← Back to sermon library

We can turn back in your confession 
to chapter 24 of the Civil Magistrate. Two sections of data that I want 
to read. I want to read this and then 
I want to read 1 Samuel chapter 8. So if you remember last time 
we looked at the divine origin of civil government in paragraph 
1, the Christian involvement in civil government in paragraph 
2, the Christian's duty towards civil government in paragraph 
3. I want to end today with the Christian approach to civil government, 
just give a catalog of the various ways the church has sought or 
thought concerning the relationship to the civil state. But before 
we get to that Christian approach, I want to look at 1 Samuel chapter 
8 and the institution of monarchy in Israel. I think that's instructive 
on a whole host of levels in terms of our response to the 
civil government. So I'll just read chapter 24 
in the confession, God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world 
hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people 
for his own glory and the public good. And to this end hath armed 
them with the power of the sword for defense and encouragement 
of them that do good and for the punishment of evil doers. 
It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office 
of a magistrate when called thereunto, in the management whereof, as 
they ought especially to maintain justice and peace, according 
to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth, so 
for that end, rather, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, 
wage war upon just and necessary occasions. Civil magistrates 
being set up by God for the ends of foresaid, subjection and all 
lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in 
the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. And 
we ought to make supplications and prayers for kings and all 
that are in authority, that under them we may live a quiet and 
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. As I said, you can 
turn to 1 Samuel chapter 8. It's not that long, specifically 
22 verses, but it is the institution of monarchy in Israel. Remember 
that the institution of government as government is at least present 
in Genesis chapter 9 with reference to the Noahic covenant. We see 
that the sword will function to maintain some degree of civility 
in society in terms of the punishment of evildoers. And then you see 
the period of the judges. We had that theocratic movement 
where God was directly over Moses and the children of Israel until 
they come into the land of Canaan. Prior to the monarchy, they had 
judges. And Samuel was the last of the judges. He gives way to 
the monarchy that then is established by God through Saul, and then 
David, and then Solomon, and the subsequent kings in both 
the north and the south. So as I said, there's a lot of 
instruction in 1 Samuel chapter 8 that I thought would be helpful 
as we consider civil government. So notice in verse 1. Now, it 
came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges 
over Israel. The name of his firstborn was 
Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah. They were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in 
his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, 
and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel 
gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to 
him, Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. 
Now make us a king to judge us, like all the nations. But the 
thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to 
judge us. So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to 
Samuel, Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to 
you. For they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, 
that I should not reign over them. According to all the works 
which they have done since the day that I brought them up out 
of Egypt, even to this day, with which they have forsaken me and 
served other gods, so they are doing to you also. Now therefore 
heed their voice, however you shall solemnly forewarn them, 
and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over 
them. So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people 
who asked him for a king. And he said, this will be the 
behavior of the king who will reign over you. He will take 
your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his 
horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint 
captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will 
set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to 
make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take 
your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And He will 
take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive 
groves, and give them to His servants. He will take a tenth 
of your grain and your vintage, and give it to His officers and 
servants. And He will take your male servants, 
your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, 
and put them to His work. He will take a tenth of your 
sheep, and you will be his servants. And you will cry out in the day 
because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, and 
the Lord will not hear you in that day." Nevertheless, the 
people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, No, 
but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like 
all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out 
before us and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words 
of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. 
So the Lord said to Samuel, heed their voice and make them a king. 
And Samuel said to the men of Israel, every man go to his city. Amen. Well, just to sort of summarize 
what we saw last time in the confession of faith, I've already 
given you the heads of the divine origin, Christian involvement, 
and Christian duty toward government. I quoted Van Drunen. I think 
Van Drunen has some good observations concerning political institutions. 
And he mentions four specifics. First of all, they are legitimate. 
It's not an illegitimate thing. It's not something that man came 
up with. It is divinely instituted by 
God. So political institutions are legitimate. Secondly, they 
are provisional. That means they function in this 
age. In the age to come, we won't 
need a prime minister. We won't need a president. We 
won't need that sort of form of civil government. As well, 
they are common. Political institutions are not 
only for the benefit of the believer, but also for the unbeliever. 
And obviously, that indicates some degree of challenge. We 
have to share, with reference to this globe, with unbelievers. They have to share this globe 
with believers. And so we need to be able to 
function in such a way that we see the commonality of civil 
government towards both types of people. And then the final 
observation he makes with reference to political institutions is 
that they are accountable. They're ultimately accountable 
to God. No government doesn't exist except from God. But as 
well, they're accountable to men. When you live in a civil 
polity like ours, it's not the case that we have kings and queens 
over us, and we just need to be their dutiful and faithful 
subjects to do whatever it is they command us. They're ultimately 
accountable. Yes, to God, but they are relatively 
accountable to the persons that they govern. And we see that 
as well within the confession of faith. Now, as I said, 1 Samuel 
8 deals with the institution of the monarchy in Israel. Now, 
monarchy itself is not condemned. We see provision for this made 
in Deuteronomy 17, verses 14 to 20. So it's not the condemnation 
of monarchy that's in view in 1 Samuel 8, but it's the rationale. It's the reason behind their 
request. And in many ways, 1 Samuel chapter 
8 doesn't function as an island unto itself. In many ways, it's 
similar to chapter 4. In 1 Samuel chapter 4, you see 
that they're going to go out to battle against the Philistines. 
