One, remember Exodus chapter 20, the Ten Commandments, the general principles of God's law. And then chapters 21 to 23, how to apply those principles in society. So in chapter 21, we have the laws concerning slaves or servants in verses 1 to 11. Then we had laws on homicide and bodily injury. in beginning in verse 12 all the way through verse 32. And then tonight we're going to start the laws on property damage and theft. So that goes from chapter 21 verse 33 to chapter 22 verse 15. So tonight we'll just take up the end portion of chapter 21. So beginning in verse 33 and we'll move to chapter 22 at verse 4. But I'll read the section beginning in verse 33. And if a man opens a pit or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good. he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. If one man's ox hurts another's so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it, and the dead ox they shall also divide. Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own. If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five ox and four an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor's goods. For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges, and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, and that he has not put his hand into his neighbor's goods, and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if in fact it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn. And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good. If it was hired, it came for its hire." Amen. Now, remember that there were judges in Israel, judges that would take the law and apply the law, and so this is not exhaustive and comprehensive speaking to every detail. Rather, it's representative, and it gives the judges enough information on how to give verdicts concerning difficult issues. As well, you see built into some of these particular commands or codes, there's a bit of leeway in terms of the judge, what he's able to do in terms of punishment and sanctions applied to the criminal in view or to the one that is negligent. Most of this does deal with negligence on the part of somebody in the body politic. And certainly, as we move through this section, we see it as a necessary element for us to be responsible people when we are dealing with others. We want to make sure that we don't endanger persons, we want to make sure we don't endanger their property, destroy their property through our negligence or things of that sort. As well, you'll see a heavy emphasis on restitution. You'll see that the Bible or biblical law is very pro-victim. The Bible isn't pro-criminal, rather it is pro-victim. In other words, the victim who is wronged has recourse or redress under the law to get whatever wrong righted. And so this is one of the emphases that we see in this particular section. So tonight we're going to look at the threat to a neighbor's animal. You see that in 21.33 to 22.1 and 4. So you've got 22 in verse 1 dealing with a man who steals an ox. or a sheep, and then in verse 4 you see there's a man who stole it and he nevertheless is alive. So that applies to the same sort of a thing. We're dealing with damage to an animal or the death of an animal in verses 33 to 36 in chapter 21. and then verses 1 and 4 in chapter 22. And if you ask why did Moses write it that way, it might have to do with something called chiasm, which is a literary convention that is all over the Old Testament. But then as well, after the threat to a neighbor's animal, we'll notice secondly the defense of a person's home. And incidentally, verses 2 and 3 in Exodus 22 legitimizes self-defense. And that's something that we do well to understand and to know in terms of our own life in this world with reference to ourselves, with reference to those around us whom we know and love. But let's look first at the threat to a neighbor's animal. You have first the death of an animal through negligence in verses 33 and 34. Then there's the death of an animal by another animal in verses 35 and 36. And then you have the theft of an animal in chapter 22, verses 1 and 4. So in the first place, the death of an animal through negligence. Notice it's a pretty simple situation. Verse 33, if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. Now, when we look at a law like this, again, negligence is in view. He dug a pit. But it's also the case that the man whose animal wandered into this neighbor's farm is not without any blame whatsoever. So there's not a generous sort of a compensation paid to the man who lost his animal. No, it's pretty straightforward. The owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his. Again, your animal shouldn't have wandered into my farm and fell into my pit. So it's just that the man who owns the pit pay the man, but it's just that the man who owns the pit keep the animal that fell into the pit. He shouldn't be doubly jeopardized because of this particular situation. So again, built into this law code, there is compensation, there is restitution, but there's equity involved. A person shouldn't be able to sue the guy into oblivion because his animal wandered over to his farm and fell into his pit. And then you've got the case of the death of an animal by another animal. Again, same sort of a thing in verse 35. If one man's ox hurts another's so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it and the dead ox they shall also divide. Again, it's an unfortunate situation, it's an accident, but it is just that. So one man isn't deprived in a way that is vicious or unkind or unequitable. Rather, they make the best out of a difficult situation. So if one man's ox hurts another so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox, divide the money from it, and then the dead ox they shall also divide. Good, fair principle in terms of a just recompense to the man whose animal lost in the barnyard fight. And then notice though in verse 36, there's an aggravated situation in view. Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox and the dead animal shall be his own. Again, it's not malicious in the sense that he's a violent offender in the civil order, but there is a pinch applied to him in replacing ox for ox. However, he does get to keep the dead animal. Now, the issue, again, is criminal negligence, not criminal negligence, but negligence in terms of a situation that comes as a result of that negligence. Stewart makes the comment, he says, both these laws recognize that animal behavior was not totally predictable and controllable. We all get that, right? You can't predict the actions of your animal. So again, these are given in this law code to speak to a whole plethora of situations. This wouldn't be the only thing. that would ever obtain in a situation where there were animals, but this would give a general guideline to a judge in terms of adjudicating so that both men got what was coming to them. So both these laws recognize that animal behavior was not totally predictable and controllable, but also attempted to provide a fair and equitable solution when someone lost a valuable asset, a farm animal. I think that's right. So we've got these laws, these principles in order, so that the judges can come to determine who is negligent, what the negligent person gets or gives, and what the person who loses gets or gives. Now when it comes to the theft of an animal in chapter 22, verses 1 and 4, I want to first notice the principle of restitution. I've already highlighted that. As you move through this particular section, you see that emphasized a lot. Restitution. What does that mean? It means to make good on the harm that has been done. It means to restore the situation as well as one can in order to provide redress to the party that lost in a particular transaction. The principle of restitution means the victim is compensated for his loss. It's intriguing today, you don't hear a lot about restitution. You hear about debts owed to the state and that a criminal owes his penalty to the state. What about the guy that he violated or that he stole from? So the principle of restitution means the victim is compensated for his loss. The principle of restitution requires the offender to deal personally with the person he wronged. It puts a face and it puts concrete sort of application to this particular individual's crime. In other words, it's not some... impersonal offense against the cosmic state, but it's a crime against another human being. And so this principle of restitution personalizes it, hopefully to the point where the guy who's violated the other person won't do such a thing again, because he knows that this other person's family suffered. No longer did they have an animal that was helpful in terms of the farm. The principle of restitution permits the offender to return to normal society after he makes restoration. Brethren, that's a good thing. The law of God builds that in. You commit a criminal act, you pay the debt in terms of that criminal act, you should be a free man to be able to live your life without being a second-class citizen. I mean, when there's a person that's guilty of a crime and then they are punished for that crime, in many instances it's almost like they're perpetually punished for that crime. That's not the principle of justice that we see played out in the pages of biblical law. And then the principle of restitution does not require the civil state to provide room and board. And that brings me to consider the absence of a prison system in this biblical law code. If you read the Old Testament, you'll not find a command to build prisons. You'll not find a command to build jails. You'll not find a command to do this. Now some would say, well that's by virtue of the fact that they were living a nomadic life when they were wandering around the wilderness. Certainly they wouldn't have built a prison out in the middle of nowhere only to leave that prison when they went over to the land of Canaan. But as you read through the law code, much of it is about the tenure in the land. These are the things that are written so that when you get to the land of Canaan, this can be your regulating conduct. This is the rule for your life in the land. And so there's no sort of a statement by Moses, make sure that you build these prisons. We've got cities of refuge, the Lord took care of that. Remember, if a man accidentally slays another man, the axe head falls off and lands in your neighbor's head with no malice aforethought, no hatred in your heart, no premeditation. You were still guilty of negligence, but you weren't guilty of a capital offense. And so they provided these cities of refuge so you could flee there and live there without getting executed by the avenger of blood. And so if God is going to take care of cities of refuge for the case of accidental homicide, certainly would have spoken to prison for the criminals, prison for the thieves, prison for those who engage in those sorts of crimes. Again, the absence due to their nomadic lifestyle is not an argument because the law code was regulating life for their time in the land. The lex talionis, remember that? The law of retaliation? Go back for just a moment, you see it specified in verse 23. