Sunday School | To Resist Evil or Not

Alright. So what we're doing here for several months now has been looking at stuff that Jesus said. I'll give you a couple of things. You guys filled out this Menti thing—was it Menti? Yeah. You used Menti to submit questions, and I have answered at this point, we have answered every question that you submitted that got multiple votes. People say, "Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm curious about that. Tell me what's going on with that." All of those are answered.

So now I'm dealing with kind of the one-offs. We've got a handful more of those. We'll probably address two or three this morning. But they keep changing the Menti number, so I'm just going to abandon it. If you have a question that you'd like me to answer, the only filter is it's got to be something that Jesus said. Right? We're just doing red letters, stuff Jesus said. You can just email it to me: timchsr.churchoftheholyspiritroanoke.com. You can spell your own city. And if you send me questions about things that Jesus said, well, I'll kind of add those to the list, then we'll probably do this for another month maybe. So there's time and space to answer some more questions. And then I honestly don't have any idea what we're going to do next. So if you want to make a suggestion, you could also email that to me. There's a rich word. There's a million things we could look at, and I don't know what we're going to do. So timchsr.churchoftheholyspiritroanoke.com for Jesus questions or suggested topics for where we go as a group.

What we're going to do this morning is start off in Matthew chapter five. If you've got your Bible, go to Matthew five. Somebody wrote in and asked the question about something that Jesus says in Matthew five that seems to be, or at first glance at least, appears to be at odds with things that are said later on in the epistles. So the request is that we kind of work out this apparent contradiction. We'll be in Matthew chapter five starting in verse 38.

The Apparent Contradiction

Here's the setup. In Matthew five, verse 38, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you, take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. — Matthew 5:38-40

There's Jesus saying, "Do not resist an evil person." And then the observation was made that 1 Peter five and James four say something else.

In 1 Peter five, verse 8, it says:

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kinds of sufferings. — 1 Peter 5:8-9

And then in James four, verse seven:

Submit yourselves then to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God, and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners. Purify your hearts, you double-minded. — James 4:7-8

So what you have is Jesus saying, "Do not resist an evil person," and then in James and Peter, "Resist the devil. Resist the devil." The question was phrased like this: How are we to discern whether an apparently evil person is doing the devil's bidding? So Jesus says don't resist an evil person, and Peter says do resist the devil. Well, what if the person is functioning on behalf of the devil? Do we resist him or not? How does that work? You hear the question or the contradiction?

Understanding Semantic Range

Alright. So here's how I would think about that. First of all, before we can kind of get out of the gate on this, you just have to know that words have a semantic range. Any given word doesn't just mean one thing. Very often, words mean a variety of things in different contexts. One of the easiest illustrations of this is the word "run." You intuitively know that your nose could be running, or you could be running down the street, or you could be running for president, and each of those uses is completely different. When I say that my nose is running, you know you completely exclude two of the options. There's actually a bunch of definitions of running. You exclude all options and you only take one of those.

There's a fallacy—there's a whole bunch of linguistic fallacies, mistakes we'll make in our logic. And one of them is called the totality transfer fallacy.

And that is if you assume that every meaning of every word is always at play in each use, then you're going to come up with all sorts of wonky decisions. Right? So if when I say my nose is running, if that has to contain the concept that my nose is seeking higher office, then you're going to find yourself believing all kinds of weird, silly things. And I think that that is actually the fallacy that's in play in this question.

So when Jesus says that we should resist or we should not resist an evil person, in that instance the definition of resist is not overlapping with the definition of resist in the two ways that James and Peter use it. When Jesus says do not resist an evil person, what does he mean? Someone strikes you on one cheek, offer them the other also. What does that mean?

One person suggests: "Turn your heart away from them."

Another offers: "Don't fight back."