And they get bested by the Philistines, so they decide to bring out the 
Ark of the Covenant. Now they only bring out the Ark 
of the Covenant as if it functioned as a lucky charm, to give them 
deliverance in the battle. So they invoke that, or they 
bring that Ark of the Covenant out to battle against the Philistines 
again. not because they want the presence 
of God, not because they want the power of God, not because 
they're expressing their dependence upon God or the repentance for 
the mess that they're in, but they simply think that bringing 
that Ark of the Covenant out there is going to help them best 
the Philistines. That's the reason why they ask 
for a king in 1 Samuel chapter 8. It's not because they're repentant, 
it's not because they're holy, it's not because they found Deuteronomy 
17 and said, well, we think it's time for the monarchy to function 
in Israel. No, there was a battle, an imminent threat, later in 
1 Samuel 12, 12, Samuel will reference that. In fact, you 
can look at 1 Samuel 12, verse 12. It says, and when you saw that 
Nahash, king of the Ammonites, came against you, you said to 
me, no, but a king shall reign over us when the Lord your God 
was king. So there was an emergency. There 
was a crisis in Israel. And instead of responding again 
in faith and repentance and throwing themselves upon the mercy of 
God, they asked for a new form of government. just like in 1 
Samuel 4. Instead of repenting, instead 
of pleading God's help in terms of going against their Philistine 
enemy, they simply bring out the Ark of the Covenant as a 
tool, as some sort of coercive power to manipulate God to bring 
victory to them in that incident. As well, not only is there a 
parallel here with chapter 4, there's an obvious contrast with 
chapter 7. Now if you look at 8.1 it says, 
Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons 
judges over Israel. So there was the passage of time 
between 1 Samuel 7 and 8. But 1 Samuel 7 was victory from 
God. They were facing an enemy. They 
were facing the Philistines. And in that instance, instead 
of just bringing out the Ark of the Covenant, and in that 
instance, instead of just demanding a new form of government, they 
actually repent. They actually confess their sins 
to God. They actually appeal to Samuel 
to not give God rest until he undertake on their behalf. And 
so what happens? God gives victory. Notice in 
1 Samuel 7, 9. Samuel took a suckling lamb and 
offered it as a whole burnt offering to the Lord. Then Samuel cried 
out to the Lord for Israel, and the Lord answered him. Now as 
Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew 
near to battle against Israel. But the Lord thundered with a 
loud thunder upon the Philistines that day, and so confused them 
that they were overcome before Israel. So they had seen, they 
had tried and proven their God. He was faithful, he was gracious, 
he was merciful. He had the power, the ability, 
the omnipotence to defeat the Philistine enemy. Now that contrast 
is obvious in 1 Samuel chapter 8. They are again faced with 
an enemy threat and instead of invoking God in a legitimate 
and proper way through sacrifice and through their representative, 
they just demand a new form of government. So again, it's not 
monarchy that's condemned in 1 Samuel chapter 8. It's the 
reason for their request. So let's look first at the desire 
for a change in government in verses 1 to 6. Secondly, the 
divine response to that change in government in verses 7 to 
9. Third, the description of the new form of government in 
verses 10 to 18. And then finally, the demand for the change in 
government in verses 19 to 22. Now, as we move on through this 
passage, I think it is instructive for us, though we don't have 
a monarchy, though we're in a different sort of civil polity structure, 
nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned. One, we don't 
always, we're not in the worst form that anybody's ever been 
in. I mean, I don't personally think 
our government is in great shape, but at the same time, it's not 
as bad as it has been, it's not as bad as it could be, and it 
may not be as bad as it may possibly one day be. So we need to guard 
our hearts and be careful at the thought that this is the 
worst thing that's ever happened in the history of the world. 
Secondly, we need to understand that the doctrine of total depravity 
not only applies to individuals, but it applies to corporate bodies. It applies to institutions. And 
we see that very clearly in this passage. Prior to COVID, I confess, 
I didn't have a lot of trust in civil government. COVID didn't 
increase that trust whatsoever. Now, when I reflect upon that, 
I think I'm in good ground. I think there is that legitimate 
expectation on the part of God's people to realize that persons 
over them may have a propensity to sin. They may have a propensity 
to lie. They may have a propensity to 
deceive. They may even have a propensity... the very opposite of what the 
judges were supposed to do. They were supposed to walk in 
a manner of honesty. They were not supposed to take 
bribes and they were supposed to live supposedly to maintain 
justice. So you can see that an equal 
rulership at times can exasperate the people that are under them. 
Again, in this particular instance, they don't respond properly. 
They don't say, God, forgive us for our sin. Let's get rid 
of these two losers, and hopefully Samuel can appoint somebody better. 
