All right, you can turn to Chapter 24 in your Confession of Faith of the Civil Magistrate. Cam will take up Chapter 23 when he comes back, but I want to read Chapter 24 and then we'll look at the teaching of this particular section in a bit of detail concerning the Christian and civil government. and the role of civil government on its own. So I'll read beginning in chapter 24 at paragraph one.
Confession Study: Chapter 24
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 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 aforesaid, subjection in all 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.
Amen.
Introduction
So a brief It's a chapter to be sure, but very comprehensive in terms of the scope and the function and the responsibility of civil government and the Christian's relationship to the civil government. So essentially what we have in paragraph one is the divine origin of civil government. Paragraph two is the Christian involvement in civil government. And then paragraph three is the Christian's duty toward civil government.
So again, brief, but somewhat comprehensive in terms of a good summary statement with reference to our place before God and before men in terms of civil government. So first,
Divine Origin of Civil Government
with reference to the divine origin of civil government, the obvious background and the proof text is Romans 13. I'll just read verses 1 to 4. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. for he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Again, what we find in terms of civil government very responsibly explained here in chapter 24.
So in terms of the author of civil government, what we have there in Romans 13 and what we have emphasized in the Confession is God. God is the Supreme Lord, God is the King of all the world, and God hath ordained civil magistrates. So this ordinance or this authority or this structure is in place because of God Most High. With reference to the origin, Charles Hodge said that some have supposed that the right or legitimate authority of human government has its foundation ultimately in the consent of the governed. the will of the majority, or in some imaginary social compact entered into by the forefathers of the race at the origin of social life.
It is evident, however, that the divine will is the source of all government, and the obligation to obey that will, resting upon all moral agents, the ultimate ground of all obligation to human governments. The obligation to obey that will, resting upon all moral agents, the ultimate ground of all obligation to obey human governments, is God. God is the author. Actually, that's A.
A. Hodge in his commentary on the Westminster Confession. Not Charles, though I'm sure Charles would make a similar sort of emphasis. I think it's A.
A. and not Charles with reference to the Confession. But
Limits on Civil Authority
the limitation of civil government is then underscored as well. If God is the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, if God hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, that necessarily limits the abuse by man of this particular office. He's not sovereign. He's not an autocrat.
He doesn't have supreme authority. He is limited, ultimately, by the will of God. And so, with reference to the authorship, it's God, but
Purpose: Glory of God and Public Good
notice the purpose that God has given for civil government. So, He hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public good. But again, if we just understood that about the role of civil government, we're going to do well. The civil magistrate exists, it's appointed by God, and it's under God.
It's not over God, it doesn't have tyrannical authority, it doesn't have despotic rights and rules and the ability to govern every facet of every individual's lives. But they're under God and they're over man. So that shows us our position under God, under civil government. With reference to God, we need to give them obedience.
But the particular purpose is God's glory and the public good. As attractive as anarchy might look, we need to remember that government was ordained by God, and the two-fold purpose is the glory of God and the good of man. I would argue that when the government usurps to itself more authority than God has given, and they begin to actually go against the public good, then we've got big problems, we've got big challenges, we've got big issues. Similar to what I think we're facing today, they want to restrict our ability to speak, they want to restrict our ability to function, they want to restrict a lot of things, and they have, in my mind, betrayed what Romans 13 sets forth in terms of their lawful authority. but the glory of God and the public good of man.
The Bible indicates the divine origin of government and that it is designed to benefit man. The good of man is abused when government ultimately exceeds its authority and its boundaries. So the confession not only underscores the necessity of Christians and their obligation to the civil government, but it rightly limits the place of civil government. We mustn't give absolute authority and absolute power to any man.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we need to be on guard against such things. And then notice at the end of paragraph one, we see that
The Sword: Coercive Authority
God has given a symbol of authority to the civil government. So it says, 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. Don't make any mistakes. The civil government has the coercive authority backed by God to impose violence to accomplish their means.
Again, that's not made up by man. It ought to be respected by man and not given sort of arbitrarily to unproven men. But nevertheless, that coercive authority of the civil state is ultimately given it by God, and that's what's underscored there. To this end, he hath armed them with the power of the sword for defense and encouragement of them that do good and for the punishment of evildoers.
