← Back to sermon library

freeze it it is certainly difficult to ascertain the purpose of an intruder at night you're just woken up you're a bit groggy you hear some noise you go down there and you dispatch the man who has intruded into your house the law doesn't find you guilty at that point the homeowner is not justified however if he kills the criminal during the daytime unless of course the criminal is trying to kill him if the criminal is trying to kill him or his family then he's able to use that force necessary to neutralize the the the for uh the threat posed by the invader or the intruder and with reference to the rationale for the distinction again the homeowner is better able to assess the threat level posed by an intruder in the daytime as well you've got witnesses and you've got friends and you've got other people that are awake and alert to this particular situation during the daytime in fact matthew poole comments on killing the criminal at night he says because in that case the thief might be presumed to have a worse design and the owner of the house could neither expect or have the help of others to secure him from the intended violence nor guide his blows with that discretion and moderation which in the daytime he might use in the daytime you might realize that a quick sharp blow to the face will stop the intruder you don't know that at night and so you repel him with deadly force the bible god's law does not find you criminally responsible for the act of murder or for any guilt concerning bloodshed if this attack happens at night if it is during the daytime again if the man is there to kill you or kill your family then obviously you use self-defense up to and including lethal force if necessary but if he is a thief and he's there simply to to steal things you can assess that and you can meet that with the proper resistance and you can invoke aid and help from neighbors around but then notice the sanction in verse 3b if the son has risen on him verse 3a there shall be guilt for his bloodshed to the homeowner but the fact is is that just because it's daytime it's not okay that this man breaks in and steals if it is the case that he has come committed an act of thievery then there is sanction owing and due to that particular man not lethal force from the homeowner during the daytime but some sort of force concerning the the the violation of of laws within the body well uh commonwealth rather of israel notice 3b he this is the criminal should make full restitution and as you read through this section concerning laws regulating personal property you will see that the bible is very pro-victim it isn't pro-criminal it is pro-victim and if somebody victimizes you or somebody takes from you or somebody steals from you then it is imperative that they pay you back i realize this is a revolutionary concept in our day i realize that this is just you know nutty sort of old uh barbaric uh concepts or antiquated thoughts but this is the reality if somebody deprives you of something it is up to them to pay you back now if it is the case that this particular thief does not have wherewithal to pay you back then notice what the tax specifies if he has nothing then he shall be sold for his theft now that refers to what is called indentured servitude again we find the idea reprehensible personally if i was a criminal i would much prefer living in the context of a covenant family that fed me and catechized me and taught me versus living in a prison where i'd be victimized by by hardcore criminal offenders i think that the prison system is barbarism and i think indentured servitude is a much preferred path for those who have lost their way and need some correction and i think a covenant family in israel would afford that and would provide for that the laws regard regarding slaves back in chapter 21 verses 1 to 11 most likely or at least in many categories it was for that very reason they didn't have a big prison system in old covenant israel if you got caught you paid back if you couldn't pay back you were an indentured servant uh if you were guilty of a capital offense you were executed there wasn't this massive prison population that the nation of israel had to support with taxation and with other sorts of things so the latter part of the law prohibits killing the offender in the hours of daylight but that does not mean the criminal goes un unpunished it means that the criminal must pay back he must make restitution and the criminal must be sold for his theft if he cannot pay back notice it's pay back the victim not the state that's another problem with the modern prison system criminals are sent to prison to pay their debt to society well they didn't take from society they took from me or they took from you they should pay back me or they should pay back you i shouldn't be doubly penalized having been deprived of what they've stolen from me and now i have to pay through taxation to support them on a daily and a regular basis pro-victim is what biblical law is and i would suspect that's why humanists hate it so much before we move on though i want to give you a few thoughts from francis turriten turretin comments on this section and his treatment of the sixth commandment you shall not murder and he deals with the lawful instances of justifiable homicide and he has a subset or a sub heading where it says defensive homicide is not forbidden defensive homicide is not forbidden and then he gives four rules or four observations or four things that should obtain when we invoke the right to defend ourselves up to and including lethal force he says in the first place it is necessary that the aggressor unjustly assails and falls upon us that makes perfect