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, strike for strike. Remember, the principle there isn't necessarily, you got your eye gouged out, so therefore, in payment, I'm going to gouge out the other guy's eye. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime. On the one hand, it couldn't be too lenient, because that breaks the back of any body politic when criminals are not punished. Right? I mean, that's something that we crave to see. And it's because we are image bearers of the living and true God. He is just and righteous. He deals with offenders. We see that. We image bear Him. And we want to see criminals get punished. That's a legitimate expression of our image of godness. But at the same time, they couldn't be too severe. If a man gouged out your eye, that didn't mean you cut off both his hands or both of his feet. One man says, far from promoting unbridled vengeance, the lex talionis prohibits excessive retaliation. So the punishment must fit the crime. What's the punishment for, or what would be prison? The only possible punishment prison could be for would be kidnapping or enslaving somebody against their will. But with reference to the normal ebb and flow of life in Israel, The emphasis was upon restitution. And the prison system destroys the concept of restitution. At least the modern prison system does. A man can be charged. A man can be tried. A man can go to jail. And a man can then go pay his debt to society. And the guy he actually stole from has never gotten his. That's unjust, brethren. There's not this generic, vague, ambiguous sense where a criminal owes society. The criminal owes the person that he wronged, and the emphasis on restitution ensures that the one that was wronged gets his due. As well, the prison system does not advance rehabilitation. Now, maybe I haven't been paying attention, but it doesn't seem to me that persons go to prison and come out better and more upstanding in terms of their civic responsibility. More often than not, it's a training ground for even further training in criminal behavior. Verne Poitras in his very helpful book called The Shadow of Christ and the Law of Moses. He writes that criminals have the most hope for rehabilitation if they feel the justice of their punishment. In addition, criminals have a greater chance to reform if they are in normal contact with normal society. That's why when we look, say, for instance, at verse 3, the man breaks in, he gets found out, he has nothing to pay. Ideally, the thought is it's probably not right then, he'd hand back everything that he was trying to steal. But he's found out that he has nothing to pay, so he sells himself into the service of this man. He's an indentured servant. And what happens then? He gets benefit from that. He gets dignity. He's in the home of people that fear Yahweh, that probably catechize their children. You know a guy that came to that place where he's breaking and entering into a person's house? It usually speaks to not a great background in terms of, you know, a good strong family. There's a bumper sticker that I see once in a while that says, you know, kids that learn how to hunt and fish and trap usually don't mug little old ladies. You get them in the right direction early on, not every single time, it's not foolproof, but for the most part, those career criminals don't usually have good backgrounds, good happy lives. And so this criminal now in the home of somebody that fears Yahweh may actually learn a few things. Poitras then goes on to say, they then have opportunity immediately to engage in just, socially profitable work and contributions to others. The abnormalities of prison life can never become a viable environment for training in righteousness. It just isn't. It's not conducive to rehabilitation and developing a person for life on the outside. Typically it's developing him for further crime or a job at the car wash. Because nobody wants to hire somebody that just got out of 10 years in prison and has a teardrop on his eye. It's not usually who we're knocking down the door to hire. So this idea of restitution. Now, in terms of prison, I've thought through this. I used to be a lot more adamantly opposed, and I still am. But there may be a place for one. or a few for violent criminals or pedophiles or persons like that. Now, if they're violent to the point of murder, they should be executed. I mean, that's just, you know, you don't need to house or, you know, pay for somebody for life in prison who deserves the death penalty or capital punishment. Now, pedophilia might arguably be a capital offense. You get me in the, you know, alone sometime and we can have that talk. But there might be a situation where it would be counterproductive for a criminal to go and live with the family that he has victimized. And the case of pedophilia definitely presents itself as that. And certainly, he's not a fit candidate for any other family that has children either. Well, you know, he violated our children, so we don't want him here to be an indentured servant. But you go ahead and have him over there next door. No, you wouldn't do that. So there might conceivably be a place in terms of a violent or a repeat offender, some sort of a thing like that. But when you look at this old covenant law, there weren't prisons. I mean, there were jails. There were holding cells. There were those types of things. But a prison system where billions of dollars are spent every year to house and clothe and feed all these people that You know, the taxpayer gets the double burden. He gets robbed by these guys, and then he has to pay the taxes to support the guy. It really is a lose-lose scenario on the part of just about everybody. Now, in terms of the particular crime, the criminal steals an animal, according to verse 1. If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five ox and four ox and four sheep for a sheep. Now drop down to verse 4. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. There's a bit of a disparity in terms of the payment price. Why is that? Well, in the first instance, the criminal does two crimes. He not only steals the actual animal, he either sells it or he kills it. That's a double whammy. The other guy in verse 4 stole it, but it's still alive. So the owner really isn't out anything. Again, this is a code designed to equitably apply the law and to give the judges some leeway to understand there's some mitigating circumstances. Maybe the guy in verse four had a change of mind. Yeah, I stole your goat and, you know, I got convicted and I want to hand it back to you. That could happen, brethren. Weird things in this world happen. But in terms of verse 1, the criminal steals an animal and then kills it or sells it. With reference to verse 4, there is a single offense. Poole says it was but a single crime, whereas the other, verse 1, was an aggravated and complicated crime, where one sin and injury was added to another. So he stole it, and then he either killed it or he sold it. So it's gone. The owner doesn't get it back. Whereas in verse 4, he stole it, but for whatever reason, he's found, he's caught, he has a change of heart, he's able to give the animal back. So the owner's not out an animal. Now, why the disparity in terms of ox and sheep? Well, I'm going to lean on Stuart here. I thought he had some pretty compelling arguments. The sheep wanders more and is easier to steal. It's not as crucial to farm management to have sheep as it is an ox. The ox does the work of an ox. Sheep aren't as industrious and aren't as productive and aren't as crucial. I don't have a farm, never had oxen, never had sheep, but I gotta think that if my sheep ran off for a few days, I wouldn't miss them as much as if my ox did because I rely on that ox for things more important than I did for the sheep. And so when it comes to the recompense or the restitution, if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. I think that's pretty compelling. And then in verse four, if the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. So again, he's being punished for a crime. He's restoring double. It hurts him. There's a pinch to him in terms of the restitution involved or the restoration of that particular offense. But his crime was singular versus the double crime in verse one. Now, in terms of the defense of a person's home, in verses 2 and 3, it says, If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Now, when it comes to the legitimacy of self-defense, this passage is not alone in the Bible. This passage is part of a biblical theology of the doctrine of self-defense. Now, again, you might not think this is too crucial to understand because it's so intuitively obvious that everybody has the right to self-defense. Well, I'm not convinced that that's necessarily the case anymore. In other words, if you defend yourself in your home, you better make sure that all the I's are dotted and all the T's are crossed because it could be you going to prison and not that person or that person that you hurt or killed. So notice specifically the situation if the thief is found breaking in. And notice the time when he does. It says, if the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed, if the sun has risen on him. So verse 2 envisages a thief breaking in under the cover of darkness, right? He's breaking in. The contrast between verses 2 and 3, and the contrast as to whether or not the homeowner is criminally responsible has to do with the time of day. If it is dark, if it is not light, then that is a different scenario than if the sun has risen. So notice what happens in verse 2. If the thief is found breaking in and he is struck by the homeowner so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed on the part of the homeowner. In other words, if you hear a noise, and you wake up, and you rub the sleep out of your eyes, and you come out to your main living area, and somebody's in your house, and you kill him, you are not criminally responsible for killing him. You don't know what his intentions are. You don't know what his purposes are. You don't know if he's simply there to steal, or you don't know if he's there to rape your family, to cut your throat, and to, you know, assume your identity. You just don't have any clue. As well, when it's the hours of light, there's other neighbors around. You could perhaps yell out. You could scream. You could do anything to try to alert others around you to come and help you in this particular scenario. So the thief breaks in at nighttime. He's struck by the owner, and he dies. The owner is not liable because it's dark, and he does not know the intention of that particular intruder. The homeowner is not liable for murder. Thus, we would call this a justifiable homicide. Whenever I preach on the death penalty, I indicate that there are three instances in the Bible for