your master and therefore there's going to be those issues that occur in your daily lives murray says the lesson is surely not that we are to avoid all appeal to public justice that can't be it brethren if somebody does burn down our our houses we don't just say well i'm gonna go buy another one i'll give you the forwarding address and you can burn that down i noticed that the geniuses who are partying here are burning fires i mean one day we're gonna show up and this place is gonna well i don't think so they would call me and i'd call the fire department and we'd hopefully neutralize that threat but but if they burned down our building we said well that's the way that's the way it goes i mean that just happens let's go buy another building perhaps they'll come and burn that one down that can't be what jesus means brethren so murray says the lesson is surely not that we are to avoid all appeal to public justice as administered by magisterial authority but in line with what we have found in verses 25 and 26 our lord is inculcating the virtue of forbearance even with reference to those who do us injustice and the necessity of resigning ourselves to probations which spring from the miscarriage of justice sometimes you get the shaft sometimes you get messed with and sometimes you're not going to get paid back or sometimes you're going to just have to grin and bear it that's what he's dealing with not if somebody burns your house let them burn down the next one as well spurgeon says the lord our king would have us bear and forebear and conquer by mighty patience i think that's what jesus is inculcating here in the sermon on the mount and then notice the believer's response to the governing authority verse 41. we have paul tell us in romans 13 let every soul be subject to the governing authority for there is no authority except from god and those which exist are established by god so that is the responsibility of private christians individuals before the civil state well jesus says the same thing here in verse 41 and whoever compels you to go one mile go with him too now the particular example refers to the roman practice of commandeering civilians to carry the luggage of military personnel a prescribed distance one roman mile roman soldiers had the right to conscript civilians to carry burdens for them but the practice was despised by the jewish people which i would imagine you could agree with right if you were subject to a governing authority that you absolutely opposed and their military people had the authority to say i want you to carry this for a mile it might not be your happy day you might not say oh great i don't have to work i don't have to visit my wife i don't have to care for an aging mother i have to carry your burden for a mile you see that would go against the grain and persons wouldn't want to be subject to the governing authority in such instances we have an account in the in the gospel narratives matthew 27 32 now as they came out they found a man of cyrene simon by name him they compelled to bear his cross they simon didn't say well i i can't do no he had to do it that was what the law was and so jesus says in your daily interpersonal relationships take it two miles perhaps you'll be able to illustrate or give an answer as to why you went that additional mile because my master loves me my master's called me to do this and my master is most excellent it could have been a great evangelistic opportunity for a person to give the gospel to a roman soldier after having carried that burden for two miles instead of one and then the final is the believer's response to benevolence verse 42 give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away now there's obviously obviously qualifications with reference to this isn't there paul says in 2 thessalonians 3 if a man doesn't work neither let him eat brethren if you're going to hand out money to every homeless person out there understand that most likely you're not really helping them they're going to go buy a bottle they're going to go buy a hit of math or crack or whatever it is that is their drug of choice i mean buy them a bag of potatoes they can eat for a couple of weeks with that with a little industry and a little bit of happiness with routine and mundane hey they can feast for two weeks on a ten pound bear five pound bag of potatoes or whatever it is so there is this reality that there are specific qualifications and we see it in first timothy chapter five do we put all widows on the list no not according to the apostle paul there are criteria that a widow must have met in her life before what widowhood before she's put on the widow's list to get money to get honor which is money in the context from the local church we don't just throw out money this isn't the atm or an abm or whatever we call it here in canada this isn't just whatever anybody wants sure have it take it i know that's the prevailing attitude in christian circles but that's not biblical brethren we are not to be irresponsible with the resources entrusted to us by god most high again if a man doesn't work neither shall he eat that's the apostle paul and it was a real life issue going on in thessalonica they had eschatology fever they had last days madness they thought jesus was going to come at any moment so what did they do they quit their jobs they sat on their roof and they waited for jesus you know paul's response if you don't come down from that roof and get yourself a job you are not going to be allowed to eat in any sort of church function oh boy paul that's so unkind you could hear it today oh paul that's so unmerciful no brethren that is