sense it is necessary that the aggressor unjustly assails and falls upon us there must be that in play before we are vindicated with reference to defensive homicide secondly it is necessary that the defender be placed beyond all blame while every other way of escaping morally by speaking or flying or yielding is shut against him in other words if he can run if he can talk his way out of it that is to be preferred than actually killing the person but if necessary kill the person to defend yourself thirdly it is necessary that the defense be made during the very attack and not after it is over see what he's trying to discriminate against is what's called vigilante-ism where somebody wrongs you and then you plot their demise and you spend weeks in plotting and conniving and then you end up you know sitting in the clock tower and you take him out that is not the the proper sort of construct or uh uh confines relative to uh uh the execution of a criminal offender in terms of self-defense and then he says it is necessary that nothing is done by him under the impulse of anger or with the feeling and desire of revenge but with the sole intention of defending himself which as you see in the particular scenario envisaged that would be it if you're awakened from your sleep and you're an intruder in your house you don't have any personal acts to grind against this man you're not seeking revenge against this man you are defending yourself and you are defending your family against an intruder with reference to romans 12 19 which stipulates beloved do not avenge yourselves but rather give place to wrath for it is written vengeance is mine i will repay says the lord he judiciously comments here blameless protection is not prohibited in romans 12 19 but private revenge and i'll argue when we get to matthew 5 verses 38 to 42 that's what jesus is talking about as well private revenge your interpersonal relationships the various things that you go through on a daily basis christ is not contradicting the biblical authorization for us to defend ourselves against murderers and rapists and those who would seek to do us great harm whatever jesus teaches in matthew 5 38 to 42 it cannot contradict what the law of god teaches throughout in fact jesus affirms uh exodus 22 in matthew chapter 5 and we'll see that in just a moment but in terms of one other thing i wanted to read i didn't have time or didn't think about writing it down in my notes but another thing turretton says which i think is very helpful when it comes to dispatching criminal elements in society the the monopoly belongs to the civil state they're supposed to operate at a level where they wield the sword for the uh uh the execution of the wrath of god in history on criminal offenders and so one of the big things that reformed theologians and ethicists have often considered is the authority the authorization behind someone engaging in an act of justifiable homicide so with reference to the civil state god gives them the sword genesis 9 romans 13. so the authority behind the civil state executing criminal offenders is god almighty so do we have authority as individuals as independent men and women to exercise lethal force force if necessary in order to protect ourselves he says this he says nor does he who justly defends his own life do it by the private undertaking but by the public authority of the law of nature and the old boys the older theologians spoke often of what's called the law of nature sometime we're going to deal with that in more detail perhaps when we get to chapter 19 or perhaps we'll do some sermons on on the law of nature natural law or natural theology in other words the older authors understood that being created in the image of god and having god's law written on our hearts vis-a-vis creation not redemption men know certain aspects concerning god's world they know certain truths about god and what turriton says is that the natural law or the law of nature is in fact the authority behind private citizens defending themselves even up to and including lethal force against the offender he says the injunctions to love our enemies do not take away the necessary defense of life because the foundation of the love of neighbors is the love of ourselves and so when we ask for authority or authorization we certainly have the law of god and we have what older theologians would call the law of nature or natural law now secondly there are some biblical illustrations to demonstrate this reality they may not be exactly precise they may not be exactly the same but they certainly demonstrate the use of weaponry to engage if necessary in lethal force for the defense of ourselves or the defense of others the first is genesis chapter 14. remember there was that coalition of kings that came against another coalition of kings and in the midst of this lot was abducted lot was taken and in genesis 14 13 it says then one who had escaped came and told abram the hebrew for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of mamrie the amorite brother of eshkol and brother aynor and they were allies with abram now when abram heard that his brother was taken captive he armed his 318 trained servants who were born in his own house and went in pursuit as far as dan he divided his forces against them by night and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as hobart which is north of damascus so he brought back all the goods and also brought back his brother lot and his goods as well as the women and the people so an armed response to the abduction of lot such that they were willing to use lethal force if necessary to liberate his nephew turn to nehemiah chapter four nehemiah chapter four this is a post-exilic