No. They go to an emergency forum. 
They go to a the invocation of government. But at the same time, 
you see that when bad leadership is in over us, it does bring 
the people to a place of exacerbation. And then notice the request of 
the elders, verses 4 and 5. The elders of Israel gathered 
together, came to Samuel and Ramoth, and said to him, look, 
you are old. Your sons do not walk in your 
ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. Again, 
the age of Samuel, the corruption of his sons, and the imminent 
threat of enemies. They've got the Ammonites, right 
at their border, wanting to do them harm. 1 Samuel 12, 12. That's 
the particular reason that Samuel gives as to why they request 
monarchy in this phase of their lives, or in this phase of their 
existence. Again, their request, make us 
a king to judge us like all the nations. Turn back to Deuteronomy 
17. The request or the monarchy of Israel is not the problem. 
It's the reason or the rationale behind it. If you look at Deuteronomy 
chapter 17, verse 14, you see the particular instructions concerning 
the king. Verse 14, when you come to the 
land which the Lord your God has given you and possess it 
and dwell in it and say, I will set a king over me like all the 
nations that are around me, he shall surely set a king over 
you whom the Lord your God chooses. one from among your brethren. 
Makes sense. You don't have a Philistine rule 
the kingdom of Israel. You don't have a Saudi Arabian 
rule the kingdom of Canada. There's a consistency there. 
There's a reality there. It's not wicked. It's not bigoted. 
It's not prejudicial. It's not ungodly. It's simply 
commonsensical that you get from among yourselves one to rule 
over you. So it must be the one whom God 
chooses from among your brethren you shall set as king over you. 
You may not set a foreigner over you who is not your brother. 
Again, that's a maxim. That's an axiom that does not 
have built into it any degree of racism or prejudice whatsoever. It just makes sense. But he shall 
not multiply horses for himself. And here I don't think it doesn't 
mean he can't have horses or a standing army. But his trust 
cannot be first and foremost in his standing army. The king 
of Israel must ultimately trust in God, God most high. So the 
prohibition here against the multiplication of horses, again, 
not against him having his own personal horses. That's not what's 
in view. But having a standing army wherein 
his trust ultimately lies. You see that subsequent to this. them lessons. Remember Gideon? 
Gideon was whittled down to 300 people. Why? So that you'd know 
that the victory came from God. It wasn't because of their superior 
military savvy and ability. We need to remember that under 
God Most High, He is our first redress in terms of issues and 
problems. So He shall not multiply horses 
for Himself, nor cause the people who return to Egypt to multiply 
horses. For the Lord has said to you, 
you shall not return that way again, neither shall he multiply 
wives for himself." Now, you move through the monarchy, you'll 
notice that they did that. Again, I don't think the primary 
emphasis in the multiplication of wives was for sexual congress. 
I think it was for political alliance. When the kings married 
other women from other kingdoms, it usually brought them into 
some degree of camaraderie with the kings in those lands. And 
so the prohibition here, again, is against trusting in your foreign 
alliances before you trust in God. So don't trust in your standing 
army before God, and don't trust in your foreign alliances before 
God. And then it goes on to say, lest 
his heart turn away, which we know happened specifically in 
terms of 1st Samuel 11 and Solomon, nor shall he greatly multiply 
silver and gold for himself. Now, when you read Solomon, you'll 
say, wow. I mean, he certainly had lots 
of silver and a lot of gold. Somebody recently just sort of 
put it into days, you know, they did the numbers, they did the 
math. This is way outside of my purview. He could have been 
way off, I don't know. But he'd say, you know, Solomon's 
worth in today's money would have been about $1.7 billion. 
