← Back to sermon library

So again, a very good encapsulated 
statement of what Scripture teaches concerning the civil magistrate 
or probably more common to us, the civil government. Now, I 
think that the passage of the chapter teaches three specifics. 
First, the divine origin of civil government in paragraph 1. Secondly, the Christian involvement 
in civil government in paragraph 2. And then thirdly, the Christian's 
duty toward civil government in paragraph three. Now the background 
is no doubt the Anabaptists. Now again, when we say the Anabaptists, 
it's difficult to do that because there was all manner of stripes 
and variations and differences among the Anabaptists. But one 
of the prevailing ideas with reference to Anabaptists is that 
civil government was a bad thing, therefore no Christian should 
ever participate in it. Anabaptists as well came up with 
the doctrine that they live according to passivism. And so when the 
Confession was written, the first London Confession in 1644, one 
of the things that our Particular Baptist brothers were doing was 
distancing themselves from the Anabaptists. In other words, 
the Particular Baptists, what we call today Reform Baptists, 
of the 17th century were oftentimes written off as being Anabaptists. So one of the driving purposes 
of the First London Confession of Faith was to make sure that 
persons knew that they were not Anabaptists. They distanced themselves 
from that. And so the Second London Confession 
reflects that also. So let's look at the divine origin 
of civil government. Now there's a couple of passages 
that are absolutely crucial for our understanding here. The first 
is to be found in Romans 13. I'm sure that all of you are 
familiar with Romans 13. I'll 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 it as 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." And then again in 1 Peter chapter 
2, 1 Peter chapter 2, very important passages with reference to the 
civil government or civil magistrate owing their origin to God Most 
High. 1 Peter 2, beginning in verse 
13, Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for 
the Lord's sake, whether to the king of supreme or to governors, 
as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, 
and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will 
of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance 
of foolish men, as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak 
for vice, but as bondservants of God. honor all people, love 
the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. So we see this divine 
origin. We also see it in Proverbs chapter 
8. There I believe it's Christ speaking 
as wisdom and he says, by me kings reign and rulers decree 
justice. So the divine origin is obvious 
in scripture. The confession imitates that 
or correspondingly says God the Supreme Lord and King of all 
the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him." 
Again, it's important that we understand the origin. There 
are many who advocate anarchy. That means no rule, no government, 
no magistrate whatsoever. Now, at least on the surface 
it may have an appearance of attractiveness, but that's not 
God's purpose to rule. I would simply suggest that a 
small government is probably far more ideal than either no 
government or the sort of government that we have now that's involved 
in every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave. But the 
origin of civil government, Hodge speaks to this. He 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 God the 
Lord is the origin, and He is indeed the King of the world. 
Now, having made that declaration here in the confession, and rightly 
expressing to us the scriptural view, then that ought to automatically 
argue against totalitarianism, communism, those sorts of government 
wherein the governors themselves see themselves as God, or royal, 
or sovereign, or having absolute authority. They do not have absolute 
authority. Theirs is a derived authority, 
appropriate to their particular office. Ultimately, God is Lord 
and King of all the world. He has ordained civil magistrates 
to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public 
good. When magistrates forget this, 
and they assert to themselves an authority that was never given 
to them by God, then they are transgressing and they are not 
conforming to his purpose for the created order. The purpose 
is specified there, for his own glory and the public good. Again, anarchy does appeal, at 
least on the surface, to some, but the Bible indicates the divine 
origin of government and that it is designed to benefit man. It is ultimately designed to 
benefit man. Now, saying that anarchy isn't 
the approved way, please don't hear me suggesting that oligarchy 
or totalitarianism is approved either. Those are wicked and 