situation when the people of israel returned to judah they were given authorization by cyrus to build the temple to build the wall uh to build rebuild the city including the wall well there was opposition among those persons in the land to what the israelites were doing and we see that in chapter four notice in verse one but so it so happened when sanballat heard that we were rebuilding the wall that he was furious and very indignant and mocked the jews and he spoke before his brethren in the army of samaria and said what are these feeble jews doing will they fortify themselves will they they offer sacrifices will they complete it in a day will they revive the stones from the heaps of rubbish stones that are burned now tobiah the ammonite was beside him and he said whatever they build if even a fox goes up on it he will break down their stone wall now note the first level of response hear oh our god for we are despised turn their reproach on their own heads and give them as plunder to a land of captivity do not cover their iniquity and do not let their sin be blotted out from before you for they have provoked you to anger before the builders so they pray to god they pray with an imprecation that god would indeed vindicate and protect them and that god would essentially smash the enemies that were in opposition to this building program notice in verse six so we built the wall and the entire wall was joined together up to half its height for the people had a mind of work now it happened when san ballot tobiah the arabs the ammonites and the ashtodites heard that the walls of jerusalem were being restored and the gaps were beginning to be closed that they became very angry and all of them conspired together to come and attack jerusalem and create confusion nevertheless we made our prayer to god and because of them we set a watch against them day and night it was cromwell who said pray and keep your powder dry pray and use the lawful means that god has ordained pray and utilize those things that are legitimately afforded to you under god in creation for your protection so they not only prayed but then it says because of them we set a watch against them day and night then judah said the strength of the laborers is failing and there is so much rubbish that we're not able to build the wall and our adversary said they will neither know nor see anything till we come into their midst and kill them and cause the work to cease so it was when the jews who dwelt near them came that they told us ten times from whatever place you turn they will be upon us therefore i position men behind the lower parts of the wall at the openings and i set the people according to their families with their swords their spears and their bows and i looked and arose and said to the nobles to the leaders and to the rest of the people do not be afraid of that remember the lord great and awesome and fight for your brethren your sons your daughters your wives and your houses whatever jesus teaches in matthew 5 38-42 it cannot cause us to reflect upon this and see this in a negative light they have the sanction and the authority of god almighty and they have the blessing upon them from god most high verse 15 and it happened when our enemies heard that it was known to us and that god had brought their plot to nothing that all of us returned to the wall everyone to his work so it was from that time on that half of my servants worked at construction while the other half held the spear the shields the bows and wore armor and the leaders were behind all the house of of judah it's wrong it's unauthorized for a government or for a body politic to try and deprive persons of those implements necessary to defend themselves in a body politic gun control is godless if we're not breaking the law with guns then leave us alone those who built on the wall and those who carried burdens verse 17 loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction and with the other held a weapon every one of the builders had his sword girded at his girded at his side as he built and the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me again it's not directly connected in terms of a private break-in but you get the point god is not against his people using defense with reference to criminal elements that seek to do great harm to them this is the natural law this is an expression of our loving our neighbor as ourselves we love ourselves enough to protect ourselves from being from being brutalized by some mop we love others so that we can by god's grace try to prevent and try to help them from being brutalized by some mob we have the words of solomon in proverbs chapter 24. proverbs 24 verse 11. now this is a bit ambiguous in terms of its application uh there's a lot of different sort of commentary on how we are to interpret or the specifics we are to interpret it with or in connection to but the idea i think is germane to the study lawful defense not only of self but of others as well so in 2411 deliver those who are drawn toward death and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter if you say surely we did not know this does not he who weighs the hearts consider it he who keeps your soul does he not know it and will he not render to each man according to his deeds so if we have the power to stop some calamity from happening and we don't do it stop that calamity from happening then we'll be held accountable under god as a result of that that's at least clear in the text so deliver those who are drawn toward death hold back those stumbling to the slaughter if you say surely we did not know this does not god who weighs the hearts consider it he who keeps your soul does he not know it and will