← Back to sermon library

Magistrate, remember that chapter 
21 sort of sets the tone for the remaining chapters. It's on of Christian liberty 
and liberty of conscience. And then each of the facets that 
follow are somewhat of an expression of that. But also, we learn that 
Christianity is not a privatized faith. It's not simply in the 
life of the individual. We saw last time, according to 
chapter 25, that we find ourselves in family. chapter 26 will indicate 
that we find ourselves in the church. So we're not private 
individuals living on a deserted island all by ourselves with 
Jesus, but we are connected to larger wholes. And in this chapter 
we're considering the civil magistrates and the doctrine of the civil 
state with reference to this 17th century document, but also 
it does imbibe what scripture teaches concerning this. So it's 
not the case that it's never addressed. It's not the case 
that it's an absolutely sort of off-limits topic, but it's 
something that the scripture deals with, and it's something 
for the people of God. So I'll read the chapter, and 
then we'll look at it in some detail. So beginning in paragraph 
one, 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 lawful things 
commanded by God, 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. So very brief in some respects 
as compared to other chapters in the confession, but nevertheless 
packed with scriptural teaching. So basically what we find in 
this confession or this section is that the second London follows 
Savoy and Westminster pretty closely, but there are a few 
significant differences. So all three of those confessions 
have the same first two paragraphs. Then Savoy and Westminster have 
a paragraph concerning the civil magistrate's role with reference 
to the church. This has been historically identified 
as the establishment principle. I think it's in the Belgic Confession 
as well, where the government has specific application in terms 
of the Christian church. Now, I don't, in principle, have 
a problem with this. Can they? Should they? Yes. But does the Bible command it? That's the issue. Does the New 
Testament command the civil government's role in terms of the Christian 
church? That's where the Baptists took a different tact than what 
we find in sort of Paedo-Baptist communions. And then as well, 
chapter four in Savoy and Westminster is similar to chapter three in 
Second London. though chapter 4 in Savoy and 
Westminster also indicate that persons must submit to the magistrate 
even if the magistrate is an infidel or a different religion, 
that ecclesiastical persons must submit too, and that the Pope 
does not have power over the civil authority. So a few differences 
in terms of the source documents. Now, with reference to civil 
government, when I mentioned that the New Testament doesn't 
necessarily speak to the reality that the civil government has 
a particular application with reference to the Christian church, 
persons have asked, what covenant does civil government most connect 
with? I would suggest it's the Noahic 
covenant. The Noahic covenant is binding upon all men at all 
times. It's a universal covenant. It is a covenant of common grace. And I think that that ultimately 
is the sort of binding agent with reference to the civil government. 
Now, having said those introductory items, one of the other things 
that we need to make sure that we're conscious of is while this 
section of the Confession is protecting the people of God 
from tyranny, both ecclesiastical and religious, it's also addressing 
Anabaptists. Now, remember the first London 
Confession, it was basically titled, or the subtitle was to 
separate the particular Baptist from the Anabaptist. Well, the 
Anabaptists definitely would disagree with this chapter on 
the civil magistrate. They would not be inclined to 
say that Christians can participate in civil government. That is 
an Anabaptist distinctive. In fact, Waldron said, 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. Again, operating in a 
context where there's both civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, but 
also ecclesiastical pacifism in the sense that a whole group 
of people would say it would be a sin for you to serve or 
function as a civil magistrate. Now, there's obviously temptations 
and difficulties and hardships associated with serving as a 
civil magistrate. But that doesn't mean that the 
office in and of itself is sinful or that it is evil. The Bible 
addresses the place and the role of civil government. And to say 
that it doesn't or to say or pretend that it's not part of 
the Bible is simply false. We need to address it. We need 
to try to get proper perspective on it. And I should give one 
more introductory statement. I don't have all the answers. 
There's some tough things in terms of the church and its relation 
to the civil government, and then the individual Christian 
and its, or his or her, don't want to get too pronoun-y, but 
their relationship to the civil government. I've been at this 
for a few years. I've been thinking about it in 
terms of being a pastor, but as well in terms of being an 
individual. Sometimes I have crossed lines as an individual 
and stepped into the pastoral thing and said things I probably 
shouldn't have. Perhaps as pastor, I've said 
things I shouldn't have as individual. It's tough. It's tough to maintain 
that demarcation line. But nevertheless, these are some 
things that I think we can say for sure relative to our confession. So first, it deals with the divine 
origin of civil government in paragraph one. Secondly, it deals 
with the Christian involvement in civil government in paragraph 
two. And then thirdly, we see in paragraph 
three, the Christian's duty towards civil government. And then as 
a bonus section, if we have any time left, we'll look at the 
Christian approach to civil government. I'll basically just catalog the 
various ways that persons in churches, churches themselves, 
have tried to see their relationship to the civil government. I think 
some of those are obviously wrong. I think there is some truth to 
be had in certain approaches, so we'll look at that in brief. 
But notice first the divine origin of civil government. Now obviously 
Romans 13, we should probably read verses 1 to 4 just to get 
our minds framed around that. It certainly does indicate the 
divine origin of civil government. That's the proof text that the 
confession has in paragraph one. It is a standard text that persons 
ought to occupy themselves with when they consider the civil 
magistrate. Mentioned to a few of the brethren 
the other night, I got an email recently from a Dr. Timothy Decker. He teaches languages and theology 
at two seminaries. He's a Reformed Baptist man. 