vile and ought to be opposed. Now notice his position as the 
governing authority. He is under God. He's always 
under God. You know, when Peter tells us 
to honor the king, before that he says, fear God. We are to 
fear God, we are to honor the king, and honor the king insofar 
as he is carrying out his function. Now certainly we would give esteem 
and respect to him, but we won't bow to him, we won't confess 
him as Lord and Savior, we won't see him as the royal benefactor 
and the one who gives us all good things for life. He's always 
under God, and we ought to appreciate that, and I think that ought 
to encourage us as well. I think that not only does the 
confession highlight this in the context of stressing the 
divine origin of the civil government, but I think in this there is 
a degree of comfort for the people of God. He is always, whether 
he recognizes it or not, under God. In other words, the worst 
magistrate out there running around like a madman is still 
under God. God is over Sennacherib, God 
is over the Prime Minister, the President, God is over these 
men. Whether these men reflect that 
or not, or whether these men acknowledge that or not, we as 
the people of God need to understand that. That they came from God, 
by me kings reign, He raises some up and He ultimately puts 
some down. And I think it's common in our 
day to say, wow, what a terrible thing. We have four or eight 
years of this particular wretched leader. And it is a grief. I'm 
not suggesting otherwise. But, you know, join us on Wednesday 
night and see, you know, we're coming up to Manassas in the 
not too distant future. 55 years, right? Imagine your 
worst nightmare for a civil leader and he's in power for 55 years. I don't know that we've even 
begun to enter into how bad it could actually be. We often do, 
that was so bad, it's never been like this. No, in the history 
of the world, it's actually been a whole lot worse. in other seasons 
and in other instances. And again, I'm not suggesting 
that we don't care, we don't consider, we don't pray, or that 
we don't vote accordingly. But brethren, we're not the only 
snowflakes in the history of the world that have ever had 
to deal with a difficult man or men. But ultimately, those 
difficult men are under God, and they can never get out from 
under Him. And then note, the purpose or 
their position is toward men. The magistrate is over the people 
in his official capacity or in his office. We esteem them, we 
revere them, but at the same time it doesn't denigrate into 
worship or degenerate into worship. And this is another thing. I 
think that Christians, conservatives, people that are mindful of scriptural 
teaching can at times put too many eggs in a particular basket. Well, only if so-and-so were 
to get elected, then everything would be okay. It's Jesus that's 
the Messiah. It's Christ that ushers in any 
golden age, and that is in the age to come. It's Christ that 
has messianic authority and power and ability. Again, don't take 
it as I'm saying, don't vote, be a pacifist, sit in your closet, 
and don't ever think about civil government. But don't put too 
much or overly much in this whole situation. They're under God. 
They're supposed to function toward man. And then note his 
authority in the middle of the paragraph. 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. 
Now John Murray comments on the sword. This, of course, taken 
directly from Romans 13. And John Murray makes this observation, 
the sword which the magistrate carries as the most significant 
part of his equipment. We need to understand that. One 
of the sort of aspects of government and lawmakers is the ability 
to coerce. And they have that ability to 
coerce by the power of the sword. Now, more often than not, they 
use the power of taxation and a whole host of other things. 
Who will build your roads? You know, they try to use that 
to try and coerce. But government, in essence, has 
that coercive ability. And that coercive ability or 
power is derived from God, and it's in the form of the sword. 
So 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." In other words, if he has that power and he doesn't 
execute it, or we deny that it has that power, then it goes 
contrary to the very thing that God has given to him. It was 
a couple weeks ago on Sanctity of Life Sunday. I argue that 
the failure by government to institute the death penalty is 
actually a great crime and sin against God. It is a repudiation 
of the sanctity of life because God says in Genesis 9, 6, whoever 
sheds man's blood by man, that's the agent, by man his blood will 
be shed. Why? For in the image of God 
he made man. So, to not punish criminals that 
are guilty of murder with execution is to disregard their crime. It's to suggest that that bloodshed 
wasn't that important. And the Confession sees this. 