he not render to each man according to his deeds if we have the authority or the ability or the opportunity to help our fellows from being done great harm or or or destruction by violators and we don't do it then we're going to be held culpable or responsible as a result again some old testament illustrations turn thirdly with me to the teaching of jesus matthew chapter 5 in the first instance not 5 38 to 42 as i said we'll deal with that lord willing next week but matthew chapter 5 at the very beginning well kind of just at the very beginning remember that by the time of the sermon on the mount jesus popularity is growing it is increasing if you look at chapter five verse one sing the multitudes he went up on a mountain and when he was seated his disciples came to him then he opened his mouth and taught them saying so there is this buzz about concerning jesus he's the new rabbi he's the new teacher he is one that persons want to hear so all these multitudes gather together to hear him so it's the disciples and the multitudes that's why i argue that one of the functions of the sermon on the mount is that second use of the law the pedagogue the child tutor jesus is not a theological liberal he is not you know one of those persons that says okay here's the law chapters five to seven just obey that and be happy forever and ever and after ever after no one of the functions of the ma of matthew 5 to 7 which is jesus preaching on the law is to show sinners their sin and their need for the lord jesus so one of the functions is pedagogical so you have all these multitudes and no doubt religious leaders and they're curious what is this new rabbi's position relative to the old testament law in other words is he come to be an innovator has he come to sort of do away with moses or has he come consistent with moses and old covenant law well jesus gives his general hermeneutics in matthew 5 verses 17 uh 17 and 18. notice in verse 17 do not think that i came to destroy the law or the prophets that's biblical shorthand for the old testament law prophets and writings those are the three distinctions that the jews make with reference to the hebrew canon so do not think that i came to destroy the law or prophets i didn't come to destroy but to fulfill now persons go a little hog wild here and they say well we don't have any sort of relationship to god's law anymore because christ fulfilled it yes we're thankful for his act of obedience to the law and for the imputed righteousness of jesus given to us and received by faith alone but one of the other things that he does he not only fulfills it but he confirms it he demonstrates clearly the intentions of it the six sort of examples that follow in matthew chapter five show that you have heard that it was sad uh uh uh uh uh of old uh but i say to you uh the the antithesis there isn't between moses and jesus it's between pharisaic misinterpretation and jesus so jesus is clarifying and jesus is clearing away the fog that had attached itself to the teaching of god's law based on the pharisees scribes the others that that had messed up so he says do not think that i came to destroy the law or the prophets i did not come to destroy but to fulfill for assuredly i say to you till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled so he upholds the abiding validity of god's law everybody sees that right that's as clear as clear can be now he issues two cautions relative to the law of god that we should pay attention to notice the first caution is against antinomianism verse 19 whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men 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 it's a condemnation a rebuke of or proof of what's called antinomianism if somebody doesn't teach the law of god if somebody does not confirm these things if somebody does not hold this up he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven intriguing he's still in the kingdom of heaven it's one of the distinctions i see between antinomianism and legalism he now addresses legalism in verse 20. 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 again i think we need to understand this as the imputation of the righteousness of jesus one of the aspects of the sermon on the mount is to preach the law of god to show sinners their need for jesus christ in fact machine makes this very obvious let me see if i have matron's comment here he says the sermon on the mount rightly interpreted then makes man a seeker after some divine means of salvation by which entrants into the kingdom can be obtained the sermon on the mount like all the rest of the new testament really leads a man straight to the foot of the cross lloyd jones saw this as well there is nothing that so utterly condemns us as the sermon on the mount there is nothing so utterly impossible so terrifying and so full of doctrine indeed i'd not hesitate to say that were it not that i knew of the doctrine of justification by faith only i would never look at the sermon on the mount because it is a sermon before which we all stand completely naked and all together without hope so again the normative use this is what the people of god blood bought children of god filled with the holy spirit should live according to the to the sermon on the mount the sermon on the mount in terms of the civil use it is a it is the law of god that restrains the wickedness of man you cannot bypass the pedagogical use of the sermon on the mount jesus is showing us our destitution before him and our great necessity for redemption through his blood so you've got this hermeneutical statement in chapter 5 verses 17 and 18 you have these warnings against antinomianism and against legalism in verses 19 and 20 and