During COVID shutdown, he knew of us because of Ryan. Ryan was 
one of his students, and he reached out just to say, praying for 
you, tried to encourage us, and built a bit of a relationship. 
Well, he's presently completed a manuscript on Romans 13. And 
one of the main emphases in his argument is that Paul is affirming 
the divine origin of civil government, that he's affirming the Christian's 
duty towards civil government, but he suggests, and I think 
he's going to prove his case, that one of the big issues that 
Paul is dealing with is what was called zealotry. You have 
Simon the Zealot. He's a man in the New Testament. 
That's not because he had a heart of fire for the Lord Jesus. The 
Zealots were a movement amongst the Jews that wanted to revolt 
against the Roman government. Remember that in the first century 
AD, the Jews were basically subject to the Roman authority, and there 
was this trend or this vein or this movement among the Jews 
of insurrection. Remember Barabbas? He was an 
insurrectionist and a murderer, probably some sort of a revolutionary. So Timothy Decker's, I think, 
thesis is going to be, yes, it teaches all that we believe that 
it teaches, but it's also there to dissuade against this mindset 
of rebellion and revolution on the part of the civil polity 
that identifies as Christians. But I think he's also going to 
say that the text does not authorize draconian, overreaching authority 
without any question or without any check on the part of anyone 
else. So it's not authorization to 
the civil state that they're free. under God to do whatever 
it is they wish to do. So we need to make sure that 
we not only see what the text demands, but we must be careful 
not to overextend the text to suggest that the state can do 
anything they want. So notice in Romans 13, 1, 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." So going back to the confession, this is essentially paragraph 
one. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained 
civil magistrates. So it is divine in its origin. It's not the result of the devil. 
It's not the result of, you know, men that said, this is the best 
possible option. Christ speaking as wisdom in 
Proverbs 8, 15 says, by me kings reign and rulers decree justice. And again, if you're just a tiny 
bit familiar with the Old Testament, you have to acknowledge these 
things, you know. the idea that we can't ever touch 
politics or we can't ever touch government in any sort of sermon, 
well then we can't touch the Old Testament. There's two books 
that identify by the monarchy in the Old Testament, 1st and 
2nd Kings. 1st and 2nd Chronicles pretty 
much rehash in terms of the Kingdom of Judah the same sort of information. 
So it's not demonization or demonized to touch these sorts of things, 
we just have to do so in a biblical and responsible way. So in terms 
of the divine origin of civil government, A. A. Hodge says, 
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 self-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 obey human governments. So it's not 
the consent, it's not the people, it's not the majority, it's not 
the democracy. Rather, we see that civil government has its 
taproots or origin in the will of God Most High. Now, I would 
suggest that based on that reality, there is therefore a limitation 
necessarily implied when it comes to civil government. We don't 
give ultimate authority to a man and his family. We don't give 
ultimate authority to a pastor and his church. Neither should 
we give ultimate authority to a civil magistrate in matters 
concerning the state. There has to be a limitation, 
there has to be a check and balance imposed upon that form of government. And then notice the specific 
purpose in view. He hath ordained civil magistrates, 
notice their position, to be under him. There's the limitation. He's not God. He's not sovereign, 
he's not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. He is under God, 
but notice, over the people. And he's over the people not 
when he's a normal, regular, ordinary guy. He's not a king 
that demands or deserves our obeisance every moment of every 
day. It's just like a pastor. It's 
not the case that when I come over for coffee on a Thursday 
night, I'm there to, you know, make sure you're carrying out 
every law that God has... No! There's a regular ordinariness 
about a pastor. There's a regular ordinariness 
about a president and a prime minister. These are not gods. 
These are not divine people. These are not persons that imitate 
God in that regard. So they are under God, and they're 
over the people, but in the capacity of their service to the people. 
So again, this idea that we've adopted in the Western world 
where we've got kings and nobles and we're just the subjects that 
have to render obeisance, that's not a biblical concept. That's 
certainly not a federal republic sort of a 
concept either. And then notice specifically 
why he does this. It's under him, over the people, 
for his own glory and the public good. Civil magistrate is for 
the glory of God? Yes. Anarchy may be somewhat 
attractive to persons and perhaps even more attractive to persons 
after a few years of the opposite, but anarchy is not God's purpose 
and plan. He put us to together as social 
creatures, as beings who need one another, and who find great 
companionship and help in family, in church, and in the civil state. There's nothing evil, there's 
nothing bad, there's nothing wrong about it. It's to redound 
to the glory of God and for the public good. The public good 
always ought to be in view relative to the function of civil magistrates. If the public good is not in 
view, then they're not doing their jobs because that's what 
they're supposed to be there for. Why do you think you have, 
you know, members of parliament and a prime minister? Is it out 
there? Are they out there to treat you like you're their enemy? 
No, they're for your public good. It's for the help and the benefit 
of the civil polity. So the position of the magistrate 
underscores his authority over the people, but his lack or limitation 
or checkup on his authority in the sense that he's under God. 
And it's for the glory of God, and it's for the public good. 