Right. When it says don't resist, it means take the hit. Your natural instinct is if I punched you, your natural instinct is going to be to counter. And Jesus is saying this is a non-retaliatory sort of love. He's saying if somebody evil does something evil against you, take the hit. If they strike you on one cheek, let them hit you the other. If they want to sue you and take your shirt, just say, sure. Take it all. It's extraordinary. And we heard him like, I don't know what he means, so it probably means nothing, so I don't want to do that. That tends to be the way we apply that verse. But what he's saying is don't prevent someone evil from harming you. It's crazy. Just completely bonkers.

How about resist in Peter and resist in James?

The devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith. — 1 Peter 5:8

Submit yourselves then to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. — James 4:7

What does resist mean in those places?

One person suggests: "I think it means you're resisting the temptation or you're resisting what he's telling you to do because you know..."

That's exactly correct. So in the way that James and Peter are using resist, they mean don't give way to temptation. When the devil is telling you, hey, do this bad thing, you'd be like, you know what? Don't even talk to me about that. Because if I keep talking to you about that, I might actually do it. The reason we flee from sexual temptation, as Paul says, is because the longer you stand there arguing with it, the more it's just going to win you. Just don't have the conversation. I'm just going to walk away from it.

So the way that Jesus uses the term and the way that Peter and James are using it, they're talking about different things. On the one hand, we are to embrace unjust suffering. I hate that. But that's what Jesus is calling us to. But we are not supposed to sit around and debate with and ultimately succumb to temptation. Make sense? They're really totally separate things. There's no contradiction because the semantic range of that word means they're really different words. They're different meanings being applied.

The Relationship Between Romans 12 and Romans 13

With that said, there is nevertheless a duality of thought that's worth looking at here. There's a second question that this person asks. So the question was, how are we to discern whether an evil person is doing the devil's bidding? Well, they might be. There's a different thing going on here. As an example, what would the world be like if we hadn't stood up to Hitler? Or were we wrong for doing so? And the way that I think the best Christian answer to that is that you have to understand the difference between and the relationship between Romans chapter 12 and Romans chapter 13.

If you read Romans 12, it's going to remind you of Matthew 5. Romans 12 is essentially Paul's reflection on the Sermon on the Mount in which he reaffirms and restates all the stuff that Jesus said there, which is this idea of non-retaliatory love. So take a look at what he says. We'll pick it up in verse 14.

Romans 12:14

Paul writes—and you know he's ripping off the Sermon on the Mount.

Bless those who persecute you. Bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice. Mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Listen to this. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it's possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, it is mine to avenge, I will repay, says the Lord. On the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. — Romans 12:14-21

Do you hear the red letter-ness of that? Do you hear how much that is a reflection of the Sermon on the Mount?

So the question is: well, if we obeyed Jesus, if Jesus is so smart and he says your orientation towards suffering and pain should be that you just take it, you don't punch back, you don't seek revenge, you bless your enemies, you're gracious to those who persecute you—if we did that, wouldn't Hitler have won World War II and dominated the world? And wouldn't everything be horrible and evil? So, like, what is Jesus talking about there? Because that seems like a bad idea. Do you feel that?

And that's right. That would be a bad idea. But here's what you need to understand: Romans 12 and Matthew 5 are written to individuals. They're written to individuals who are members of the body of Christ. In a personal interaction, the way that Christians behave with our neighbors, with our coworkers, at work, in life, is to be Romans 12 and Matthew 5. And it is radical. It is non-retaliatory. It is self-giving love. It is very unusual. And that is what we as believers are called to do.

But in one verse, Paul is going to pivot to Romans chapter 13. And Romans 13 is a different message to a different audience, and both are equally valid. You're going to get whiplash from Romans 12 to Romans 13. It is whiplash. But if you understand it, this whole thing kind of comes together and crystallizes in a really helpful way.