John Murray refers to the sword. He says the sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant part of his equipment is not merely the sign of his authority, but of his right to wield it in the infliction of that which a sword does. It can be wielded to execute punishment that falls short of death, but to exclude the right of the death penalty when the nature of the crime calls for such is totally contrary to that which the sword signifies and executes." It's contrary to the scriptures. It's contrary to natural law.
It's contrary to decency and morality and a right appreciation of the way things ought to be. So the magistrate wields the sword for the defense of those who do good. Again, very simple. Defense of those who do good.
Defense within the body politic against criminals. Defense from outside the body politic from foreign invasion. That's the specifics that I think Paul argues for in Romans 13 in terms of civil authority. They bear the sword to protect their people from criminal activity within and from foreign invasion from without.
And you've heard me say this a billion times. And if this is what you put on my gravestone, that's fine. But that's all that the state has as their authority. It is to protect the citizenry.
And I think that what we have in this statement, again, under him, over the people for his own glory and the public good. And then in paragraph two, notice the specific focus of their task. as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace. The government shouldn't be in the education business. They shouldn't be in the plumbing business.
They shouldn't be in the building houses business. They're just bad at all of it. I mean, just by way of an observation. But that's not been given them by God.
It has not been entrusted to the government to be cradle-to-grave authoritarians over their citizenry. They're supposed to exercise the use of the sword to protect the citizenry against criminals within and from foreign invaders without. That's really it. Everything else is just another effort or means or attempt by them to arrogate authority and sovereign power that belongs to God alone.
We're supposed to look to God for our daily bread. We're supposed to look to God for assistance when it comes to building or buying a house. We're supposed to look to God for, you know, what light bulb to use in our homes or what toilet we're okay to operate with. The idea that the government has been given this authority by man is unfortunate because that's not what we find in the scripture.
So again, with reference to the exercise of the use of the sword, it's for the defense and encouragement of them that do good. And by encouragement, I think that's a reference to Romans 13. Therefore, verse two, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves, for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil, I would always supply, works, evil works, not evil thoughts, not evil words, but evil works. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?
Do it as good, and you will have praise from the same. I don't think Paul's intention there is that praise from the same means that you obeyed all the laws this week, so the government's going to bring you downtown and give you good gifts. No, praise from the same, I think, means they're going to leave you alone so you can just function and do what God's given you to do in terms of raising your family, working your job, and functioning as a normal human being. I don't want my government to praise me.
I want them to praise me by leaving me alone. And I think that's what's in view here in the confession. So the defense and encouragement of them that do good and encouragement as well to see the sword utilized properly. is a boon to the citizenry. To see that actual criminals are being actually punished, to see that actual invaders are actually being thwarted, that encourages me.
If my government did what it was supposed to do, I'd be a happy camper. I'd be encouraged when it comes to this area or this arena of civil government. But as well, the punishment of evildoers. Again, the death penalty.
Capital Punishment and the Noahic Covenant
Genesis 9, 6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. And I would suggest that civil government is connected to the Noahic covenant, that civil government is a common grace expression of God's kindness for his glory and for the public good of man, and that it's most likely more connected to the Noahic. The Noahic has not been abrogated, it's a universal, perpetual, binding covenant, and it does provide for it redress against criminal offenders in civil society. Execute them.
That's God's mind with reference to the post-flood world, the pre-flood world, which was characterized by exceeding corruption and violence. So after coming out of the ark, it makes sense that God hands the sword to the civil government to execute criminal offenders that murder people. It just makes good sense. So the command given to Noah, the detailed legislation in the Mosaic law in terms of capital crimes, and then the role of the civil government, again in Romans chapter 13 and verses 1 to 4.
He bears the sword. He doesn't do it in vain. He bears it to execute God's vengeance and wrath in history. That's his function, that's his role, that's his purpose.
That that's never even discussed ought to concern us as citizens in a body politic. That the maintenance of justice and peace don't make it to any political party's platform is a big sign that things are not good. We need to understand that what we find here in chapter 24, paragraphs one and two, are basically exhaustive of civil government's role. Under God, over man, glory of God, good of man, maintenance of justice and peace.
That's really it when it comes to the civil government. And with reference to the role of the government in executing criminal offenders, Ursinus says that the magistrate therefore may be guilty of doing wrong, not only in being cruel and unjustly severe, but also in being too lenient in granting permission to certain persons to injure others. Yeah, you can have a tyrant. Yeah, you can have a Pol Pot.