And then the authority of this particular man is underscored 
at the end. It says, 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 evildoers. 
So the symbol of his power is the sword. He has, according 
to the scriptures, the monopoly on violence. Citizens, individuals 
are not given the prerogative to go and be vigilantes in their 
society. We're not supposed to hide under 
the cover of darkness and jump out at people with our bat cape 
on and subdue them and take them to the police station. No, it's 
the civil government that has the monopoly on that, and that 
authority is signified by the power of the sword. John Murray 
comments that 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 fall 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 
it executes. And again, just built into this 
first paragraph, notice what it says in terms of the practical 
nature of the duty of the magistrate. For defense and encouragement 
of them that do good and for the punishment of evildoers. 
That's right from scripture. That's Romans 13. That's why 
the magistrate is there. Verse 4. For he is God's minister 
to you for, notice, good. But if you do evil, be afraid, 
for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, 
an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Brethren, 
the primary emphasis in civil government is not to keep you 
safe in terms of seatbelt laws and helmet laws and particular 
medical regimen. Their primary function is to 
defend and encourage them that do good and punish evildoers. I'd suggest that if politicians 
in the Western world spent more time on defense and encouragement 
of them that do good, again, that's not cradle-to-grave safety 
for every aspect of your life. It's simply providing streets 
that are safe enough so you can walk to work. Streets that are 
safe enough so that you can do what you're called to do. You 
can take your kids to the park and do those sorts of things. 
the defense and encouragement means, and for the punishment 
of evildoers. Deal with those who engage in 
lawlessness and transgression. Punish them to provide a context 
for the lawful to go about their lives without fear of being mugged 
or robbed in the street. So we see that the purpose of 
this power is the defense of those who do good, the encouragement 
of those who do good, and for the punishment of evildoers. 
And I'd suggest that's the way we need to read Romans 13.3. For rulers are not a terror to 
good works, he goes on to say, but to evil. I say we supply 
works in there, to balance it out, to make it parallel, but 
I think that's precisely what he's talking about. Brethren, 
we cannot ask, and we certainly should not want, a government 
to police the thoughts of its polity. That is horrifying, because 
my thoughts may be at odds with my prime minister's. Doesn't 
necessarily mean I've committed a crime. You know, there's a 
lot of things that go on in our society today that everybody 
demands punishment for. Brethren, speech is not a crime. When you do not actually take 
somebody's life, when you do not actually take somebody's 
property, you've not actually committed a crime. There might 
be types of speech under free speech we don't like, but who 
do we get to police that? Do we let people that are not 
omniscient, that are not benevolent, that are not omnibenevolent, 
do that particular task? If we lived in Iran or we lived 
in Saudi Arabia, the government there would police our thoughts 
and say, we're going to execute you because your thoughts are 
after Jesus Christ. Who wants to live in that sort 
of a situation? Paul is not here saying that 
the magistrate has the prerogative to police the thoughts or consciences 
of people. That's a horrifying prospect. We want them to police and protect 
and deal with the crimes that persons in the civil polity actually 
engage in. And then in terms of the punishment 
of evildoers, this establishes the death penalty. Romans 13 
1 to 4 certainly shows us that. As Murray says, the magistrate 
has the sword. Doesn't mean that in every aspect 
he has to use the sword to its fullest capacity to punish evildoers. But it certainly implies the 
reality of the death penalty. Now the covenant with Noah establishes 
the death penalty very clearly. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood will be shed. For in the image of God he made 
man. So when we look at the Mosaic covenant or the old covenant 
and the addition of a bunch of capital crimes, that's debatable. 
which capital crimes under the judicial laws of Moses should 
be capital crimes today, but to suggest that there's no death 
penalty is to miss Romans 13 and it's to miss Genesis chapter 
9 and verse 6. So Genesis, the Noahic covenant, 
Again, a comprehensive universal covenant that's a common grace 
covenant which comes in a particular context. Remember the post or 
rather pre-flood world, it was exceedingly corrupt and filled 
with what? It was filled with violence. 
So going forward, God gives the sword to the magistrate to deal 
with that violence in a capacity that will hopefully provide streets 
where persons are safe to take their wives and their children 
to the park or to go to work. And the same sort of thing is 
in view in Romans chapter 13. Ursinus says, 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. You hear this 
often. Oh, the death penalty, that's so contrary to Christianity. Really? Because the God of Christianity 
demands and commands it in Genesis 9, and the God of Christianity 
commands and demands it in Romans 13. Are we holier than God? Are 
we more merciful than God? Are we better than God? But listen 
to what our sinus says. If the civil magistrate does 
not carry out the execution of a criminal offender, and that 
criminal offender is released, like we've seen recently, and 
then that criminal offender goes out and kills a policeman, for 
instance, Who's at fault? Oh, yeah, the guy who killed 
the policeman, to be sure. But there's other agents there 
that may have some blood on their hands, like persons who didn't 
want to be too severe and showed leniency in the punishment of 
a criminal. Brethren, criminals should be punished. That's just 
the bleak reality or the stark reality of life. Rebellious children 
should be punished. Rebellious, sinful church members 
should be disciplined. This is an aspect of life, and 
we are not holier than God. 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. And he shall not 
let the sword be too sharp by severity, so neither should the 
edge of it be blunted by too much levity. Yes, there can be 
over-punishment, but there can be under-punishment as well. And I think this is what we're 
witnessing in the Western world. It's horrifying. When you don't 
deal with the criminal element, you get precisely the opposite 
of what Paul says and what the Confession says, for defense 
and encouragement of them that do good and for the punishment 
of evildoers. And remember, this is the mechanism 
by which God is glorified and by which the public is benefited. wherein they have their good. Now, before we leave this particular 
head, I want to just comment with reference to some basic 
observations concerning civil government. And this is from 
David van Drunen, his book called Politics After Christendom, Political 
Theology in a Fractured World. It's a very good book. Short 
on application, I think that Van Drunen writes very well in 
terms of covenants, in terms of civil polity, and those sorts 
of things. But not a lot of nuts and bolts in terms of application. 