most merciful people shouldn't be sitting on their roofs waiting for the lord jesus to return they should be turning a wrench they should be doing jobs they should be engaged in industry they should be making a living that's the bible as a whole and so when we cherry pick this passage and try and yield or produce some sort of a pacifistic understanding we're going to run head a a a head dad against many other places in scripture that are taught to us now with reference to benevolence with reference to charity what's jesus saying don't be tight-fisted if god's blessed you and prospered you then cough it up if you've got lots of dough then give to those who asked you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away again here he's very consistent with the old testament the old testament says if you see your brother hurting you you help him you know if you're going to take his coat as a surety or as a a down payment return it to him at night so he doesn't freeze to death there there are ways to proceed in a manner of generosity with the necessary qualifications that we don't sort of indulge wickedness on the part of other people christ is consistent with what we find in the old testament christ is consistent with what we find concerning jurisprudence in the civil polity and then our personal daily ethics with one another so the issue isn't pacifism the issue is specifically with reference to jesus the response to insult 39b the response concerning rights verse 40 the response to the governing authority verse 41 and then the response to benevolence in verse 42. he is not teaching new things he is clarifying what the scribal interpretation and the pharisaic misinterpretation had put or imposed on scripture such that we use the law of retribution for our daily lives such that we engage in the sorts of things that are that are absolutely contrary to other portions of scripture so we need to understand the balance and we need to understand there are no contradictions in scripture now just a couple of concluding thoughts first the limitations of the text the limitations of the text it is not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness personally it's not that it is never it is not a universal role rule to never oppose wickedness personally or by extension those around us if somebody is trying to murder your wife it is ungodly it is reprehensible it is wicked to not intervene to not take part in self-defense of her person shame on anybody that would ever teach that with reference to scripture shame on anybody who would teach that a civil polity that's minding its own business but is invaded by a foreign power doesn't have the legitimate authority to take up the sword in its defense are you kidding me how has this ever gained any traction in the church when it is so contradictory not just to the old testament but to the new testament as well this is not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in the church if your brother sins against you let him sin some more no go to him and rebuke him and confront him and if he doesn't repent tell it to the church and it's certainly not a universal rule to never oppose wickedness in scripture romans 13 the civil government wields the sword to execute god's wrath on those who violate his law secondly we ought to appreciate the consistency of holy scripture the biblical case for self-defense i hope you don't you'd all acknowledge the two weeks ago it's clear i don't i i hope you wouldn't go wow i think he just made that up or he just imposed that i mean the text is obvious 22 exodus 22 2-3 somebody breaks in it's night you don't know what they're doing you don't have any help around you and you engage in defense and in that defense you deal a lethal blow to that man and he dies there is no guilt no guilt for the homeowner whatsoever if the sun rises or there's sunlight then you can better determine what his purposes are however if his purposes are to kill you or your family then you can and must defend yourselves up to and including lethal force force if necessary so that is clear those instances of armed response with reference to abram with reference to the the builders of the wall in in jerusalem with reference to our lord's assumption that if the the homeowner the strong man knew the hour the homeowner knew the hour that the burglar was going to come he'd be ready for him what do you think that means with tea and cookies come on in steal what you want no it's to resist him and to refute and rebut and rebuff him so that he can't come in and break into your house and steal stuff now with reference thirdly to the role of the state this passage doesn't speak to it this passage does not speak to the role of civil government it doesn't speak to pacifism it doesn't speak to war it doesn't speak to self-defense it doesn't speak to capital punishment it speaks to your daily interrelationships with other people whether they be in your home again honey you burn the chicken i'll never buy a chicken again in your society in your workplace are you going to be the guy in your workplace that every time somebody insults you you run to the boss boy that's insufferable and your boss will ultimately fire you for such an ethic martin lloyd jones and his commentary on on the sermon on the mount in discussing man's relation this is my words to set the stage in discussing man's relationship to the state and even whether a young man ought to join the military now remember this is a big thing i couldn't remember the name of the movie it was based on a real life historical figure in the movie it was gary cooper what a what a wretch i remember