Yeah, you can have a Stalin that turns the sword against the citizenry. That's a reality. But you can also have a civil government that never executes any vengeance, that never actually does their job in the maintenance of justice and peace. And again, I think it goes back to electing, if you're in a democratic or a constitutionally republic sort of a situation where we have a say in the political process, We elect grave, serious, well-equipped men, not morons, not guys that have the mentality of a third grader, a frat boy.
I mean, if we're going to hand the sword to people in authority, let's do it to people that actually have the ability to function in that capacity. It's just insane. Watson says to kill an offender is not murder, but justice. A private person sins if he draws the sword.
A public person sins if he puts up the sword. A magistrate ought not to let the sword of justice rust in the scabbard, as he shall not let the sword be too sharp by severity, so neither should the edge of it be blunted by too much levity. Yeah, I think that's what we see. You see, you know, great amounts of punishment upon the law abiding, and then you see the most vicious criminals get nothing.
That doesn't bring encouragement to the body politic. You wanna discourage the body politic? Praise the evildoers and punish the upright. Punish the pro-lifers.
Punish people who want guns. Punish people who want free speech. You wanna discourage people? That's exactly how you do it.
You wanna discourage the law-abiding? Let the godless pedophile continue to go unpunished by the civil state. I mean, it's all a recipe for disaster that creates a contempt for what God's ordained to be good. And I would summarize, and
Four Marks of Political Institutions
I'm gonna lean on David Van Drunen here. I realize not everybody agrees with Van Drunen's application of government or magistrate principles or political principles, but I think he's bang on when he highlights or summarizes four observations concerning politics or concerning the role of the civil state or the civil magistrate. He says first that political institutions are legitimate. They're legitimate.
Okay, Anabaptists thought that they were illegitimate. Anabaptists thought that Christians couldn't participate in civil government, and that's why the Baptists that we, you know, like, the second, you know, London Confession guys, write chapter 24 in the way that they do. Remember that when they wrote their confession, it was to distance themselves from the Anabaptists. Well, no place in the Confession would do that quite as well as 24.2 when they say it is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto.
That would make any Anabaptist lose his lunch. What? Participate in that evil? Participate in the beast?
Jehovah's Witnesses are like this as well. Well, if God ordained civil government, then we have to argue that it's legitimate. That doesn't mean they're abuse, tyranny, despotism, you know, all the wicked. Nobody's saying that's legitimate, but the institution of government in itself is legitimate.
Everybody has to agree with that. Secondly, political institutions are provisional. They're for this age and not the age to come. The only God-ordained society of men that is perpetual from this age into the next is the church.
The family isn't will be like the angels, neither marrying or given in marriage. The state isn't. Jesus rules the New Jerusalem. We don't need, you know, Mark Carney.
We don't need Donald Trump. We got the Lord Jesus who rules and reigns the New Jerusalem. So they're provisional. They're of this age, legitimate ordination by God, under God, over man, for his glory, for their good, in the maintenance of justice and peace.
He suggests, thirdly, political institutions are common. They're common for unbeliever and believer alike. We're all part of this. We all have to submit to governing authorities.
We all have to sort of relate to the civil magistrate around us, whether we're believers or we're unbelievers. And on this side of the end of the commonwealth of Israel, the theocratic state of Israel, There is not a specific body of judicial laws handed to anybody politic on how they must govern themselves. I mean, there's certain absolute positive moral law stuff, but it's gonna change from commonwealth to commonwealth. And as Christians and non-Christians, we have a duty to obey insofar as they're not telling us to sin.
And then political institutions are accountable. Political institutions are ultimately accountable to God, they're under God, but as well to men. They're over men. In a situation like we face, where we have, you know, at least an illusory participation in the civil government process, we ought to be active, we ought to be prayerful, we ought to write letters, we ought to vote, we ought to do those things that are part and parcel of being faithful citizens in a commonwealth.
So the accountability comes under God over man. We ought to be able to fire them, we ought to be able to vote them out, we ought to be able to understand There's an accountability. These are not gods. They're not sovereign.