just based on what the scriptures report in terms of the gold and 
the silver and that sort of thing. Again, he could be way off, but 
it seems to make sense to me. Solomon was not carrying a chunk 
of change. The man had lots of gold, just 
a whole lot of things. But again, I think the emphasis 
here, don't trust in your money before God. So this prohibition 
against multiplying wives, horses, or wealth is so that the king 
does not turn away from God most high. And I think that's confirmed 
in verse 18. Also, it shall be, when he sits 
on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself 
a copy of this law in a book from the one before the priests, 
the Levites. And it shall be with him, and 
he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn 
to fear the Lord his God, and be careful to observe all the 
words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted 
above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment 
to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days 
in the kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. So his 
trust isn't supposed to be in his wealth. His trust isn't supposed 
to be in his horses. His trust is not supposed to 
be in his wives or in his political alliances. His trust is to be 
in God. It's the law of God that is operative 
for the king of Israel. How many kings subsequent to 
this would have done a whole lot better if they would have 
just taken this step? At their first, after they were 
anointed, after they were seated on the crown, they took out their 
pens and they wrote down the law of God. How that, again, 
humanly speaking, how would that have changed or shaped it with 
reference to going forward? But obviously, they didn't do 
that. At the time of Josiah, they found the law of God. It 
was Josiah's reform based on that. Oh, wow, we're in bad shape. And so Josiah enacts all of these 
reforms. So going back to 1st Samuel chapter 
8, it's not monarchy per se, it's the reason for the monarch 
that is the problem. Now notice, in terms of the response 
of Samuel, the elders make this request, Samuel in verse 6, it 
says, do think displeased Samuel when they said, give us a king 
to judge us, so Samuel prayed to the Lord. That brings us to 
the divine response to the change in government in verses 7 to 
9. Notice, in terms of the of the people in all that they 
say to you. And this isn't catching God off 
guard. He's not like, oh, wow, I didn't 
possibly foresee this. This is the outworking of God's 
plan, his purpose. He knew, obviously. He determined, 
obviously, all things that would come to pass. And so he is telling 
Samuel how Samuel is supposed to think through this particular 
situation. Heed the voice of the people 
in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, 
but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. So this instruction to heed their 
voice, this in and of itself is God's judgment. This in and 
of itself is, you know, an act of God chastening the people, 
Psalm 106. They soon forgot his words. They 
did not wait for his counsel, but lusted exceedingly in the 
wilderness, and tested God in the desert, and he gave them 
their request, but sent leanness into their soul. I'm gonna end 
today with reference to their response to be careful what you 
ask for. If you always get what you ask 
for, it's not always the case it's gonna work out for your 
benefit. It may work out for your detriment, which is ultimately 
for your benefit, because God works all things out for your 
good. But the identification of the 
object of their rejection is 7B. They have not rejected you, 
but they have rejected me, that I should reign over them. Dill says, they entirely rejected 
the sole and peculiar government of God over them. Dale Ralph 
Davis, a modern commentator, says, in the current emergency, 
there was no crying out to Yahweh for deliverance, but a demand 
for a king. A clear, if subtle, substitution. Yeah, brethren, sometimes when 
you read through the Old Testament, you've got to be alert to subtleties. 
Because you can read this and say, wait a minute, you just 
read Deuteronomy 17, God's got a problem with Mark. Again, put 
it in context. Notice in chapter 7 that God 
had delivered them. God had thundered with a loud 
thunder upon the Philistines. He had vanquished their enemies. 
They had seen this. They had known this. They had 
understood this. they want a different response. Give us a king like 
all the other nations. So again, it's a clear, if subtle, 
substitution. He says, their help now was not 
the strong name of Yahweh, but in a new form of government. 
It is not monarchy, but trust in monarchy that is the villain. Just like it's not quite as though 
it is on a different sort of argument. It's not horses, and 
it's not wealth. It's when those things come before 
God Almighty. So it's not condemnation, per 
se. Again, the wives thing I would 
condemn on creational grounds. But in terms of the kings and 
what they did, I'm not justifying it. But more often than not, 
it's political alliances that were sought. So it's this substituting 
for God some other technique, some other help or need to get 
us through. That's what's happening here. 
And then notice God indicts them concerning their faithlessness 
in verse eight. According to all the works which 
they have done since the day that I brought them up out of 
Egypt, even to this day, with which they have forsaken me and 
served other gods, so they are doing to you also. See, God's 
saying, for example, I'm used to this. This is the old act. This is the way it goes. I'm 
personifying, obviously, and speaking in a manner of men. 
But he's encouraging Samuel. The problem, Samuel, isn't you. 
The problem isn't the situation. The problem is that we're dealing 
with sinners. And sinners sin. And sinners 
can witness the exodus. They can witness the thundering 
out from heaven to destroy Philistines. And nevertheless, continue in 
their lack of faith, and continuing their lack of trust in God. Now 
notice in verse 9, therefore heed their voice, however, here's 
the however, however, you shall solemnly forewarn them and show 
them the behavior of the king who will reign over them. In 
other words, let's remind them that it's not going to be the 
walk in the park that they think it's going to be. It's kind of 
like the person that says, oh Lord, you know, I'd just love 
to find a bag of money. However, that bag of money is 
going to cause some problems that you never possibly conceived 
of. You never thought that you were 
that wicked. You never thought that you were 
that worldly. You never thought that you were 
that craven. I think craven. Craving, rather. These things that the world has 
to offer. So this subtle and somewhat insignificant, 
however, packs a huge punch as we move on through the passage. 