Two Institutions Under God

Go to Romans 13. After telling everyone to obey the Sermon on the Mount, after telling everyone to be radical in their selfless living, he says:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it's necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience. — Romans 13:1-5

What Paul is doing here is essentially establishing that God rules the world chiefly through two institutions. The first is the church—that's Romans 12—and we have a very peculiar way we are to move towards people, with gracious acceptance of suffering. We are to follow the model of Christ who himself was mocked and ridiculed, beaten, who returned no threats but suffered like a lamb before shearers that was silent. That's the church. That's us. That's what we do.

But there is another institution also ordained by God that also has a mission, that also has a purpose. Who's the second institution? The government authorities. The state. God has ordained the church—that's us. We have a job, a particular way of being. And he has ordained the state, governing authorities. And they have a particular way of doing.

According to Romans 13, what would you say is the bottom line job of the state according to Paul? What's the government supposed to do? Do us good. But there's the execution of justice. Paul calls them an agent of God's wrath to bring wrath on the evildoer.

The government's primary—now the government today, this is 2023. Our governments have increased their job description in significant ways. Have you noticed this? Significant ways. But the fundamental biblical purpose from the very beginning, the purpose of the government is to terrorize wicked men.

Their job, which is the most fundamentally legitimate aspects of a government, is you need to have some system that polices those inside the state. You need to have some kind of judicial system. You gotta have police officers and courts. You gotta write just laws. We gotta execute those laws. We gotta keep the bad guys from doing bad things, constrain that wickedness. And then the second thing is we need a military because there are bad guys outside the state, outside the city walls, and we need to keep them outside at the point of a spear.

So authentic, legitimate governmental purposes is to terrorize evil people within the boundaries and evil people outside the boundaries to keep them out. And so when our military goes and fights with Hitler, that is not a violation of Romans 12. It is an application of Romans 13. And you're allowed to do that. They are allowed. Christians are allowed to be in the military. Christians are allowed to be in the government. We can do those things and function in that role.

But I am not, I am not, I am not an agent of God's wrath. That's not my particular calling. I'm to be an agent of his mercy. Right? And you are too. But if you are in the military, in the police, if you're functioning in the role, that is absolutely. We need somebody to go stand against Hitler because evil men do evil things. And God raises up these two different institutions. We function in very different ways, with very different purposes, but working together to accomplish God's ultimate purposes.

The High View of Authority

We all know of governments that aren't doing the best for their people. And that are evil. So I mean, it's kind of hard to figure out. I mean, I trust that God's the one that is in control and sometimes he even places evil leaders to accomplish whatever his purpose is down the road. That's right.

Okay, so a lot of times people will read Romans 13 and Paul has this high view of the state, right? Look at verse one:

The authorities that exist have been established by God.

And verse three:

Rulers hold no terror for those who do right but for those who do wrong.

What's crazy about this is if Paul wrote this during the absolute golden hour of just governments, then it would be a little bit easier to discount him and say, "Oh, sure, Paul, in your day maybe that was true, but look what we're dealing with." But when did he write this? It's like first century Rome. The very authorities who he is affirming are gonna lead to his death. They certainly crucified his Lord. Right? And so it's really very interesting. Paul has a very high view of authority even though he knows that those authorities are always riddled with evil.

We have in our world, we elect, we choose for ourselves, ridiculously godless leaders all the time, right? For Paul, they weren't being elected. They had their whole Roman senators and stuff, but the way that the power is playing out is just all kinds of wickedness. And yet, even in that environment, Paul says, you do not want to go rogue. We want to be submissive to the authorities. And Paul was. He was incredibly submissive to authority.

Remember when we talked about when we were in the middle of COVID and everybody was really grouchy about obeying the government? Do you remember those days? Now we don't feel grouchy about that anymore, but we did once upon a time.

Obedience and Conscience

And Paul's purpose is, do you have to obey a government that is causing you to suffer? Yes. Do you have to obey a government that is causing you to sin? No. No. And we have a really hard time distinguishing between those two things. You do not have to obey a government that is causing you to sin. Peter's like, you're telling us we can't talk about Jesus. Well, I mean, sorry, but we're gonna do that anyway. So should we obey you or God? We're gonna do it. But then they get thrown in jail and they just take it.