They don't have absolute authority. They must function under God, over man, for the glory of God, the good of man, in the maintenance of justice and peace. More Christians need to think about these things and to take these things seriously when it comes to to matters of voting, to matters of praying, to matters of assembling, of matters of protesting. All that stuff.
This is where we're at in the modern age. Legitimate, provisional, common, and accountable. Now
Christian Involvement in Civil Government
the second chapter, paragraph rather, deals with the Christian involvement in civil government. Notice again, paragraph two. It is lawful. for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. It's acceptable for a Christian to be an executioner.
It's an acceptable position for the Christian to be a part of the firing squad, to pull the lever at the gallows. If we don't think that's acceptable, then we got some Anabaptist in our heads. I think it'd be a great job. He hardly ever worked.
It's pretty simple. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. This is what I want to be in my next career step.
Yeah, I want to be the executioner. I want to wear the hood, and I want to flip the switch. That'd be great. They probably pay well, too, I would imagine, because it's probably a heavy responsibility, but it's legit.
We can't say that it's okay for God to ordain the civil state, for God to hand the civil state the sword, for the civil state to delegate the authority to wield that sword to a particular man or men, and then to upbraid those men as being somehow calloused beasts. No, it's a God-ordained authority given by the Lord for the execution of criminal offenders. Just like we can't argue that it's wrong necessarily. Now, again, the confession goes into this, and we'll see this, God willing, in a moment.
It's not wrong to be a part of the military. It's not wrong to fight. It's not wrong to kill people in battle. It's just not.
In fact, we owe our freedom because someone somewhere went out and killed somebody in battle. It's really easy in the 21st century to decry all of this violence as we've benefited from it. It's like the blue-haired woman that's complaining about capitalism as she's tweeting on her iPhone. There's just a problem with that.
It's capitalism that gave you the iPhone. It's capitalism that put that Starbucks in your hand. And all the while you're bandying about how bad it is and how much you want communism. It just rings hollow.
So notice, it's lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. And again, the theological context is anabaptism. Waldron says, our Baptist forefathers were not anabaptists. It was anabaptists who taught that Christians could not occupy the office of the civil magistrate without sin.
It was they who taught that this office was of the devil. Clearly our Baptist forefathers completely rejected such a view of government and the resultant pacifism it implied. They publicly distanced themselves from it in their confession of faith. You can't miss that.
If you ask the question, where in did our Baptist brothers in 1689 and 1677 differ from the Anabaptists? This is a big one. This is something that no Anabaptist would be like, well, yeah, good, I can sign off on that. But notice, after highlighting the appropriateness or the lawfulness of the Christian to accept this position,
Maintaining Justice, Peace, and Just War
notice it goes on then to say, 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 they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. So the maintenance of justice and peace. the maintenance of justice and peace. Please don't miss this. If you get nothing else out of this study this morning, get that that's their job.
Justice and peace. Not house building. Not designing toilets. not making light bulbs worse. That's not their job.
Their job is the maintenance of justice and peace. That ought to inform our minds when we go to vote. That ought to inform our minds when we pray. What is it that we want the civil government to do?
We want them to maintain justice and peace. Why? So that we, the church, can lead a peaceable and a quiet life in all godliness. Isn't this Paul's point in 1 Timothy chapter 2?
Pray for kings. Pray for those who are in authority. Why? So that the church, unmolested, can function the way she's supposed to in the civil realm.
She can shine as a light. She can preach the gospel. She can evangelize. She can hold public worship services.
She can do what she's supposed to do because the context has been secured in the maintenance of justice and peace. So there's differences between ecclesiastical church state and the civil church or the civil state. But the bottom line is there's a connectedness. We like non-communism because we do want to worship God publicly, right?
I mean, we have a vested interest in economic theory, at least at the level of, I don't want communism. Because communism, yeah, they have a tough time keeping the lights on and keeping the water flowing. But even more fundamentally, they want to be God. That's their whole thing.
They want to be God. They're just really bad at it. Again, they can't keep the lights on. So when it comes to these things we need to see that the maintenance of justice and peace is the specific calling of the civil government.
Notice then as well the respect for wholesome laws according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. The recognition that there are wholesome laws in a civil polity. It's a good thing that most civil polities, well I should say all, they should have do not murder as foundational in their code. Don't commit adultery as foundational in their code.