justifiable homicide. You've got the death penalty, you've got just war, and you've got self-defense. So again, the Bible is pro-criminal. The Bible doesn't say you are not only responsible for hurting that man, but he tripped on the threshold coming in, and he hurt his knee, and you're gonna be held responsible for that too. There's actually been cases like that, where persons have broken into other person's houses, and then the person breaking in has sued the homeowner because they got hurt while they were breaking in. So when it comes to the law of God, we should appreciate the simplicity of it. We should appreciate the pro-victim nature of it. And with reference to this particular situation, you heard this during the Summer of Love. People say, well, buildings and property can be replaced. Human life can't. Yeah, but that guy came into my property with the intention of who knows what, and in the midst of that exchange, I dispatched him, I killed him. He shouldn't be criminally responsible for that. Poitras says the destruction or expropriation of property is an indirect attack on the human life supported by it. Right? We do need food. We do need shelter. We do have sort of a dependence upon or an attachment to our refrigerators. We have to sustain life. So if somebody tries to destroy that or tries to part us from it, then that is a criminal offense. Matthew Henry said, A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it. He that assaults it does so at his own peril. We had an illustration of this in the last week. Remember what Governor DeSantis said in Florida to the prospective looters? He said, this is a Second Amendment state. If you try to loot in the wake of this hurricane, you better be careful coming around the corner because you never know what you might meet there. We are a law and order state that holds to the Second Amendment. How do you think that was met with by the left? Oh, whore of whores, how dare him? saying you could shoot looters. No, that wasn't rejoicing in it. He was saying if a looter breaks in. See, this is where we've gotten to. If the guy defends himself, he's the bad guy. What about the looter that entered into somebody else's house in a time of a calamity and an emergency to steal from him? So I think Matthew Henry's on the right path. A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it. He that assaults it does so at his own peril. That's all that Governor DeSantis said. Now notice the qualification. So the situation is the thief breaks in at night. The justification to the homeowner is if he defends his property, defends himself, and kills the man in the exchange, there is no, it says, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. He's not criminally responsible. But now notice the qualification in verse 3a. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. Now, of course, if the man was entering with a knife, a gun, or some other way to kill the homeowner, well, that would be a different ballgame. But he's called a thief. Now, it's daytime, so the homeowner is better able to assess the potential threat. The homeowner may be surrounded by others that can hear his cry for help, so it's a different ballgame. So if he comes in at night, his intentions are not known, The homeowner, you know, rubbing the sleep out of his eye kills him in that exchange. But if the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. And then notice, he should make full restitution. This is the criminal. Not the homeowner. He should make full restitution. So while it's daylight, and he can't get killed for it, that doesn't mean he just goes to Walmart that day. There needs to be restitution, remember? You can't just take from somebody and not get punished. You can't just commit criminal activities and just go scot-free. So he should make full restitution. Verse three, if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. So when it comes to this particular law, it does legitimize self-defense. Now Francis Turretin, a reformed commentator, makes the observation or draws out some principles in terms of defensive homicide is not forbidden. I think these are good principles for us to have in our head. He says, first, it is necessary that the aggressor unjustly assails and falls on us. There has to be a crime. In other words, somebody has to actually endanger you before you can engage in defensive homicide. He says it is necessary that the defender be placed beyond all blame while every other way of escaping morally by speaking or flying or yielding is shut against him. In other words, if you can leave and not have to kill the fellow, that's probably the better option. Three, it is necessary that the defense be made during the very attack and not after it is over, right? That's a different ball game, okay? You do it in that immediate exchange. You don't say, okay, all right, you just go do your thing, buddy. I'm going to go down to the local gunsmith. I'm going to get all, I'm going to go and I'm going to let you have it. No, it has to happen at the time of the crime. Again, defensive homicide. And then he says it is necessary. that nothing is done by him either under the impulse of anger or with the feeling and desire of revenge, but with the sole intention of defending himself." Now, again, I'm not sure what it would be like to have somebody coming at me with a knife, but I get his point, right? This idea of vengeance, this idea of premeditation or malice or those sorts of things, that does not fall under the auspices of