So if you're like me and you want to see some of this stuff 
worked out, you're not going to get it in Van Drunen. He's 
more of the fly over and give you the sort of main heads and 
things of that nature. But I thought he gives four good 
things in his book concerning political institutions. He says, 
first of all, political institutions are legitimate. They're legitimate. Contra Anabaptists. Anabaptists 
says it's of the devil. No, you can't have any truck 
with the civil government. If you're a Christian man, you're 
a member of your church, you shouldn't be an MP. You shouldn't 
be an MLA. You shouldn't be a senator. You 
shouldn't be a congressman or a prime minister. Again, brethren, 
I'm not suggesting there's no temptations involved. There's 
temptations involved in all of life. But to say that the institution 
is illegitimate, that it is an aspect of demonic influence over 
the world or whatever, that's simply not a biblical concept. 
So political institutions are legitimate. Secondly, political 
institutions are provisional. They're provisional. That means 
they obtain for this age, but not in the age to come. Just 
like in the family, Jesus makes that distinction between this 
age and the age to come. In this age, men are marrying 
or given a marriage, they have children, they have families, 
all those sorts of things. In the age to come, we're not 
going to populate the New Jerusalem in that way. It's not going to 
be in the same procreative manner that we existed here on earth. 
So what institution does not obtain in the new heavens and 
the new earth? It's the government of men. It's 
the reality that we need a prime minister, that we need a president, 
that we need congressmen, or a legislative branch, and an 
executive branch, and a judicial branch. God's got that in the 
age to come. So political institutions are 
legitimate. Political institutions are provisional. Thirdly, political 
institutions are common. They're not just for the non-Christian, 
but they're for the Christian also. They're for Christian and 
non-Christian. So we need to understand that. 
We are on this earth together. We may not like it, we may wish 
that it weren't so, but we share this rock with unbelievers. And 
they, to their chagrin, share this rock with believers. So 
they're common. So the reality is that when we 
look at government, specifically in this new covenant era, it 
may not be exactly like it was in the old covenant era. We need 
to understand that civil government in the old covenant was regulated 
by the old covenant. The New Covenant does not do 
that. The New Covenant does not have, 
for instance, OK, here's the functions of the civil magistrate 
in this New Covenant age. We might like that. We might 
wish that. We might want that. But we don't 
have that. So we need to understand that 
we share the government with unbeliever and believer. And 
then finally, political institutions are accountable. They're accountable. They cannot be rogue. They can't 
be Pol Pot. They can't be Mao Zedong. They 
cannot be renegade men that with whatever they want to do, they 
can do it. That is not what the confession 
indicates. It's under him over the people. So I would suggest they're accountable 
in the first place to God, and secondly, to the people that 
they govern. There has to be a mechanism in place where there 
is accountability so we don't end up in a position where you 
have a Pol Pot, where you have a Mao, where you have men who 
said, you know, the only political power comes out of the end of 
a gun. That is horrifying behavior and when you look at the history 
of the world, that's precisely what the history of the world 
demonstrates. Men are corrupt. Men are wicked. It was Lord Acton, 
I think, talking about the Roman Catholic papacy, and he was a 
Roman Catholic, who said that power corrupts and absolute power 
corrupts absolutely. Do we want unaccountable civil 
leaders that are able to do whatever they want to do? No. I suggest 
these four things are very helpful for us to think through politics, 
legitimate, provisional, common, and accountable. Now notice in 
paragraph two, we have the Christian involvement in civil government. 
Isaac, are we online? Okay, is it okay if anybody wants 
to ask questions? Okay. Yes, sir. I would think anyways that we 
have to put it into context. It says for them that do good 
and for the punishment of those who do evil. So then who defines 
good and evil? Well, I say that's God's standard. So because we shouldn't be abiding 
to assent to the things like prevalent abortion, assisted 
suicide, a sexual perversion, idolatry, all these things that 
God's Word defines as being evil. Otherwise, how could that be 
to His glory, like it says even in our things? Or to His praise? Or for the good of men, our nations? 