then you have this six six sets of antitheses or these six examples notice in verse 21 you have heard that it was said to those of old you shall not murder and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment for instance the old testament prescribed or prohibited heart murder it's not the case that jesus is elevating the law here jesus is clarifying what the law always intended leviticus 19 we're told not to hate our neighbor in our heart and so through pharisaic interpretation as long as you didn't stop someone's heart from beating you are okay that's why he goes into the whole character assassination that's why when he gets down to the commandment prohibiting adultery pharisees said well as long as you don't actually go into your neighbor's wife you're okay well the old covenant law never allowed you to go into your neighbor's wife mentally it never permitted you to think through lustfully about your neighbor's wife the tenth commandment prohibits that but in the history of interpretation a lot the the pharisees were going to pick on them specifically sadducees scribes those who who had missed the vote as long as you satisfied the external requirement everything was okay so christ is not here elevating law over against moses christ is here interpreting moses law over and against the pharisees who had messed it up and who had twisted and distorted it so that's his commitment to old testament law a second thing we ought to appreciate in jesus teaching is his assumption of self-defense you can turn to luke 12. luke chapter 12. now this is not a passage wherein jesus says here are my views on self-defense where jesus says here is my affirmation of exodus 22 verses 2 and 3. that's not what it is but rather what it is is an assumption that there is in the heart of people that own homes to guard their families to guard themselves and to guard their property again the deprivation of someone's property isn't in direct attack upon their lives face it you know as our brother has often said or at least i've often repeated we don't live on love and fresh air if people take away our right to livelihood that is an attack upon our being it's another unfortunate i mean unfortunate is probably the softest word you can use but to see business owners and to see people losing their jobs and their livelihoods and their potential to make a living that is a horrible byproduct of this pandemic and the response by the government to it we cannot live or think that we're we're disembodied spirits disembodied spirits don't need walmart disembodied spirits don't need costco they don't need refrigerators they don't need cupboards with food but we're not disembodied spirits so we do need all those things and when the government tries to get between a man a woman and their ability to make a living that is an indirect attack upon their lives that's a different sort of category i'm not therefore suggesting we march against ottawa armed to the teeth and gun everybody down but the bottom line is we cannot be the kinds of morons that just say well it's just property it's just damage it's just the destruction it's just looting it's just burning what if that was your property what if that was your livelihood it is intriguing no government officials have lost a paycheck no government officials have felt any ramifications for this it's really easy to speak with such platitudes when you've got no skin in the game but with reference to the rest of us the rabble in this world we need to protect our lives our families and our stuff and again with reference to our stuff i don't advocate lethal force if somebody wants my wallet i'm going to give him my wallet if somebody wants my life i'm going to give him my fists if somebody wants my car i don't want to give it to him but i'd rather give it to him than kill him but if he wants to take the life of my wife or engage in some other activity against my family then we're going to fight then there's going to be self-defense now with reference to this assumption notice what jesus says in luke 12. verse 35 let your waste be girded in your lamps burning and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master when he will return from the wedding that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately blessed are those servants whom the master when he comes will find watching assuredly i say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat and will come and serve them and if he should come in the second watch or come in the third watch and find them so blessed are those servants now note verse 39 but know this that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into jesus assumes this it's natural law of course we love ourselves to the point where we're going to defend ourselves and we're going to defend those closest to us and defend the property which affords us to have life and liberty so jesus assumes self-defense he doesn't treat it as some abnormality but he appeals to something that everybody knows the mccloskeys are vindicated the mccloskeys were right and jesus tells us as much in this passage now a third observation in the teaching of jesus is luke 22. luke chapter 22. verse 35 and he said to them when i sent you without money bag knapsack and sandals did you lack anything so they said nothing then he said to them but now he who has a money bag let him take it and likewise a knapsack and he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one so previously jesus sent his disciples out on a preaching teaching ministry he sent them out on a missionary enterprise and he told them you don't need to bring stuff you're going to be supported the laborer is worthy of his wages and you're going to be fed you're