Don't steal as foundational in their code. These are, you know, moral law, natural law, the relationship between special revelation and general revelation is seen in these principles that God reveals in terms of what is pleasing to Him and what He demands and what He commands. So we need to respect that reality and reject unwholesome laws. And unwholesome laws, you must worship Baal.
You must worship Molech. You must worship that which is contrary to Jehovah. Again, there's a limitation placed on civil government. You see it in Acts chapter 5.
When they try to prohibit the apostles from preaching Christ, what do they say? Well, you know, the government commanded it, so we're going to have to comply. No, we must obey God rather than men. We need to obey God rather than man.
And this whole ethic where, you know, we're gonna obey and be faithful and do this to the very end, that's legit, that's biblical. We all need to imbibe that, we all need to hold onto that. And then as I mentioned, the legitimacy of war. So for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.
If the Anabaptists lost it at the first clause, Oh, they're losing it. They're losing their minds now. What do you mean, just war? What do you mean, lawfully engage in war?
Well, that's what the Confession says, and that's what the Bible authorizes. It'd be nice if we lived in a world filled with fairies and pixie dust and there were no criminals. It'd be nice if there were no foreign invaders. It'd be great if everybody respected each other's sovereignty.
But that's not the world we live in. We live in a world that's characterized oftentimes by barbarism, by lawlessness and rebellion and wickedness and conquest and a desire to take that which isn't ours. So how does the Bible seek redress in the occasion of an unrighteous attempt by one nation to take over another nation? Well, the innocent nation has the right to arm itself and to fight back.
That's okay. Again, for us in the 21st century to denounce and bemoan, 20 previous centuries have been built on that. We're the recipients of it because of these principles. that have served mankind well. Solomon in Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war.
God commanded Israel to go in and engage in holy war. David, we love, King David was a hero, why? Because he beat Philistines. Why was Samson such a great man?
Because he knew how to dispatch Philistines. He was a great man because he killed lots of Philistines. Brethren, that's our Bible, to say, well, you know, I'm just going to, you know, draw the line here. Well, you don't have the right to draw the line there, because Romans 13 gives the sword to the governing authority, yes, to punish rapists and pedophiles within the body politic, but to defend the body politic from foreign invasion.
And this isn't just so much fantasy. The command by God for the execution of holy war in Deuteronomy 7, there's actually laws regarding warfare in Deuteronomy chapters 20 and 21. The favorable view of the military in the New Testament. When Jesus meets centurions, he doesn't say, you know what?
You guys are messed up. There's blood on your sword. There's blood on your hands. You need to repent.
You need to get out. You need to go sell flowers. You need to do whatever it is that's so contrary to war fight. He doesn't do that.
No one in the New Testament does that. There's never a denunciation. When John the Baptist is preaching, he doesn't tell the soldiers to give up soldiering. He tells them to be content with their wages and don't try to extort money out of people.
He doesn't say stop being a soldier, go sell flowers or bake cakes. Not that there's anything wrong in selling flowers or baking cakes. Fine, great. But if I have to think, what's the absolute contrary to soldiering?
It's probably selling flowers and baking cakes. Again, neither of which are necessarily effeminate, but just not shooting people in the face with M16s. So the favorable view of the military in the New Testament, and then the role of the government. Hodge says, if it is right for an individual to take life in self-defense, and again, it is, It really is.
It must equally be right for a community to do so on the same principle. And then Turretin says, from the very fact that Christ did not take away but confirm the authority of the magistrate, he also approved of the right of carrying on war, since it pertains to the magistrate to defend his subjects against unjust violence, which certainly cannot sometimes be done without war. And then Hodge again, no plea of honor, glory of aggrandizement, policy or profit can excuse, much less justify war. Nothing short of necessity to the end of the preservation of national existence.
In order to make a war right in God's sight, it is not only necessary that our enemy should aim to do us a wrong, but also one, that the wrong he attempts should directly or remotely threaten the national life, and two, that war be the only means to avert it. In other words, there has to be some conditions, the Confession says that, wage war upon just and necessary occasions. So then, of course, we'd ask the question, the wars that we're familiar with, let's say over the last couple of generations, have they been just and necessary? That's a whole nother discussion.