So, however, you shall solemnly forewarn them and show them the 
behavior of the king who will reign over them. Now, this doesn't 
necessarily only mean Saul. We're going to get the institution 
of monarchy. Saul is going to be the first 
one, and certainly not a stellar individual, not the most righteous 
fellow on the face of the world, but I argue, brethren, not the 
worst fellow either. How many years did he administer 
the kingdom? 40 years. To do that with any degree of 
competence, he had to do something right. I mean, of course, religiously, 
he was a wretch. And of course, he made some huge 
theological errors and blunders and bad things and cut himself 
off from the Lord God most high. But nevertheless, there was a 
degree of protection that he afforded to the nation. There'll be good ones that may 
not exploit you the way that the rest of them will. But there 
will be ones that do exploit you with every degree of their 
capability that they have. In fact, verses 10 to 18, which 
we're going to look at in just a moment, is not a strict description 
of what each king individually would do. But rather, it shows 
what rights the king will have. And a king with a sinful and 
undisciplined heart would certainly exploit those rights. Again, 
Lord Acton says, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. This is why when Moses is told 
by Jethro to appoint men to help him with reference to delegating 
judicial matters, you didn't just pick the first guys that 
volunteered. You didn't just pick the guys 
who could breathe. You pick guys who fear God. You 
pick guys that have wisdom. You pick guys that didn't have 
a propensity to engage in injustice or to show partiality. In the 
civil polity today, there needs to be a part of wisdom on the 
voters, on the people that call for leaders. This is our responsibility. God in his grace has given us 
a civil polity. behind that voice when it comes 
to the voting booth. So with reference to the monarchy 
in Israel, David Samora, a commentator on First Samuel, a very excellent 
commentator, procedural discourse is not a narrative description 
of the deeds of a king. As a literary genre, it is more 
like a manual that explains what a king would do normally to conscript 
military and administrative personnel. It simply lists the king's right 
according to the rule or regulations in a monarchic society. So let's look then at the description 
of the new form of government in verses 10 to 18. So verse 
9, however, Therefore, or rather, now therefore, neither of the 
boys, however, you shall solemnly forewarn them and show them the 
behavior of the king who will reign over them. This is what 
you're asking for. This is what you're going to 
get. Notice, the king will exploit their families. The king will 
enslave them. And the king will cause them. the behavior of the king will 
reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for 
his own chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some will run before 
his chariots. You think about that, and you 
go, that's equal jet. We've got to serve the body politic. We've got to function. We've 
all got to do our part, as JFK said. That's not what your country 
can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Don't 
miss the verb, the main verb that applies in deception. It's 
the verb not he's going to pay them a rich stipend for their 
services. He is going to reward them with 
great things from his bounty. No, take verse 11, take verse 
13, take verse 14, take verse 15, take verse 16, take verse 
17. That's the function of the nature 
of a monarchy. Again, it wouldn't be every single 
thing. David was great. Solomon was great. There were 
great guys that sat on the throne later on in Judah that didn't 
seem to engage in this sort of a thing. But it was their prerogative 
to do so if, in fact, they wanted to. And there wasn't a lot you 
could say about it. You didn't get a vote. You didn't 
get to say, well, you know what? I don't want to give my sons. 
I don't want to give my daughters. What you want is what you're 
getting. So he'll take your sons, verse 11, and he'll take your 
daughters, verse 13. He will take your daughters to 
be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And then notice the servants 
in verse 16. And he will take your male servants, 
your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys and 
put them to his work. And again, notice the emphasis. 
He's not paying them richly. I mean, he's going to give them 
some sort of a stipend. They've got to eat. in terms of sustenance and life, 
and that sort of thing. But the bottom line is, your 
family is going to dramatically change. Your son's not going 
to be working for you in your field, which seems a bit unfair. But hey, you wanted a king, so 
now your son is going to work for the king in his field. and as you follow through the 
modern age, this is what happens. Again, just a caution to the 
people here. Be careful what you ask for. 
Notice that he'll exploit their goods, according to verses 14 
and 15. He will take the best of your 
fields, your vineyards, your olive groves, and give them to 
his servants. He will take a tenth of your 
grain and your vintage and give it to his officers and servants. And then verse 17, he will take 
a tenth of your sheep and you will be his servants. So this 
will benefit the king, obviously, when your sons are plowing his 
field and when your daughters are making his pastry and when 
your servants are folding his shirts. It's gonna benefit him 
greatly. But as well, it's gonna benefit 
his bureaucracy Right? This isn't one guy doing 
all this. He's got a lot of people on the 
payroll. Remember when you get to 1 Kings 
chapter 18, you've got Ahab and Jezebel. Elijah's going to throw 
down with Ahab in that rod contest. And it speaks of the 450 prophets 
of Baal that eat at Jezebel's table. That's state-subsidized 
idolatry. That's what that is. When these 
prophets of Baal eat at Jezebel the queen's table, that means 
they're taking taxes from Israelites and feeding these prophets of 
Baal. That's a horrific thing, brethren. And yet the Old Testament 
is filled with that. So when we get to this new covenant 
and the emphasis upon God's ordination of civil government, it's not 
the case that all men everywhere dramatically, the same sort of 
propensities are in civil government today that we just at least need 
to be conscious of. And I'm not saying we rebel, 
and we revolt, and we shoot them. I'm not suggesting that at all. 
But I am suggesting to be on the alert that they're not possibly 
always in it for our good. And that's the case in this particular 
emphasis as well. Notice the king will enslave 
you. How does he do that? Verse 17, 
he will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will be his servants. This, again, according to Samorath, 
is a royal tax on agricultural products. It's different from 
the tithe for religious institutions. Deuteronomy 14, Deuteronomy 26 
speak concerning the tithe. That was a religious thing. That's 
not what's in view here. Verse 17, he will tax you to 
death. He will tax you into slavery. He will tax you into such a place 
that you will no longer have that freedom that comes as God's 
people. Notice the end of verse 17, you 
will be his servants. That's not the way it should 
function. It should function in the manner 
of the king, the monarch, The way Jesus functions as king and 
monarch. He's a leader, he's a defender, 
he's a protector, and he's a giver. He cares for, he serves his flock. He cares for them and does them 
good. Notice that all of this will 
indeed evoke a crying out on the part of Israel. Verse 18, 
and you will cry out in that day because of your king whom 
you have chosen for yourselves and the Lord will not hear you 
in that day. It's going to be so bad that 
you're going to cry out to God, please deliver us from this. 