You do not have to obey governments that are causing you to sin. You do have to obey governments that are causing you to suffer. And you are very likely to mistake your suffering for sin. Right? That's kind of Paul's take on it essentially.

So a question I have is I've been interested in the topic of Christian pacifism lately. And I feel like if you could maybe explain a little bit more to the dichotomy of Romans 13 in areas of self defense. One of the arguments that people like Preston Sprinkle make is you can't love your neighbor if you're gonna kill them because of self defense. And in the same way, he makes the same argument and extends that out to military and police, but at the same time, I understand how difficult that makes living in society in practice. So maybe you can speak to that, the argument that they make and maybe flesh that out a little bit.

Yeah, okay.

So Alex is asking about the topic of Christian pacifism. There are some theologians—Preston Sprinkle is a particular theologian that I admire a great deal. If you look up Preston Sprinkle's stuff, he's brilliant and very thoughtful in the text. He has a blog. There's only one Preston Sprinkle in the world, so you can look him up and you'll find him.

He advocates for a perspective of Christian pacifism, which should be very consistent with Romans 12 and with Matthew 5. I'm not sure if he takes the two kingdom view—I haven't read Preston on that, so I don't know. I think he believes a Christian should not be in the military or police at all. But I'm not really sure if he'd say he's glad the military exists. That's the part where I'm uncertain. It gets so complicated. I just don't know how a world exists like that. Sometimes someone has to do the difficult work.

I haven't read Preston on this, but I have read Paul. There's definitely a biblical purpose for militia. There's a biblical expression of force. It's just not individualized.

I want to give this more time than just an off-the-cuff response. But I would say that I have a very high view and a great deal of respect for Christian pacifism. It's very consistent with what Jesus says and does—incredibly persistent. But I would not go so far as to say that the other agencies God has raised up—namely the state, government, police, military—those things are divinely ordained and have a purpose.

It's much easier for me to embrace the idea that I need to have a radical orientation towards mercy as Christians do. That doesn't contradict the fact that God has called others to a different task. If you have something in particular that Preston wrote, maybe we could look at that together and process through it as a group. I have read a lot of Preston's other work, and I have a high view of it. He's very respectful of the biblical texts and does a great job with them. So I'd like to maybe learn from things I haven't read yet.

---

On Individual Justice Claims

Zach raises a good point about justice. There's a lot of justice that police and authorities enact for God, but there's also a lot of justice that only gets enacted if the individual makes a claim for it. Like, a single mom gets rear ended—it's not her fault—but she's not going to have the money to get a car. The only way she can get the money is if she makes a claim for justice.

So Zach's question is: if you're not the agent of justice but you're simply making a claim—"Hey, this person hit my car"—can you compel them to pay for it? I think the answer is yes. You're allowed to do that. It's not unjust. What you're not allowed to do is go burn down their house. What you're not allowed to do—and you might want to—is drive a hammer through their back window. That is forbidden.

But for Christians, we see Paul do this. There's an example in Acts 16. Throughout that chapter, Paul is unbelievably submissive to unjust suffering. He just takes it. He's not only submissive, he's singing—"I'm gonna sing you a song about this." He's so gracious. His joy comes from other sources. He's allowed to leave because there's an earthquake and the doors open, but he doesn't leave. He stays. He leaves the jailer to Christ. It's so Romans 12-ish. It's so Matthew 5-ish.

Then look at what happens when it's all done. He switches radically:

So the prison's doors open. He's allowed to leave. He doesn't leave. — Acts 16:35

It's so he just takes the hit and takes the hit and takes the hit. And then when he leaves, look what happens. In verse 35:

When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order, "Release those men." And the jailer told Paul, "The magistrates have ordered you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace."