It can't be. And you were mentioning about 
the 1st and 2nd Kings in the Chronicles and that. So if you 
look at those as the rulers of the ages, that was their standard, 
it was God's Word. That's what God judged them on, 
whether they brought praise to them or condemnation. Yeah, that's 
a challenge. Today, January 1st, the state 
of California has become a sanctuary state for gender affirmation. When the laws of a civil state 
bring us into conflict with the laws of a holy God, then we must 
obey God rather than men. So, you know, that's ultimately, 
and as we move through the material, this is an overview, we're going 
to deal with those kinds of things. good is evil and evil is good 
under a civil magistrate, it makes it very challenging for 
the people of God to navigate in that particular society. So 
I think that getting these principles, getting this doctrinal framework 
in us, is the first step to helping us navigate sort of the difficult, 
you know what I mean, get the overview, get sort of the biblical 
confessional framework in our minds and hearts. And then, and 
this is not the place, we get into all of the detailed application. It's tough. I mean, in principle, it's not 
tough. When the government says abortion and euthanasia and all 
those sorts of things, that's not tough. We must obey God rather 
than men. But we must also appreciate going 
forward that may bring us into conflict with the civil government. 
Now, ultimately, I'd rather be in conflict with them than with 
God. So those are the choices that 
I think. It's not so stark right now, but there's indicators that 
it's going to be that stark. So as I said, in California, 
if you're not affirming the mutilation of a 15-year-old girl who wants 
to transition, you're in conflict with their government. Well, 
again, I'd rather be in conflict with their government than with 
the government of God, ultimately. All right, so paragraph two deals 
with the Christian involvement in civil government. Notice the 
first statement. It is lawful for Christians to 
accept the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. It is lawful. Again, you could 
say, and I've said it, how could you be in politics today without 
lying? How could you be in politics today without compromising? I've 
said that probably, at least in my head, many, many times. 
So I'm not talking about the temptations associated with a 
particular task. You all understand that, right? 
There might be temptations associated with being a very successful 
businessman, right? They're having lots of money. 
There's a temptation posed there. But to be a successful businessman 
is not a sin. That's not a bad thing. So there 
may be temptations involved with civil government, but to be in 
civil government, it's not a sin. It's not lawlessness. It's not 
rebellion against God. And that's precisely what our 
confession indicates. It is lawful. for Christians 
to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. They don't, you know, push themselves 
into it. They don't demand that they be 
in it. They don't, you know, irrigate to themselves the authority. 
But when they are called thereunto through an election, through 
whatever the particular means in a civil polity to get a person 
from not being a civil magistrate to being a civil magistrate. 
That is legitimate. It is acceptable. It is lawful 
conduct. And arguably, Maybe it was Anabaptist 
thinking in the Western world that brought us to, at least 
helped bring us to the place where we are now. Dispensationalism 
was famously known for not polishing the brass on a sinking ship. 
Well, what happens when you don't polish the brass on the sinking 
ship? You help it sink even faster and more dirty. You know, we 
relegated so much of public life waiting for the rapture. We didn't 
pursue higher education. We didn't pursue places of influence. We didn't pursue arts and sciences 
and those things wherein we could, you know, be involved in the 
cultural milieu. So arguably, it could be unbiblical 
thinking at the place of, well, you know, the government, it's 
just wicked, and everything about it's wicked. And again, I'm not 
suggesting it's righteous. I'm not suggesting it's somehow 
virtuous at this point. But it could be the case that 
bad theology contributed, or at least, and I hate blaming 
the church for everything. blaming the church for everything. Brethren, that's never a good 
tack to take. The church is imperfect. The 
church has its weaknesses. The church has its foibles. The 
church has its shortcomings. The church is pastored by guys 
like me. There's always going to be problems in the church. 
So to blame the church is not, it's disingenuous as far as I'm 
concerned. But when we look at, hey, how did we get from Dan 
to Beersheba, and everything's messed up in Beersheba, well, 
there were some contributing factors. And this idea that men 
never thought to train their children to pursue politics, 
or to be lawyers, or to be in positions of influence, brethren, 
I just don't think we're heavily stacked in these agencies with 
good thinking, sharp minded Christian people. it would seem to be just 
the opposite. We have a bunch of yes men that 
just rubber stamp bad legislation, that advocate and promote the 
sorts of things that we're glutted with. Euthanasia, and abortion, 
pornography, child pedophilia, all that sort of thing is rampant 
in our generation. And so we need to appreciate 
that if your 17-year-old son wants to go into politics, an 
intervention to try to cast that spirit out of him. I mean, if 
we don't get some salt and light in these agencies, we're not 
going to ever see salt and light in society. And again, to just 
blame the church for everything. There's a lot of blame we can 
pour on the civil government as well. There's a lot of blame 
we can place all over the place. There's no shortage of place. 
to heap up blame in terms of who's at fault. But a lot of 
it is we've withdrawn, we've given it over, and we just said, 
yeah, well, you know, we're not interested in that sort of thing. 
OK, well, when you're not interested in that sort of thing, you may 
wake up this morning in California where your state is now a sanctuary 
city for gender affirmation, which when you start to read 
down the line, that means that children can be mutilated. They 
can have their private parts cut off to pursue transition. Well, that's ghoulish and horrifying. 