But the principle built into the Confession is that even in the New Covenant era, a Christian can participate in the civil government up to and including being an executor of God's wrath in terms of death penalty and a soldier for the protection, the maintenance of justice and peace in the body politic. That is not condemned by God. It is not frowned upon by God. And again, there's a lot of challenges.
I would imagine that if somebody tried to be involved in civil government today, the challenges are probably insurmountable. I mean, come on. But the principle, go ahead. And if you can navigate it and do it by keeping your Christian principles, great.
Same with soldiering. I'm not sure, you know, if I had sons of that age at this point, would I encourage them to join the military? In principle, yes, but with reference to a particular time frame or era of whatever government we're in, I might give them wisdom in another direction, but in principle, brethren, these are things that Scripture is clear upon. And that again, I think our confession rightly summarizes and articulates in a very tidy and handy statements.
Christian Duty Toward Civil Government
And then finally, the Christian's duty toward civil government. Notice the necessity of submission. Civil magistrates, paragraph three, being set up by God, for the ends aforesaid, subjection in all lawful things commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. So subjection in all lawful things, excuse me, commanded by them, ought to be yielded by us in the Lord.
Again, if they're commanding unlawful things, we must obey God rather than men. We don't just say, well, you know, the government said so, so. That happened during COVID. The government said so.
And man, brethren, they were wrong. And it's not just five years later being able to look back and say, yeah, were they wrong? They were wrong in the midst of it. They were never right to forbid the public assembling of God's people for the worship of God.
That was never okay. There was nothing that they could have said to make it okay. It was a no-brainer. It was so obvious and so patent.
But in things lawful, we need to obey them. Again, the principle, Romans 13, very clear. Sovereign ordination by God, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God. The authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore, verse two, whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. You obey God. for conscience sake, not just for the wrath that will ensue if you disobey the government, but for conscience sake. You do it for the glory of God.
You do it for his honor. You do it for his praise. And then the responsibility to pray for them.
Prayer for Governing Authorities
Notice about midway through. 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 peaceful life in all godliness and honesty. And you can turn to 1 Timothy chapter two. 1 Timothy chapter two, where Paul does show us this very clearly. And if you think back to the letter to the exiles in the time of Jeremiah, Jeremiah chapter 29, how were they supposed to live in Babylon?
Were they supposed to go out and rebel? Were they supposed to go out and demonstrate? Were they supposed to hold up signs, down with Nebuchadnezzar? No, they were supposed to function in their capacity in a godly, peaceable way.
They were even supposed to pray for the city that they were in. You see, God says you may be in some messed up circumstances and messed up situations, but you need to obey insofar as what they command you is lawful, and you need to be prayerful for them. So notice in 1 Timothy 2 verse 1, Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings, and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior.
So when it comes to this, he speaks specifically concerning civil government with an ecclesiastical end. Again, can we function under communism? Yeah. Is it the most pleasant way to function?
No, I quite like lights. I like water. I don't like the thought that the government that is so dumb or so ignorant or so bent on domination, it really strikes a note in my mind at least. You guys wanna be God and you can't keep the power grid functioning?
You want to be God and you can't make sure there's potable water? You're not really building confidence in your constituents at this point, okay? But we do have a vested interest, brethren, in the government that we have. Again, can we suffer?
Can we live in tunnels? Yeah. Have the people of God had to do that in the past? Yeah.
Are the people of God suffering now? Yeah. We pray for Cuba. We pray for China.
We pray for those under communist oppression. But, you know, all things being equal, I think we can have God and running water, right? Would you, do you want God or water? Can I have both?
You know, God's good. There's no new water. It's not a matter of creating something out of nothing. It's a matter of properly managing it.
And ideally through private enterprise, because they're good at it. So when it comes to this, Paul says, pray this so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. In other words, there's an ecclesiastical end with reference to our prayers for the civil state, That's not, you know, water only and lights only, but primarily the freedom to be left alone to worship our God the way that we believe. That should be in our minds.
Calvin says accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, However much they fall short of the divine appointment, still, we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers, supplicate God for their salvation. He says elsewhere in the same context, it is our duty therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good. He can save these guys too.
He can save Paul on his way to the road to Damascus or Saul of Tarsus, braving threats against the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who'd have thunk it? Right? I mean, if I would have been sort of a spectator, knowing what was going on, my prayer would have been, may this Saul fall into a big hole, break his neck, and not be able to threaten the church. I don't know that I would have.