You'd think he might just walk out because now he's got permission to leave and he's just going to go. But instead, now, finally of all times, he finally raises a ruckus in verse 37:

But Paul said to the officers, "They beat us publicly without a trial even though we are Roman citizens, and they threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No. Let them come themselves and escort us out."

That, Zach, is Paul saying, "I'm a Roman citizen and I have rights and you have violated them." He's allowed to do that. What's so interesting is that all the time his rights were being violated, he just took it. He just took it. He just took it. But now that they let him go, now suddenly he's all particular about it. And the reason—do you know why? Have we talked about this? Why?

It's because he knows that as he leaves, if he causes a stink, if he compels the government to recognize his rights, it's going to leave a wake of safety for the church that he leaves behind. He wants to leave in such a way that they're like, "Hey man, back up all those Christians because they'll burn you." Like that's what he's doing. He takes it. He takes it. He's willing to suffer whatever he can in order to preach the gospel. But on the way out, he demands his rights before the governing authorities for the good of those that he's leaving behind.

So yes, I think a single mom gets hit by a car or her car rear ends her, she can absolutely make a claim. She has the right to do that. But she does it through the legitimate agencies of the state and you don't take the matters into your own hands.

Self-Defense and State Authority

Do you want to just say something about that? Tell me your name. Anna? Yeah. I'm just curious how it relates to an individual being in control of their family or if someone here was carrying a weapon and someone came in and started shooting.

Yeah. I only see that as good. I've always felt like that was good. That's okay, yeah. So it varies on the jurisdiction, but there is the reality that in the United States, in Virginia, right here where we live, the state has delegated power of self defense to private citizens. So if you are a law abiding citizen, you have a concealed carry permit, you're carrying a weapon, and someone's life is being at risk, you are able to act under the authority of Romans 13 as an agent of the state to protect innocent life. You are able to do that. Legally, you're able to do that.

And I—and people would probably debate this. Preston, my guess, might disagree with me on this. But I do believe that just in the same way that a Christian can be a police officer or a Christian can be in the military, a Christian can accept the delegated powers that the state gives them to function as a defender of life in those kinds of situations. So I would say that under a Romans 13 framework, if you are functioning under the authority of the state, then there is it is permissible to defend innocent life. I think that is true. Some might disagree with me on that, and that's fine. We can debate that if you wanted to. But I do think there's a space that we find under the Romans 13 paradigm.

Yes. Well, first back here. Yeah, Jesse. Doesn't that paradigm assume that the state has the authority to delegate the right to defend life? Isn't that an individual right to defend life?

Well, depends what you mean. I would say the difference—so my language is a little bit blurry here. I think individuals do not have the authority to take life. Right? I do think individuals have a right to defense. But I don't know anywhere in the Bible that says that you're allowed to kill somebody. That is a right given to the state. And if the state delegates it down to individuals under certain circumstances, that's a different case than if we just get to walk around and execute justice. Right? Taking of life—and if you do, even if you've got a concealed carry permit and somebody comes in here and you shoot them, you're putting yourself in enormous legal jeopardy. Right? The rules of self defense—the law about self defense—is a very particular thing. If you're going to do that, you want to read a couple books about that. You want to understand the rules about this because it's not as—have I read those books, and it is a more narrow band of freedom that you have than some people perhaps might assume.

If there are—you're saying that there are two spheres of authority, the church and the state. Yeah. Not the sphere of authority. It's the family. Don't families have the authority?

And there's all these tensions between these three, but doesn't a family have the authority to protect itself? Well, there may be. And it is true that God has raised up different institutions. I think the church and the state exist in a different plane than the family does. There's more even just than that. And family is a legitimate unit. But in terms of the governing of society, the church and the state have particular ranges of authority. And of course, within a family there is as well, but it's a much smaller group. You're talking about like five people or six people. Church and state have a much broader kind of realm of influence.