But again, if we don't have salt and light shining in those places, 
then we're not going to see some of these things. So we've got 
the general statement concerning its acceptableness. And then 
notice the implications of this lawfulness. Notice the maintenance 
of justice and peace. This is what you get emphasized 
in Romans 13, and what you get emphasized in the confession 
of faith. It's not cradle to grave. Every 
step and every phase of the way government is involved in your 
life. I can honestly say there's not a moment of the day that 
somehow government isn't in my thoughts. That could be because 
I'm some sick, twisted guy, sure, but it could be because they're 
sick and twisted and always inserting themselves into my thoughts. 
The bottom line is, look at what he's supposed to do. "...in the 
management whereof, as they ought especially..." Look at these 
two words. "...to maintain justice and peace." Justice and peace. That's the call, the role, the 
function, so that God gets glory and the public has good. It's 
when they step out of that context and do the cradle to grave, do 
the giving away free money. That money isn't free. There 
ain't no such thing as a free lunch. When they're giving you 
free money, they're taking it out of your pocket. It's a horrifying 
prospect. So the role of the Christian 
magistrate, not safety, but justice and peace. And by safety I mean, 
you know, the management of your daily affairs. You know, be careful 
out there. Okay, I'll try. I don't know 
that I need a sign every, you know, hundred feet on the freeway 
telling me to be careful. It's just, it seems to be a mis... a misapplication of their function 
and their role and their place. So the role of Christian magistrates, 
again, to maintain justice and peace, but it obviously refers 
to the non-Christian magistrate as well. Because paragraph two 
is dealing with the lawfulness or acceptableness of a Christian 
functioning as a magistrate. Well, if the Christian functions 
as a magistrate, he's to especially maintain justice and peace. That's 
precisely what the non-Christian magistrate is supposed to be 
tasked with as well, the maintenance of justice and peace. Notice 
the respect for wholesome laws. Look at what the next clause 
says. According to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. Here's where we invoke scripture. 
Here's where we use standards. Here's where we use objectivity 
to inform the minds of the civil polity. What are wholesome laws? Do we just come up with them 
ourselves? Thankfully, in the Western world, we are the inheritors 
of a great heritage of Judeo-Christian ethics. Our Western civilization, 
by and large, has been grounded upon or founded upon the scriptures 
of the Old and New Testaments. That's a blessed thing. So wholesome 
laws of each kingdom and commonwealth is what they are supposed to 
be about. Not unwholesome laws, not abortion. not euthanasia, not perversion, 
not theft, not all the sorts of things that we see going on 
all around us today. And then notice the legitimacy 
of war. So not only can a Christian function 
as a civil magistrate, but that Christian, if he's in the position 
to vote on, Because that's what should happen before body politics 
go to war. There should be a vote. I know 
it's set up that way in the United States. You're not supposed to 
just go to war against Iran. There has to be legislation passed 
and a vote taken before you start launching missiles and you start 
funding at the expense of killing people and destroying things. 
But if a Christian finds him or herself in that position, 
It is not ungodly and it is not unholy for them to engage in 
just war. That's what it says. So for that 
end. And notice the way the confession 
goes. This isn't like, you know, what 
do we do about public education? What do we do about public health 
care? What do we do about public roads? What do we do about public 
this? That wasn't in there because 
that's not in Romans 13. Romans 13 is the protection of 
the innocent, and I mean by that judicially innocent, not lawbreakers, 
and the punishment of the lawless. That's it. That's where civil 
polity should be. It shouldn't be we have this, 
you know, cast of persons that are over us ruling every jot 
and detail of our lives. So it moves from the maintenance 
of justice and peace to the largest threat to that peace, which is 
war. So they take that up. So what 
happens if there is an infringement upon the peace in the civil polity? It doesn't come from a renegade 
of marauders in the local street, but it comes from a foreign invader. Can a Christian side with war 
in that response? Yes, they can. Notice, so for 
that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage 
war upon just and necessary occasions. And again, that comes from the 
sword in Romans 13. It is for the punishment of individual 
criminals in a civil polity. But it's also for the defense 
of that civil polity if another nation starts lobbying bombs 
on you or starts sending armies to invade you. Do we just say, 
well, you know, that's the way it goes. No, we're supposed to 
maintain peace and maintain justice. And so the Bible authorizes the 
use of the sword at the individual level, for the criminal, and 
at the macrocosmic level, at the level of foreign invaders 
upon a civil polity. And again, you can't read the 
Old Testament and not see that. You can't read the New Testament 
and not see that. When the soldiers come to John 
the Baptist talking about a response to repentance, notice what John 
the Baptist does not tell them. Get out of your profession. You 
know, go farm flowers and make baskets. You shouldn't be violent 
men. He doesn't tell them that. He 
doesn't say anything of that nature. Christ speaks positively 
of defense, of home. We see centurions in the book 
of Acts. They're not told to stop being 
a centurion. These were guys that commanded 
troops. And the Roman centurions, they commanded troops on bloody 
battlefields. Cornelius was a centurion. He 
was an upright man. Well, nothing in the text indicates 
that when the Holy Spirit fell on him and he got baptized that 
he quit his job and began putting baskets and flowers. No, he continued 
going out to bloody battlefields and continuing to command his 
troops. Hodge says, if it is right on an individual, or right 
rather for an individual to take a life in self-defense, it must 
equally be right for a community to do so on the same principle. 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. See, these men weren't living 
in a world that was Pollyannish. They weren't living in a world 
of looking at it through rose-petaled glasses. Neither was the apostle. The sword is necessary in a fallen 
world. There are things that come post-fall 
that necessitate or are necessary in order to help us to live together 
without killing each other or turning earth into hell on earth. 