Have you ever asked a question with reference to, I don't know, 
some civil leader in our own generation? You've thought, how 
did that person ever get voted back in? How did that person 
after that term ever get voted back in? You don't have to go 
far, brethren. Look at the warning that God 
gives through Samuel. This is God-given. This isn't 
some crap-pot nutty preacher telling you it's going to be 
bad out there. This is God, through Samuel, telling them this is 
what you're going to get. You love your sons, you love 
your daughters, you're going to have to love them from a distance. 
You love their pies, you love their plowing of the field, you 
love their presence in your home. Tough! They're gone. It's all 
over. So he's told them explicitly and in detail. Now, notice the 
demand for the change in government. Verse 19, nevertheless, after 
all this, so here you go. How could people ever vote for 
that guy again? Well, here it is. Nevertheless, 
the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, 
no, but we will have a king over us. Don't you want to give him 
a shake? Don't you want to say, no, no, no, don't do that. Don't 
go down that road. You meet somebody and they say, 
yeah, you know, I voted for this person the first time, and he's 
made a mess, or she's made a mess, everything, but, you know, you're 
going to vote for them again. You kind of want to say, what's 
the matter with you? Brethren, human nature, for all 
its glory, is a really strange thing. It's a very volatile world. Again, even among the people 
of God, we've got remaining corruption. And even among the people of 
God, we don't always act with reference to our best interests. 
We'll hear all this, and we'll say, no, we still want a king 
to reign over us. Gil says, when they cry out to 
the Lord, he will not hear you in that day. He will not regard 
them, have no compassion on them, suffer them to remain under their 
oppressors, and not deliver them out of them. because they rejected 
him from being their king, and put themselves out of his protection, 
into the hands of another. And therefore it was judged to 
leave them to their own choice. So they refused to obey, they 
demanded a king, they wanted to be just like the other nations 
around them, and that's their rationale, verse 1, that we also 
may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, 
and go out before us and fight our battles. that fought their battles against 
the Philistines. It was God. It was God Most High 
who intervened on their behalf and destroyed and smashed the 
Philistines. Verse 21, Samuel heard all the 
words of the people and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. 
So the Lord said to Samuel, heed their voice and make them a king. 
And Samuel said to the men of Israel, every man go to his city. Again, be careful what you ask 
for. What you perceive may be a blessing, may not always be. 
I think in the arena of politics, we can be sorely misguided. It's not politics that's ultimately 
going to get us out of the mess that we're in. It's not a party. It's not a person. I'm not saying 
that we don't vote accordingly. We don't use wisdom and all that. 
But where is our hope, ultimately, and our help, ultimately? It's 
at the right hand of God most high. Speaking of kings, it's 
the Lord of Lords. And though we may see some difficulty There is most blessed, there 
is most glorious, and there is most wondrous. It is world without 
end. It is world in the presence of 
God Most High and the Lamb who sits on the throne. So all of 
that to say it could be worse, it may get worse, but it's probably 
not the case that any man or institution or party is going 
to fix everything. Again, you're me. Hear me well. That doesn't mean suspend all 
wisdom and rationality and just continue to vote for the status 
quo. Or rather, well, I'm just not going to be interested in 
this at all. I mean, that's certainly your prerogative. That is certainly 
your right. There is no man or agency that 
can force you to do anything. You've got ultimate conscience 
before God most high. So in conclusion, I would add, 
not only are political institutions legitimate, provisional, common, 
and accountable, They also can be renegade and sinful. They 
have the propensity to do horrific things. And subsequent history, 
not just biblical history in terms of monarchy in Israel, 
but closer at home, last couple centuries, we've seen tragic, 
tragic displays of civil government in terms of oppression, and in 
terms of murder, mayhem, and all sorts of distortions. Well, 
in conclusion, there's a few ways to her role with reference to 
civil government. I'm just going to outline those 
ways and speak to a couple of them in a bit more detail. The 
first is called Erastian. Erastian. Erastianism. And basically that means the 
state is over the church. The state is over the church. 
Erastianism is the Church of England. The Church of England, 
Queen Di was the head of the church. Now, King Charles is 
the head of the church. It's kind of hard to say that, 
but yeah, that's what's happening in terms of the structure. So Erastianism is the magistrate 
is over the ecclesiastical sphere. Secondly, and this is probably 
back in the day versus now in terms of Romanism, when the Pope 
crowned Charlemagne, it was the church and it was on the stage 
over the church. And then in Romanism, you've 
got the church over the state. Now, I don't think they operate 
that way now. But given the objectivity, I'm 
sure they could seize upon that. So when Rome is not in charge, 
they're a different breed. They're nicer. They're kinder. 