I can't think of anything, but again it might be there, Jesse, but I can't think of anything where it talks about the family's rights of defense and protection. Is there something you're thinking of that speaks to that?

Exodus and the Thief

In Exodus. How does this go? Go ahead.

Exodus, the thief breaking in at night. It's during the night hours, and you kill the thief, and there will be no blood guiltiness on your part because you don't know what he's in there to do.

So would you say that is individual or family? How does that go? I just haven't—I'm not really prepared to respond to that. I haven't thought that through. But you would say in Exodus, you see specifically a family or an individual?

It talks about a thief right here in the middle of the night. And the verse following clarifies with the fact that if it does it during the day and it's just there to steal, they would become guilty. So that's in the middle of the night, and you know he's there.

Interesting. And you would categorize that under the authority of a family or the authority of a member of a family?

I would.

Okay. This could be—I'm just not familiar with the particulars of that. I'm sure I've read it, but I don't remember the details. So that might be something worth exploring. Maybe we'll do a little side trail and talk about pacifism and trace the boundaries of that. That might be a useful thing to do.

Chris, we're going to give you the last shot, and then I want to move on because we have a couple other questions to hit.

I was categorizing church and state as the higher powers, obviously the Lord being above both of those. Citizens—any individual and family would be under those.

So you'd put it: individual and family underneath church and state, and then God above both?

Yes. I would be more comfortable with that paradigm. But again, I haven't thought through if we lined up every institution that God has ordained, how they relate to one another, that would actually be worth thinking about. But I haven't really done much beyond recognizing clearly that there's a church and a state and they function in different ways. How the family fits into that—those are worth chasing down, but I don't have anything else intelligent to say about that.

Jesus and the Old Testament

Herrick, I want to move on. You got something quick?

I was just going to say one quick thing about what Jesus is saying in the Sermon on the Mount in verses thirty-eight and forty-two. He starts out with "You've heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You've heard that it was said, love your neighbor." When he's saying "You've heard that it was said," is he referring back to Exodus?

He's absolutely referring to the Old Testament in all that language. "You've heard that you're supposed to do this, you're supposed to do these things, but really here's what the new covenant says to this." Is that correct?

Yes. He's absolutely taking the Old Testament and offering a higher teaching. He does that all throughout the Sermon on the Mount. "You've heard, but I say to you." He's raising the standard for how we ought to live. That's correct.

But as he does so, he also says he came not to eradicate the law but to fulfill the law. So he's not saying those things were wrong. Let me tell you something that's right. He's not critiquing or saying, well, that was a rough draft. Here's the better answer. He's affirming the totality of the Scriptures, which means that the way Jesus is leading us to understand it in the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with what he actually meant. He's not saying we changed our mind on this. He's expressing a holistic, comprehensive view. And teasing out the nuances of that are some things that are difficult about that.

One principle that I think we can observe here is we have a tendency to want to seek revenge.

We have a tendency to want to punch back. That is deeply wired in us. And that's understandably so. Jesus says overtly in the Sermon on the Mount, in Romans 13, subduing those passions. There is a difference between seeking revenge and defending the innocent. If we decide to go down and spend a few more weeks on this, I think that one of the lines we're gonna wanna draw is the difference between defending the innocent and seeking vengeance, which are not the same thing. Although in the flash of a moment they might have very similar application points. We'll end it there and we can readdress perhaps at another time.

Do Christians Die?

Let me move on to another question that we were asked. We're going to go to the Gospel of John this time. Here's the question. This one's gonna be quick. Jesus says three times in the Gospel of John that believers will never die. It's in John 8, John 10, John 11. Does this mean that for Christians death is an illusion? Like we don't really die.

Let me read you the three passages that were cited here. It's John 8:51:

I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death. — John 8:51

And then in John 10:28:

I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. No one can snatch them out of my hand. — John 10:28

And then in John 11:25:

Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? — John 11:25

So John 8, John 10, John 11, there's other places we could go to that talks about Christian death. So how do you take that? Can Christians die? Do Christians die?