So the sword is a necessary and vital aspect of that. at the 
level of criminal behavior and the civil polity, and at the 
level of defense against an invading army. Hodge says, no plea of 
honor, glory or aggrandizement, policy or profit can excuse, 
much less justify war. Nothing short of necessity to 
the end of the preservation of national existence. We ask the 
question, what's a just war? What's a legitimate war? I remember 
back in the day, Bill Clinton launched an attack on, I think 
it was Libya, and there was no predicate for it whatsoever. 
It did seem to be coinciding with his bad view in the media 
at that time for the Monica Lewinsky thing. I think that was the specific 
connection. So listen to what Hodge says, 
no plea of honor, glory or aggrandizement, policy or profit can excuse much 
less justify war. See what he's saying? The civil 
government doesn't have a right to launch war against another nation for 
policy or for profit or for their own aggrandizement or for their 
own honor or glory. They don't have that right. So 
he's dealing with what is a just war, what is a legitimate expression 
of the sword in that capacity to neutralize a threat. He says, 
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 wronging attempts 
should directly or remotely threaten the national life And two, that 
war be the only means to avert it. I suggest that if you plug 
that in to the wars that we're familiar with, you're going to 
come up with thinking, wait a minute, we've been sold a bad bill of 
goods. We have been brought into wars 
or into issues or situations with persons we should have never 
been involved with. I think that, again, whether 
we agree on every jot and tittle, at least the reform tradition 
has tried to take these things and put in some practical application 
in terms of what is a just war? What is a legitimate war? If 
our leader just wants glory or he wants honor, that's never 
a good reason to launch a war. If our leaders want regime change 
or policy change in another government, is that necessary? not based 
on what Hodge says, and he's just a part of a greater tradition 
that get at these particular issues to help us think through 
them. Again, brethren, I don't have 
all the answers, but I would suggest we as God's people need 
to be thinking about these things. We are not living in the age 
of cottages, and we farm, and we make our butter, and we trade 
for meat at the guy next. We're not in that era. The days 
in which we live are complicated. The days in which we live, nations 
are colluding with one another. There is a lot of complexity 
going on in the world today. Again, that might not be your 
thing. It might not be your interest. And that's fine. It doesn't have 
to be your thing. It doesn't have to be your interest. But 
to have a basic biblical understanding of the position of civil government, 
I think the confession is very helpful at this point. And then 
thirdly and finally, the Christian's duty towards civil government. 
The Christian's duty towards civil government. Notice the 
necessity of submission. Paragraph three, civil magistrates 
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. When 
the government says you can drive 100 kilometers per hour on the 
freeway, we might think that's odd. I mean, the Autobahn, from 
what I've heard in Germany, it's like a racetrack, right? You 
just go on out there and you give her. But that's not a conflict 
with the law of God. To go 100 kilometers per hour 
on a freeway, the law of God doesn't speak to that. So there's 
nothing inherently evil about that law. Again, we may not like 
it. It may damper our desire to put 
the pedal to the metal or whatever. But it doesn't bring us into 
conflict. But there are laws presently that bring us into 
conflict, the ones that we had mentioned earlier. And it's at 
that level we must obey God rather than men. Okay, it's not, you 
know, this government can't tell me to go 100k and then, you know, 
you do 200k. Oh yeah, they can and they're 
going to give you a ticket because you did it. So again, that doesn't 
bring you into conflict with God's law. But should the government 
demand abortion? Should the government demand 
euthanasia? Should the government demand 
sexual perversion or mutilation of our children? Should the government 
demand those things? We must obey God rather than 
men. And should the government require us to toe their line 
or parrot their position, we must obey God rather than men. 
It really is that simple. had an interesting visit at Mrs. 
Van Shakespeare's just before Christmas. We got to talking, 
as we often do, and one of the things she did was she reached 
down and grabbed her Bible and opened up to the book of Acts. 
And she read Acts 529, we must obey God rather than men. I kind 
of thought that was a unique, well that's interesting, that's 
good to be taught the scriptures and all that sort of thing. And 
then she picked up her newspaper. And in the newspaper, it was 
the article about John Koopman being in court for the tickets 
that he had received. And she said, we must obey God 
rather than man. I thought that was a very unique 
application to a very prevalent or relevant situation. And that's 
what we find in this section. Ought to be yielded by, I'm sorry, 
subjection in all lawful things commanded by that. Even if they're 
not things that we don't like, as long as they're not unlawful, 
this is where we're not, you know, there's no regulative principle 
of law in terms of civil government. Regulative principle in terms 
of worship, we do only that which God commands. Right? We're not 
permitted to do that, which he doesn't forbid. But in terms 
of the government, I may not want to go 100K, but I'm going 
to go 100K because I'm supposed to submit to the governing authority. 