a crime in progress that you don't really even have time to sort of process. You just act, and you kill the person, and that is defensive homicide. When he comments on Romans 12 19, Romans 12 19 says, For it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Turretin, I think, wisely comments, blameless protection is not prohibited in Romans 12, 19, but private revenge. It's not blameless protection that's being condemned, but this revenge aspect. That's what's being condemned. commented on there in Romans 12.19. Now, I take Romans 12.19 as a parallel passage to Matthew 5.38-42, which is oftentimes utilized to teach that, no, self-defense isn't legitimate. If somebody comes, then you let them have all that you have. I don't think that's what Jesus is teaching in Matthew 5.38-42 at all. I think it has to do with what we find here in Romans 12. Now in terms of some specific concrete applications of an armed defense in terms of, you know, persons using arms to defend themselves or to defend others, you've got the case of Abram and Lott. where Abram got his servants armed and ready to go to go rescue Lot. In the case of the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah, they prayed, verses 4 and 5 in chapter 4, but they also kept their powder dry. They worked and they held weapons. And then the words of Solomon in Proverbs 24 11 to defend the helpless. Brethren, self-defense is a good thing. The defense of others near and dear to us is a good thing. That is not opposed by God in the Bible. And when we turn to the pages of the New Testament, we see the same sort of thing in play. You can turn to Luke's Gospel in Luke chapter 12. Luke chapter 12, the point of the passage is not the legitimacy of self-defense. I'll tell you that right off the bat. The point of the passage, however, is illustrated in the assumption of the legitimacy of self-defense. So notice in Luke 12 at verse 35, let your waist be girded and your lamps burning. And you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat and will come and serve them. And if he should come in the second watch or come in the third watch and find them so, blessed are those servants. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into." Again, brethren, the point is not the legitimacy of self-defense. It's the assumption of our Lord that persons will defend their property. You have fences, you have locks, you have dogs. Those are not anti-Christ. That's not against God. In a sin-cursed world, brethren, there are certain necessities. In the sin-cursed world, as we've reflected on the law code, you see that there are laws concerning divorce. Why? Because in a sin-cursed world, people get divorced. There's laws protecting a polygamous situation. Not that it was the case that there should be polygamy, but in a sin-fallen world, there's going to be polygamous. So you have laws built into the code that provides redress for the innocent party. And when it comes to protection of self and property and others, that's an assumption. It's a given in a world that is corrupt. Right? That's not a bad thing. So what Jesus assumes is something that the Bible everywhere legitimizes. And then turn over to Luke chapter 22. Luke chapter 22. Verse 35, and he said to them, when I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything? So they said, nothing. Then he said to them, but now he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack. And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Now, commentators do funny things here. They say, well, that's a spiritual sword. I don't know how you're going to repel a bandit on the road with a spiritual sword, brethren. I just don't get that. And the possession of a sword does not automatically imply as an offensive weapon, right? There is self-defense. Not everybody who owns guns goes out and engages in mass shooting. Not everybody who owns guns robs banks with those guns. You get the point, right? Just because Jesus says to have a sword doesn't mean that these are going to be the disciples of glory that are going to go out and cut down everybody that fails to comply. It's a defensive piece of property. The sword was not to be utilized in an offensive manner, but defensively. And when it comes to this particular passage, some will cite the incident in Matthew 26, the contrary. If you go back to Matthew 26, specifically at verses 51 to 54. Matthew 26 verses 51 to 54. Suddenly one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen thus? In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, have you come out as against a robber with swords and gloves to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple and you did not seize me. But all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Now the messianic mission must be accomplished. Right? Peter can't cut off everybody's head that's come to seize the Lord of Glory. They have to seize the Lord of Glory. The hour had come. Remember in John's Gospel, they tried to seize him, but his hour had not yet come. The hour had come. So Peter draws the sword, goes for Malchus's head, misses and gets his ear. And Jesus says, put the sword away. Not because you can never use a sword to protect your wife from being raped or protect your friend from being shot. Not that you can never use the sword to defeat an enemy intruder under the cover of darkness. But that the Son of Man should not be stopped from going to the cross. There are instances and things that happen with reference to the messianic mission that are different