Your body does. Do Christians die? You guys agree? So in a certain sense, in one sense, physical sense, he did not die when he ate the fruit. However, when Adam ate that fruit, there was a profound change in their relationship with God, the relationship with each other. They didn't die physically, but they died spiritually. So John is pointing out there's a difference. There are different ways. Kind of like we began this thing, words have a semantic range. So the word death has a number of meanings. The plainest, most ordinary sense of death is that you're not alive anymore. That's the normal sense of it. When Adam was told in the very beginning, if you eat the fruit that day, dying you will die—that's how it basically reads in Hebrew. And some have observed that while he died spiritually, he didn't die physically for another nine hundred years. That's true. But I would suggest to you the reason he didn't die is because a substitute died in his place. When God clothes Adam with garments, that requires the killing of an animal. There was death that day. It's just that God very graciously allowed a substitute to die the actual, literal, physical death that Adam was supposed to die.

Christians, of course, Christians die. Your body will die. It will decay. It will rot. Now Jesus might come back before you die. That would be grand. But absent that, everyone in this room is terminal. You're all dying. That's why we just had an Ash Wednesday service. Somebody looked at you in the eye and said, dust you are and to dust you shall return because you're dying. So yes, Christians die.

However, the New Testament usually uses another image to describe Christian death. What's the normal language for Christian death in the New Testament? Sleep. Over and over and over, the New Testament refers to dead Christians as being merely asleep. Why does it do that? Why do we call them asleep? Because they will rise. Because they will rise again. Because yes, everybody dies, and in fact everyone will rise again, but some will rise again to live forever and others will rise to face the judgment of death.

I think what is happening in all of these passages in John, and you see it most clearly in the third one that we looked at in John 11, is of course Christians die. Usually we call it sleep. Metaphorically, the language is that you're sleeping because it conjures and intentionally suggests the temporariness of Christian death. Christians die, but it's a temporary state. It's not gonna last forever. You will be raised again.

Look at the John 11 version of it:

Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life, and he who believes in me will live even though he dies. — John 11:25

So you're a believer. And right there he's affirming in verse 25 that believers die, but after that they live. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

What that means, that never die, is you'll never face the second death. John uses this language in Revelation that there are two deaths. There is this death, the initial death of your body that your soul will survive. And then there is the second death that the lost will face. That's what John is talking about with the lake of fire, being cast into that lake of fire. He says the lake of fire is the second death. And what Jesus is saying right here in John 11 is that you will not take place in the second death. That the gift of God in Christ Jesus is that you will live forever.

Well, I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't even say that. Maybe he's coming back soon. For all the Christians that have lived up till now, they died once, they will be raised, and they will never die again, unlike the wicked who will die once, will be raised, and will face the second judgment of death. If you are in Christ, the promise is that you will live forever. But that does not mean that you will not first endure what is very likely to be a very miserable transition from this life. C. S. Lewis says that every man dies, and most die miserably. And this is true.

I have absolutely no fear at all of being dead. I'm looking forward to that. Because to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ. I think it's gonna be just really good. But I would say I have significant fear of the actual moment, that actual transition. And so Christians are not promised an escape from that. What we are promised is that subsequent to that, we will live forever in a world of increasing and infinite joy. And that's going to be really good. But, yeah. So we will die, and then we will live again.

Jesus is not being cute here. He's looking past the temporariness of this—like, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, one hundred years, whatever you get—to something that will go on for billions and billions. That's all he's saying. Die once. You'd much rather die once than die twice. Why perish? Believe the gospel and enter into a deal that you'll live forever.

We'll stop there. If you want to add more questions to the bucket, you can do that at tim@chsroanoke.com, and we'll write it out. And then maybe I'll start thinking about a series on pacifism, perhaps. Alright. Thanks.