gary cooper but i don't remember the guy it was private somebody it was a it was a good movie but this guy he was a passivist and and based on a true story sergeant york yeah sergeant york a guy uh uh was joining the military or he there was conscription or a draft at the time i think it was world war one or two and and he gets his draft notice well being a pacifist he's obviously not down with this he shouldn't do this and so you know he he starts searching the scripture and he's converted and all that stuff and then he goes in i forget what the turning point was in his life or whatever but he goes and he is i think eventually awarded the medal of honor he understood the principle that yes it's not my thing to kill people but if in killing people i saved this many more then that's what i'm called to do it's just a a a really excellent hollywood movie now it's way old it's you know black and white for those of you who never saw such things and and um and but it was a good depiction of the life of the sergeant york it was a real life guy that had to deal with the situation and so that comes up if a young man wants to pursue military service there might be reasons why he shouldn't i mean if he's in communist china and he's a believer yeah you probably shouldn't go join the military here because you're going to engage in sort of barbaric barbarism or barbarism and things that you ought not but you know in a great polity like our no i'm just kidding there might be other mitigating factors as to why a man shouldn't pursue a military service but in terms of it being evil in and of itself it's not it's absolutely positively not when the baptist is preaching repentance he doesn't tell the soldiers you need to get out of the military you need to renounce your military service you need to stop he doesn't say that he says don't engage in coercion and don't you know try to try to take money or or abuse your power so sir lloyd jones in man's relationship to the state and even whether a young man ought to join the military says that we must seek our answers from roman romans 13 and 1st peter 2. he says of matthew 5 38 to 42. now quote this is lloyd jones this is only concerned about my personal relationships and yet how often when a man's duty towards the state is being considered this passage is quoted i suggest it has nothing whatsoever to do with it i could not underscore affirm or highlight or confirm that any more than i do that that is absolutely positively true and those who have flipped it on its head and have yielded pacifism ought to be ashamed of themselves because that is the most sloppy exegesis that i've ever seen and they need to repent for the positive harm that they have done to people and making them think it's somehow wrong to rebuff a criminal offender who comes into our premises with unknown reasons brethren stop the man do not let him in he may kill you he may kill your wife he may kill your kids don't let him do it finally the emphasis of the text if the disposition or rather if it is not d dealing with our relation to the state it is dealing with the disposition of the believer's heart before god and men there's going to be issues and challenges in your interpersonal relationships are you the insufferable one that complains about everything that has to exact revenge for every misdeed that's ever done to you if so you're violating this passage if that's the that's your life and your response and the way that you conduct yourself then i would definitely suggest meditation on matthew 5 38-42 what do we do when we're insulted again not called to renounce our faith by blm but when we're insulted by others what do we do with reference to our our civil government do we comply do we submit do we do what paul says in romans 13. what about when someone asks for money i mean sure it's good to lecture them on the virtues of work and industry and all that sort of thing too but you know give them a bag of potatoes also that kind of helps facilitate the lesson that you just gave them ryle says a readiness to resent injuries a quickness in taking offense a quarrelsome and contentious disposition a keenness in asserting our rights all are contrary to the mind of christ and that's what the text is talking about exemplified in this historical context by most of the pharisees by most of the religious leaders by those persons that had basically taken the law of god and had misinterpreted it and applied it and therefore persons were following them and engaged in the sorts of things condemned by our lord jesus here well i'll pray and if there's any questions or comments we can deal with that our father we thank you for your word we thank you for its consistency we thank you for its clarity we thank you for your goodness god in not only speaking to matters of interpersonal relationships but in speaking to matters of jurisprudence and the need for a magistrate that does exercise that authority in a lawful way that does punish criminal offenders for certainly god if a society doesn't engage in such things we will have as it were hell on earth so we pray for our governing governing authorities that they would be responsible agents that they would do what they're supposed to do that they would do it well and that you would grant them wisdom to engage in such things and help us to get what this tax does say not to be small minded not to be vindictive not to be petty not to be those exacting revenge for everything done to us god help us to bear and to forebear and to represent well our king and master in this world and we ask through jesus christ our lord amen any questions or comments all right