I'd like to think now, based on my read of scripture, I'd say, or Lord Jesus, save him. But had you started off that day, you wouldn't have thought the way to defang this persecutor of the church is to make him the biggest friend of the church and the biggest propagator of the church, the champion of the church in terms of the Gentiles. Again, God can't do that. God can save people in civil government.
We ought to pray that he does so or restrain them if they're not saved and keep them at least by common grace on a narrow path such that they don't continue to terrorize the very people they're supposed to serve. So in conclusion, I think what we have in our confession, as I've said, is good. It's a good compendium. It's a good sort of holistic approach, old and new covenants, in a short span, in a short compass, in a short statement or three short statements to help us to navigate with reference to these particular issues.
And of course, when it comes to the role of civil government and the church and how are we supposed to function one with another, there's a lot of questions, there's a lot of theories, there's a lot of ideas about that, which I'm happy to talk about, but I don't want to deviate from just the goodness and the integrity of these three quick statements in chapter 24.
Questions and Answers
So we actually have a bit of time. If anybody has any questions, you're going to say, what are those views? We can deal with that. So any questions on anything?
Not that I have answers, but anything relative to the civil government? Yes, sir. Well, I think typically there's a scale with reference to penalties, and I don't... at a certain level. I don't have a problem if a guy is not guilty of a capital crime.
Capital crimes, they need to be executed. That's not up for negotiation. They need to be killed. But non-capital crimes, yeah, can you take into consideration certain mitigating factors?
A guy, you know, Proverbs mentions this. Nobody despises a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger. Everybody hates an adulterer. So, you know, within those criminal acts, a Seventh Commandment breach and an Eighth Commandment breach, in terms of the Eighth Commandment breach, he's got to pay it back, but we get it at some level.
So there's a bit of a mercy applied that I think a civil judge is free to do. But not with capital crimes. I mean, if you give him two weeks to repent and believe the gospel, and you still kill him, you've still done what you're supposed to do. I don't know that, you know, the verdict for execution, I mean, ideally it would happen right away, but you know, that's kind of Arminian too, and I don't mean to push back, but if God's gonna save the guy, God's gonna save the guy.
And it can be on the way to the gallows that you say, believe the gospel and repent, that he can. Right? He can. He can believe, hang, and we have it at the death of Jesus.
The thief on the cross started the morning off blaspheming Jesus, and he ends the day being received into paradise. So, you know, an Arminian might say, you know, give him two weeks. And I'm not saying you're an Arminian. You know what I'm saying.
I'm just, you know, it's kind of built on some faulty premises with reference to sovereignty and salvation. So the church can show mercy, but the government sets up their rule? ministers the gospel and the sacraments. It's redemptive in nature. It's healing in nature.
That's not the state. This is what I think becomes the problem in the state. The nurturer, the healer, the helper. Never any of those given it by God.
The punisher, the executor of wrath, the avenger. Those are the things predicated of civil government. Not healer. That's the church's job.
The church preaches gospel, administers the sacraments for the healing of the soul. Not the state. They punish criminals, or are supposed to. Yes?
Oh, yeah. Really? Come on, Arjun, I know you've got more. What's the right one?
What's in this chapter? Oh, like monarchy or democracy? Calvin favored monarchy. I quite like a constitutional republic.
I mean, we can function, and we are supposed to function, if we're in a monarchy, if we're in a democracy, if we're in a communistic society. We need to function and operate within the boundaries insofar as we can. And the act of rebellion is to have water. You drink that water, and it's like, we're getting over on them.
Go ahead. Can you comment a bit on the whole idea of a lesser magistrate? Yeah. which is a great theory and a great practice and it's been invoked in a couple occasions in the history of the church or in the history of the state is that a lesser magistrate can lead a not a usurpation, but a lawful revolt against a greater magistrate that is deficient and is criminal in terms of the way they operate. The problem with us is our lesser magistrate is just as corrupt as the greater magistrate.
The idea being is that the people of God typically have not been revolutionary anarchists, and they've looked for ways to rightfully respond to bad government and the lesser magistrate doctrine has afforded them a vehicle to do that very thing. So that would be what I would say. You know, gathering in the city square, grabbing pitchforks and torches, at some level seems very attractive. It just does to me.