They're gentler. In North America, Rome seems like, what's the problem? What would you have with Rome? 
Go to a place where Rome dominates, you'll see what the problem is. 
You see lots of imbalance in terms of the way things operate. 
But historically, Rome over the church, or the church over the 
state, rather. The next view, and this has become 
popular since, I'd say, the 1960s, maybe a little before that. There might have been bits and 
pieces of it even prior to that. It comes to expression. mainly 
in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It's called theonomy. And theonomy, etymologically, 
simply means God's law. It's a wonderful word. Theos, 
God. Namas, law. Theonomy. What could be better? Theonomy. Great. God's law. Well, 
theonomy, as it's understood in terms of our relationship 
to the civil state, has a bit of nuance. Theonomy doesn't simply 
mean what our confession teaches in terms of the law of God in 
chapter 19. That's all that verses mean by theonomy. Great, absolutely 
positive, but probably don't use that word because it does 
carry a bit of baggage. But theonomy essentially teaches, 
and this is a distinction, is that the civil government in 
this new covenant era is obligated under God to carry out the civil 
laws or the judicial laws given by God through Moses. Now, the 
question isn't, Could they? Sure. The question isn't, would 
it be helpful? Sure. The question isn't, could 
it be good? Yeah. The question is, in this 
new cognitive expression, must they? That's the question. Greg Bonson, in his very helpful 
book, Theonomy and Christian Ethics, adds, or he gives a whole 
litany of things that he intends to prove in his book there. It's number 10 that's the rub. He says, the civil precepts of 
the Old Testament, standing, quote unquote, judicial laws, 
are a model of perfect social justice for all preachers, even 
in the punishment of criminals. And again, I would dispute that. But is it the case that Justin 
Trudeau is in some special He is obligated. He is covenantally 
obligated to obey the civil laws of Moses. I don't believe that 
in the New Covenant era. I think John Gill is closer. 
John Gill said, I cannot but be of opinion that a digest of 
civil laws might be made out of the Bible, the law of the 
Lord that is perfect, either as lying and expressed words 
in it or to be deduced by the analogy of things and cases. 
and by just consequences, as would be sufficient for the government 
of any nation. And then there would be no need 
of so many law books or so many lawyers. And perhaps there would 
be fewer lawsuits. However, what does he say? Sure, they could. It would be 
great, beneficial. There's 613 laws in the Old Testament. 
613. That's it. It's amazing, isn't it? I bet you couldn't build a shed 
in your backyard without a stack of laws that high in the city 
of Chilliwack. 613 laws, that's great. He says, 
that would be helpful. It would reduce the amount of 
lawyers. It would reduce the amount of law students. It would 
be very beneficial. We Christians, under whatsoever 
government we are, are directed to submit to every ordinance 
of man for the Lord's sake, and for conscience's sake, even to 
everyone that is not contrary to common sense and reason, and 
to religion and conscience. See Romans 13, Titus 3, 1 Peter 
chapter 2. The confession of faith that 
we subscribe says that the judicial laws of Moses expired is the 
general equity thereof. And again, that's a whole sermon 
or lesson on itself. But in terms of the judicial 
law coming from the hand of Moses to the Commonwealth of Israel, 
that has expired. Are there principles that we 
can learn from it? Yes. Are there principles that 
we plug into modern society? Absolutely, positively. We're 
going through Exodus. We just went through that section 
in chapters 21 and 23. I'm not against that at all. The however there, though, is 
very important. When you get to the new covenant, 
the old covenant is over. It's not still binding. So therefore, 
Nero wasn't in some special covenantal relationship. Again, you might 
extrapolate some general sense because God instituted him and 
he's accountable to God. You wanna call that a covenant, 
okay, but it's not the old covenant wherein when Solomon sits on 
the throne in Israel, he sits on I wouldn't suggest that wherever 
Justin Trudeau is sitting, that's Yahweh's seat. In the same sort 
of way it was when Solomon sat upon the throne. Even Luther. Luther, who history tells us, 
or many tell us, was an antinomian. That he was against the law. 
And he wasn't, but that's just one of those things. He says, 
nor would it be a, this is in his commentary on Galatians, 
by the way. Nor would it be a sin if the emperor used some of the 
civil laws of Moses. In fact, it would be a good idea 
if he did. Therefore, the sophists are in 
error when they imagine that after Christ, the civil laws 
of Moses are fatal to us. They're saying, they're not fatal. 