That doesn't bring me into conflict with the law of God. But if a 
policy, say, for instance, in China where they're forcing abortions, 
that brings you into conflict with the law of God. And so we 
must obey God rather than men in that eventuality. So subjection 
in all lawful things commanded by them. And brethren, we ought 
to be charitable in our discussions. We might disagree with persons 
in terms of some specific application. Again, no one has it all worked 
out. No one that I've ever met has 
every jot and tittle of life and the civil polity all figured 
out and worked out. I mean, you may disagree with 
a brother or a sister in some things, but we should be able 
to disagree in a manner that is charitable, in a manner that 
is kind, in a manner that does not jeopardize our Christian 
faith relative to the way that we treat one another. And then 
notice the reason why. It says, "...ought to be yielded 
by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, Do it so you don't get 
punished. But that is a reason, brethren. That's a very valid reason to 
not go 200 in a 100 zone. I don't want that ticket. I mean, 
God didn't raise morons. We ought to think through these 
things in such a way that we're using our melons, not only for 
wrath, but for conscience sake. For conscience sake. We do it 
because we're blood-bought children of God, and we're functional 
members of the civil polity. And then the final section deals 
with prayer. Prayer for the civil government. 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. That comes right out of 1 Timothy 
chapter two. I've long suspected, I don't 
know what was in Paul's mind, obviously, but there's a similar 
portion in Jeremiah 29. Jeremiah chapter 29, and that's 
an Very interesting passage of scripture because Jeremiah 29 
is a letter to the exiles in Babylon. What are we supposed 
to do while we're languishing in Babylon? Well, I want you 
to find some guy in the black market that can sell you guns. 
I want you to get a lot of ammo. I want you to learn some tactics, 
learn guerrilla warfare, you know, just overthrow that Babylonian 
government. That's not what happens in terms 
of the letter of the exiles in Jeremiah chapter 29. In fact, 
look at it. It's very instructive in this 
context. Notice. Jeremiah 29, specifically 
at verse 4. Thus says the Lord of Hosts, 
the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom 
I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon. Don't 
miss that. We are where we're at because 
of a sovereign God. But you can't believe we're in 
this position. God's over this position too. 
Look at what it says, whom I have caused to be carried away from 
Jerusalem to Babylon. So when you're languishing in 
Babylon, you know, yeah, you could have blamed the church, 
you could have blamed the government, you could have blamed this, you 
could have blamed that, but ultimately God's in this, God is over this, 
it's God's responsibility or sovereignty that brought you 
to this subjection in Babylon. Now notice in verse 5, build 
houses and dwell in them, plant gardens and eat their fruit, 
take wives and beget sons and daughters, and take wives for 
your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may 
bear sons and daughters, that you may be increased there and 
not diminished. And seek the peace of the city where I have 
caused you to be carried away captive. This is the letter to 
the exiles. Pray to the Lord for it. For 
in its peace you will have peace. For thus says the Lord of hosts, 
the God of Israel, Do not let your prophets and your diviners 
who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams 
which you cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely to 
you in my name. I have not sent them, says the 
Lord. For thus says the Lord, After seventy years are completed 
at Babylon, I will visit you and perform my good towards you. 
and cause you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts 
that I think towards you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and 
not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." That's probably 
been the text for every graduating class in every Christian school 
in the last 10 years. Chapter 29, verse 11. That's 
our motto text. It was written to the exiles 
that after 70 years they go back to Judah. Now there's a general 
principle, God's good, God's kind, God's merciful. That's 
the general principle. But to take that passage and 
plug it into your kid's Christian school that everybody there is 
going to graduate and go to good colleges and get good jobs because 
God only ever intends to do good to them. That's not the verse. 
Verse 12, then you will call upon me and go and pray to me, 
and I will listen to you. And you will seek me and find 
me when you search for me with all your heart. I will be found 
by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity. 
I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places 
where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you 
to the place from which I caused you to be carried away captive. 
Because you have said, the Lord has raised up prophets for us 
in Babylon. Therefore, thus says the Lord 
concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, concerning 
all the people who dwell in this city, and concerning your brethren 
who have not gone out with you into captivity. Thus says the 
Lord of Hosts, Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, 
and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that 
cannot be eaten. You get the point. The Word of 
God says to dwell in your difficult providence in a way that is prosperous 
and functional, in a way that isn't whining and grumbling, 
and in a way that takes to heart the very city that you live in. 
Pray for its government. pray for those who are in charge, 
pray in such a way that the people of God may live peaceable and 
quiet lives in all godliness. That's the emphasis in 1 Timothy 
chapter 2. So the Apostle Paul is not navigating 
new waters when he comes to tell the church to pray for kings. 
The people of God throughout the ages have been told to pray 
for kings. Well, that's it. We won't get 
to that last point. Maybe next time we will look 
at that last point. Are there any questions or observations 
before we close in prayer? Yeah. Almost always. Almost always, yeah. All right, well I'll close in 
prayer. Father in heaven, we pray for our civil government. 
We pray for our prime minister. We pray for all the MPs, all 
those who are in places of great and grave responsibility. We 
pray that they would have a commitment to peace and justice. We pray 
that they'd have a commitment to those things that the Bible 
specifies are good. And Lord God in heaven, give 
us wisdom as we navigate these difficult waters. Give us grace 
to be faithful, to shine as lights in a crooked and perverse generation. 
And as we have opportunity, help us to be courageous, to hold 
forth your word of truth. And we pray this through Christ 
our Lord. Amen.