going to be helped and all that sort of thing after the resurrection of christ and his ascension on high to lead captivity captive and to give good gifts to men there's going to be persecution inflicted upon the people of god and so in that particular circumstance or in that instance but now he who has a money bag let him take it and likewise a knapsack and he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one it's an intriguing sort of uh observation that i made yesterday in terms of the history of interpretation everybody wants to make this symbolic everybody wants to make it metaphorical well i don't think the money bag and the knapsack were symbolic or metaphorical i think without a money bag or a knapsack you're going to starve to death that's just the reality so we would never make that symbolic or metaphorical why do we do that with the sword now jesus is not saying get the sword and go down and go out and gun down your enemies and advance my cause by the sword no it's not just the offensiveness of a sword that's in view but defensive they would need protection they would need protection from criminals from perhaps beasts and from other sorts of things that would threaten their lives it is simply not the case that we can relegate this to metaphor to imagery or to symbolize up what good is a symbolic sword when thugs prevail upon you what good is a symbolic sword when you're walking down the street and a bear comes out from the the side of the the road and wants to devour you well i'm going to wield my symbolic sword absolutely not jesus commands them to purchase a sword jesus commands them to be able to protect themselves the sword is not metaphorical or symbolic but a literal sword the sword was not to be utilized in an offensive manner again we don't advance the cause of jesus the way islam advances the cause of muhammad we advance it through preaching and prayer but that does not mean we let people just kill us that does not mean we let bears pounce upon us it means that we use the sword the means that god has given to protect ourselves from undue harm or damage now some will cite matthew 26 you can turn back there and jesus statement to peter concerning the sword in that instance we're going to be coming to that next time in the lord's supper tonight we're going to have the lord betrayed in the garden and then following the next time we'll have the lord arrested in the garden but notice in chapter 26 matthew 26 50. but jesus said to him friend why have you come then they came and laid hands on jesus and took him and suddenly one of those who were with jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear but jesus said to him put your sword in its place for all who take the sword will perish by the sword or do you think that i cannot now pray to my father and he will provide me with more than 12 legions of angels how then could the scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen thus the emphasis is upon the messianic agenda peter you're not supposed to try to cut malcus's head off malcus is operating under the sovereignty of god to arrest me to deliver me up to the sanhedrin and then to pontius pilate so that he can give the kill order and so that i can die on the cross and rise again for the salvation of people they are two entirely different scenarios sheath the sword if it means you're going to stop up the progress of the messianic agenda pull out the sword if bears or criminals prevail upon you in the in the land of palestine when you're out there preaching and teaching the gospel of jesus christ our lord again it just seems so obvious and it's intriguing how many people just say oh no sword bad sword bad gun bat brethren swords and guns are not bad men are bad and if we don't use them in a bad way then we are not breaking god's law and we should not be considered to be breaking man's law and so we need to think clearly on these issues and then finally as i said the confessional statement one of the things that is intriguing is that you see such consistency in the reformed tradition and dare i say it even in the catholic tradition this morning my beloved said boy this present pope is a really odd guy he's sort of a leftist and all that sort of thing i'm thinking of lutheran satire that uh site where they refer to him as frank the hippie pope and i had to concede yeah he's not consistent with aquinas he's not consistent with augusta aquinas on self-defense is everything that i've said to you and what turretin says and what calvin says the the the historic christian faith always saw this very clearly there was no sort of gray area well jesus taught us to teach or to turn the other cheek therefore do we allow criminal offenders to come in and rape our families absolutely positively not so i think westminster larger catechism and shrouds for us two great statements concerning self-defense in the larger catechism and again this is the section dealing with the sixth commandment you shall not murder and it says what are the duties required in the sixth commandment and giving a litany of various things it ends with this comforting and suckering the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent that is a duty required in the sixth commandment according to the divines at westminster protecting and defending the innocent westminster larger catechism 136 what are the sins forbidden calvin has a great section in the institutes on how the law of god is to be treated and one of the things that he says is that we look at the law to see what is prohibited and we look at the law to see what is required the historic confessions do that and that's why westminster does what it does on the fir in the first place what