It'd be good. It'd be nice if the emperor, 
the king, would do those things that we find in the Old Testament 
civil law. Again, there's not an issue as 
to whether or not it would be good, it would be helpful. But 
is there a divine necessity placed on civil government today that 
is precisely the same as the divine necessity placed upon 
Solomon? or upon David, or upon Josiah. There is a difference in the 
covenants. And to take the old covenant 
law, the judicial law, and say that the civil polity today must 
do that is to step further than scripture authorizes. That's 
my point. Then the final approach is what's 
called two kingdoms. I should tell you that everybody, 
or at least Those who write or speak or talk about theonomy 
misunderstand and typically misrepresent the two kingdoms here. Basically 
what this teaches is that Christ is Lord over all things. Everything. Christ is King. There is under 
Christ the Church and the State. Makes sense, right? The State's 
not the Church and the Church is not the State. They have somewhat 
equal ultimacy under Christ. The state doesn't have the prerogative 
to go in and dictate what the church should do in terms of 
worship, or in terms of sacraments, or in terms of those sorts of 
things. The church has the prerogative to preach the law of God to the 
civic state, but the church doesn't have the prerogative to go in 
and dictate. But he rules the one, not even 
but, he rules the one via the word, and he rules the other 
via natural law, which is consistent with the word. We're not saying 
it's a wholly other thing or a wholly different species in 
terms of what he ought to be enforcing. Turretin, I think, 
describes this well. He says, before all things, we 
must distinguish the twofold kingdom, belonging to Christ, 
one natural or essential, the other mediatorial and economical. Christ possesses the former, 
the natural or essential, over all creatures with glory and 
majesty equal to that of the Father and Holy Spirit. As God, 
Christ is over the civil sphere. As God, Christ is over the created 
order. As God, his kingdom rules over 
all. That's what he's saying. He says, 
the latter, the mediatorial and economical, the latter kingdom, 
according to the economy of grace, he administers in a peculiar 
manner as god-man. Theanthropos, which is god-man. The former extends equally over 
all creatures. The latter is terminated especially 
on the church. That is founded on the degree 
of providence. This, on the degree of election. 
That is exercised by Christ inasmuch as he is God and the law does. 
This inasmuch as he is God-man. Hence it is called his mediatorial 
and economical kingdom because it is a dominion peculiar to 
the mediator and as it were his own according to the dispensation 
of grace. The other belongs to him by nature 
and is on that account called natural. The mediatorial belongs 
to him from the free institution of God So again, whatever we do in terms 
of application or implication, I don't think that point is arguable. I don't think that's a debatable 
point. I don't think the reality that 
Christ is head over all things, and then there's the church, 
or the ecclesiastical, or spiritual sphere, and then there's the 
state of the naturals. Of course. And it's not to say 
that Christ doesn't rule over the civil. that they are supposed to stay 
in their lanes. They're supposed to do their 
thing in a way that's consistent with Christ their King and their 
Lord. Now, practically, brethren, just 
as a bit of autobiography, this has helped me tremendously. I'm 
a pastor in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and as a result, 
I'm tasked with preaching and teaching the word of God. But 
I'm also a citizen in the kingdom of this world. I'm a Canadian. 
I've got the right to protest. I've got the rights that are 
described in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are certain 
things I do as a pastor butler that I didn't do as a private 
individual. There's things, I don't mean 
morals and ethics, but as a private individual, there's things I 
can do and I will do that I don't do as pastor butler. It's helped 
free up my mind in terms of category distinctions. My specific responsibility 
to the church, my specific responsibility to the kingdom that I'm a part 
of in this lower world. We should be, or at least in 
my conviction, we should be responsible agents in both, insofar as we 
are able to be. Now, I've obviously been balanced. I've probably stepped outside 
of my boundary markers at a time or two, and I'm sorry. But at 
the same time, these are the categories that I think are most 
helpful for the Church as we move through whatever it is that 
is in store for us. We are faithful servants of Jesus 
Christ Most High, but we're also, in line with our Confession, 
and in line with Romans Chapter 13, supposed to be faithful citizens 
in the government, or in the civil polity that we find ourselves 
in. For my part, and you may disagree, 
you may have read Theotomy, you may be convinced of Theotomy, 
I've read a bit of it, I've been more convinced of it in the past 
than I am now, and we may disagree again on some of the applications, 
or implications, or details, and that sort of thing, but for 
me, this whole two-themed notion has been very helpful in terms 
of Christ over church and state, and the way that we're supposed 
to function and operate as church and as state. Again, I don't 
have all the answers. I certainly don't have perfect 
application or practice, but it's a helpful framework by which 
to see the church's relationship to the civil state, and conversely, 
to see the civil state's relationship to the church. We must ultimately 
obey God and not men, irrespective of whatever each kingdom is saying. So anyways, just had to get that 
bead off my bonnet, and I'll close in prayer, and then God 
willing, next time we will gather, We will skip 25, because we did 
25, and then Cam will do 26 in two weeks time, which should 
be the 29th. And that'll bring us back on track in terms of 
our numbering system in the confession. So I'll pray. Our Father in heaven, 
we thank you for your word. We thank you for the reality 
that we see, even in old covenant Israel, that you have said, you 
stated, you told them there would be abuse on the part of the king. 
We know this by experience and our own generation. We pray for 
grace and wisdom as we navigate in this lower world and help 
us first and foremost to be faithful as God's people with reference 
to our blessed Savior and as God's church with reference to 
our blessed Savior.