It'd be great. Let's do it. You know, Nathan will be the guy handing out the pitchforks. You know, Roger will be handing out the torches.
All right, let's go. Something very appealing at some level, I confess. because it's just so wrong to see the way that people that are in higher places of authority have abused that authority and have targeted the very people that pay for them to exercise that authority. They add insult to injury every single day, stripping the rights of the people that pay you to do that job. So at some level, visceral, guttural, wicked, I know I've got problems level, it's good.
But it's better to have somebody that actually has political power, that actually has the ability to organize, that has the actual ability and has been approved by a constituency, serves as a lesser magistrate to lead the charge. That is the better way to go about it. Yes, sir? widespread destruction. Oh sure.
And death far greater than just during the summer. Right. So there's a credential calculus. Sure.
In terms of Which it encourages me that at least we're thinking about this, because I think the history that we connect to did think about these things. And they did provide a framework by which to judge whether it's a just or necessary war. You read in Exodus 21, where if a thief, or 22, when a thief enters your house, you can kill him. Well, they would specify specific rules need to be in place.
We don't even, I mean, we generally, church today, don't even think about these things. There's not even a concept of a lesser magistrate, not even a concept of what is a legitimate, or is there ever a legitimate revolution on the part of the constituency against the, and again, 20 centuries of the world have evidence that people did have to think in terms, live and think in terms of crises and difficulties and oppression and hardship. We just turn a blind eye. It's happening all around us.
They're taking away our right to speak, taking away our right to carry weapons. There's only one reason why your government doesn't want you to have guns. And it's not because they care. It's because they want to hurt you.
That really is it. They don't want you to be able to defend yourself. So at the level of what we can say and how we can function in terms of self-protection, when you see active campaigns against those things, I would suggest it's not a matter of, we should start to pray because things are going to get rough. This is indicative that things are already really rough.
I don't know that it's been lost on all, I hope it's not been lost on all of us, and once in a while, our dear brother Steve makes the observation when we kind of tour the globe on the voice of the martyrs, and he'll read something from China and say, boy, it sounds a lot like what's going on in Canada today. I remember COVID. I remember one night in particular. We parked off-site.
We were parking off-site and slinking in under the cover of darkness to worship, and then praying for China and those poor slobs having to slink in under the cover of Wait a minute, this is happening. So, you know, this idea that it's really going to start getting bad. I would suggest when they're taking away your right to speak from Leviticus, it's bad. It's just a matter of degrees at this point. so that we can even have a discussion of what the legitimate spheres of government is and that our confession has articulated in short compass at least the broad outlines of what civil government is.
These are things we need to think through and things that we need to discuss and things we need to be ready for because as it is, you know, I remember that in COVID and I don't mean to keep beating that old dead horse but but in terms of covid you know guys were like we just didn't we didn't think about you know we didn't have a strategy we did and it wasn't all worked out and well if they throw a pandemic at us this is no romans 13 they have authority to do this they don't have authority to do that and our confession of faith they are under god over man glory of god good of man how's it serving my good to keep me from worship How's it serving to glorify God to keep us from worship? How? So it's not like, you know, did we have to take, you know, three weeks and talk? No, no, it's stuff that was already in the DNA.
And that's the way it should be across the board. I'm not saying that, oh, we're great. I'm saying that we have a confession that we take seriously and we believe it rightly summarizes biblical truth. I think more churches should have that and already be ready so that they can counter whatever it is that may come their way in terms of another COVID.
They're calling it hantavirus or hantavirus now. Somebody said, I just put my COVID decorations away and it's already hantavirus season. Anyways, lots to think about, so I'll pray and then we'll transition into worship.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your word, we thank you for its clarity with reference to civil government, and thank you for this wonderful articulation of these truths in our confession of faith. We do pray for our governing authorities, we pray for our Prime Minister, for members of Parliament, that they would see themselves under God, over man, and that for the glory of God and for the good of man. and that justice and peace would be preeminent in their thinking. And God, we know, or at least we greatly suspect that this isn't the case. So we pray you would restrain them from wickedness and lawlessness and corruption.
We pray for those nations already steeped in communism, for our brethren in Cuba and our brethren in China. Just watch over them, give them grace to navigate under these oppressive regimes. that they may be faithful even in the midst of these things. And we ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.