are the duties required and then what are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment it says 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 again this is not revolutionary the reformed faith is consistent dare i say it the catholic faith is consistent i don't have the wherewithal of the ability to examine the eastern orthodox faith but i would imagine if you go back in their documentation the same thing obtains it is simply not the case that matthew 5 38 to 42 overturned the emphasis in scripture on the defense of ourselves and the defense of others so whatever jesus teaches in matthew 5 38 to 42 it cannot contradict the data that we have considered this morning so god willing next time will take some time to exegete and look at in more detail matthew 5 2 38 to 42. well any questions or comments before i close in prayer anything at all seems like he just went willingly yeah but at that point it wasn't he didn't go into the or into the presence of the sanhedrin mindful that they were going to kill him right it was initially an intellectual dispute it was initially an interchange of ideas perhaps he felt that my presentation of truth will win the day and i will be vindicated so it's not the exact same sort of situation right it was you know the he disputed they allege that he's speaking blasphemous words against moses and against the law and so he's going to have his day in court and he's going to provide the defense so then of course after they obviously don't listen they prevail upon him and they execute him as if he was in fact a blasphemer so so you know and and there's a myriad of questions you know again the brother that asked about this and it was great it was that this should be ask of us if you're sitting at you know your favorite restaurant in town and blhem or antifa gets in your face and screams at you are you a christian what is your response i'm not sure i have all the answers but i am suggesting that this idea that it's wrong for believers to defend themselves or have guns or those things necessary to defend themselves that that's somehow wrong or violates or contradicts jesus teaching that is nonsensical that is such bad exegesis it is such bad christian ethics that for those who fall prey to that you need to get your minds right and you need to get clear on what scripture says i think we're coming to a crossroads where this willy-nilly kind of a piecemeal appro piecemeal approach to christian ethics it ain't gonna satisfy the very issues that are confronting us today there's a lot of things that we have to think through and think about and be prepared for that i don't think we had to think about it be prepared for even 10 or 20 years ago i didn't think we'd see sanctioned authorized legitimized looting rioting and murdering in many cities in the united states of america and some cities here in canada i didn't think we'd get to this point personally if you'd asked me 10 years ago do you think we're going to have a hundred days of rioting in portland i would have sent your nuts there's cops there's national guard there's there's there's restraint there's law there's order they're supposed to be those things well if we as god's people are caught in the crossfire we as god's people better think biblically concerning our responsibilities before our god and with reference to those around us i mean again if matthew 5 38 to 42 teaches what the pacifist understanding means then there's no locks no dogs no alarms just leave your windows open and if a criminal comes in and says i want to rape your wife tell them my daughters are in the hallway down the down the way there's no room for restraint on a pacifist reading of matthew 5 38-42 if it means what they say it means it teaches way too much and those are some areas that persons i hope upon further reflection would not want to go down yes sir when he right talking about the you know taking a knapsack in luke 22 yeah and the sword this question for you is in in verse 38 so they said look here are two stores i think he means it's enough to have two swords i can look that up and and try to have a better response but but yeah i i think that you know to to sim make it symbolic or metaphorical it's just a bizarre twist on i guess we just don't want to think about jesus saying it's okay to have a sword to protect yourself and i wonder why i love that jesus wants me to be able to protect myself i love that the the wall builders in nehemiah prayed and held a sword along with their trowel remember spurgeon's magazine the sword and the trowel the reference to that you got the trowel for the work you got the sword for the defense if the lord god most high authorizes us to use something for our personal defense that is legit that is consistent that is a good thing and we are not to be holier than god more righteous than god more pure than god and somehow suggests that it's wrong for a christian to defend him or herself that is wrong and it is unfortunate that it has gotten such traction in the church today well let's pray our father we thank you for your word we thank you for it's clarity at this point we thank you that you speak not only to matters concerning faith but also to practice practice in spiritual things and practice and physical things in a temporal world that is marked by sin and evil and rebellion god i pray that we would thank your thoughts after you including the book of exodus i pray that you'd bless our time of worship now we pray that the holy spirit would come in power we pray that you would use the sword of the spirit the word of god to bring salvation to sinners and to bring edification to the people of god and we ask this through jesus christ our lord amen you