and unique in terms of what Christ came to do in terms of the salvation of his people. And then the final thing is just a good confessional statement. The Westminster Larger Catechism says, what are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment? Comforting and succoring. I think that means just helping. Comforting and helping the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent. And in Westminster Larger Catechism 136, what are the sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment? The sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves or of others except in the case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense. So this has a rich and long pedigree, not only in the Reformed tradition, but in the Scriptures itself. Jesus assumes it, uses it as a component in terms of watchfulness relative to the coming of the Son of Man, and when it comes to these particular issues, we need to think biblically. When it comes to our current situation, we need to be judicious, we need to be wise, we need to exercise prudence, and all those things to be sure. But brethren, the Bible authorizes and legitimizes the issue of self-defense. Now that doesn't demand that in every instance you kill the individual. If you can subdue him without killing him, that's probably the better way to go. But if in that exchange, in the cover of darkness, you hit him or you strike him in such a way that he dies, according to our passage in Exodus 22.2, the man is not guilty. There's no requisite design in terms of killing that man as a criminal offender. So, in conclusion, when we look at these particular laws, we see, first, the importance of the Eighth Commandment. You shall not steal. And stealing doesn't always mean, hey, I grabbed your ox, I'm going to take it over to my farm. It could be through negligence. It could be through irresponsibility. But to deprive somebody of their livelihood, to deprive somebody of their goods, is not a good thing. So the Bible does not forbid the ownership of private property. The Bible does not condemn us for having stuff. Now, certainly we have to hold our stuff loosely. We can't worship our stuff and bow down to our stuff and be given over to the service of our stuff. You can't serve God and mammon. Those who love money are going to bring problems upon themselves. But the Bible does not condemn owning private property, but it defends it. And then the Bible mandates sanctions for those who damage or steal another person's property. So there must be punishment in civil society in order to discourage others from engaging in criminal activity. Turn to the book of Ecclesiastes for just a quick second, where you see this principle in scripture that we can certainly, I think, understand all too well. Ecclesiastes chapter 8 at verse 11. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. You hear often, well, the death penalty doesn't deter anybody. It deters at least one person. There is no repeat offender if you execute them. That'll never happen. But it does have an effect upon others when they know that if they engage in a particular criminal enterprise, they're going to be punished. We haven't ever seen in our lifetime the application of the death penalty to know whether or not there is a deterrent effect. But the Apostle tells us for certain that there is. Romans 13, 1-4. If you do evil, what does he say? Be afraid. Well, brethren, there's no fear of God before the eyes of men, and there's certainly no fear of the civil government before the eyes of men, when so many crimes go unpunished. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. You're doing no one any favor. when you don't punish crime. It proliferates. It grows exponentially. You see the reports, brethren. You see the various major cities in America. You see the cities in Canada. You see all over the earth where there's not punishment meted out for particular crimes. It doesn't help society one bit. It doesn't do anything to curb the wickedness of man. And so we see as well the legitimacy of self-defense. And then I hope we all appreciate the pro-victim orientation of biblical law. The Bible is for the victim. The Bible's not for the criminal. I mean, it is. It doesn't say, you know, humiliate him and tar him and feather him and parade him all throughout the streets. Of course, that might actually be it. No, I'm kidding. When it comes to these particular things, though, we see that the Word of God provides in that law redress for persons that have been victimized by others. That, you know, if we can't take a one-for-one exact application of the judicial laws of Moses, hopefully we see the general equity built in Again, we see the wisdom principle built in. We see the fact that we ought to be for the victim and not for the criminal in terms of justice. Well, I'll pray and then if there's any questions we can deal with that. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the fact that it speaks to these various issues. of life in the body politic, and help us to be wise, help us to be faithful in our understanding of these things, and help us to stand in awe at your holiness, and your righteousness, and your justice, not only in the spiritual realm, but with reference to temporal matters, with reference to the property damage that people incur, the accidental homicides that happen, all these things, God, you speak to these things because you are ultimately just and right. We thank you for this and we praise you through Jesus Christ our Lord.