The Bible certainly teaches it. And throughout both Old and New 
Testaments, we see the role, or we see the power of the sword 
given to the governing authorities. Again, we need to make sure that 
we don't say, well, here's the sword. Do with it whatever you 
want. It's a big argument as to what crime should the civil 
government punish with the sword. Well, I have some specific thoughts 
about that. And I don't think it's only located 
or only consolidated with reference to the crime of murder. But that 
would take us far afield. But we don't want them to have 
this authoritarian, dictatorial power where they get to wield 
the sword over anything and everything that they want to. That wouldn't 
be good either. So to not use it is bad. But to use it arbitrarily or 
capriciously or against the true religion, those are things that 
no Christian should ever want. I mean, there's books out there, 
good, noble defenses of the death penalty, but with conclusions 
like, well, magistrates are free to implement the death penalty 
for other crimes as they see fit. That terrifies me, because 
if they see fit to outlaw Christianity and punish with execution Christianity, 
I don't want any part of that. I'd rather the Bible inform the 
civil government as to what crimes are punishable by death. So the 
purpose for this power, for the defense of those who do good, 
notice, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, 
why? For defense and encouragement of them that do good, and for 
the punishment of evildoers. Now again, I think that rightly 
reflects Romans 13. And I think it rightly defines 
the particular function of civil government. Notice that chapter 
24 isn't 24 paragraphs. And then the civil government 
shall provide education. And then the civil government 
shall provide medical. And then the civil government 
shall provide welfare. I'm not suggesting that all those 
things are necessarily evil. But the thing that the civil 
government is primarily to provide is protection, defense for those 
who do good. If they want to do all this, 
let them not forsake this. If they want to give all these 
benefits from cradle to grave, give me the chief benefit. Protect 
me from rapists in my neighborhood and protect me from ISIS at my 
borders. That's the role and the purpose 
of civil government primarily. So that's what I think is reflected 
here. Why does he give them the sword? For defense and encouragement 
of them that do good. And the encouragement here isn't 
accolades, it isn't letters from the Prime Minister in your mailbox. 
You've done great. this week. Good for you. There'll 
be an extra, you know, 20 bucks in your paycheck. That's not 
the encouragement. You know, I understand the encouragement 
here in the Romans 13, you'll have praise from the same, is 
that they'll leave you alone. The best thing government can 
do for you is to leave you alone. And my humble estimation, or 
not as humble as it ought to be estimation, just leave us 
alone. I'll take that as a great sign 
of encouragement. So defense, and encouragement, 
and for the punishment of evildoers." Again, we rehearsed this recently 
in our Sermon on Sanctity of Life, but certainly both Testaments 
teach this, Genesis 9, Romans 13. Some would suggest that the 
Bible's teaching on the death penalty is restricted to the 
Mosaic Covenant. It's restricted to Old Covenant 
Israel. They were a theocracy. God ruled them directly through 
His Word. And therefore, the death penalty 
was utilized and it was practiced in that setting or that situation, 
but it does no longer have binding upon the New Covenant era because 
the Old Covenant theocracy is over. Well, Genesis 9 precedes 
the Mosaic Covenant. Genesis 9 is what's part of the 
Noahic Covenant. And God gives that Noahic covenant 
as a common grace covenant to the world to sustain it, to protect 
it, to stabilize it. It's in that Noahic covenant 
that He promises there will never be a worldwide flood. It's in 
that Noahic covenant that He promises that seed time and harvest 
and those things will continue. That's the common grace arena 
wherein the special grace, preaching of the gospel, can flourish and 
thrive and go. but also within that common grace 
arena is Genesis 9, 6. Whoever sheds man's blood, by 
man his blood will be shed, for in the image of God he made man. 
Remember, what preceded Noah and the ark? What preceded Noah 
and the ark was an earth that was exceedingly corrupt and full 
of violence. So when Noah disembarks from 
the ark, is that it? He gets out of the ark and God 
gives him the first rule concerning government. It ought not to surprise 
us that it has to do with the punishment of murderers. If Genesis 
6 tells us the earth was exceedingly corrupt and filled with violence, 
how do we mitigate that violence in this new age or in this new 
era? wherein Noah is functioning in 
a sense like an atom. He's told to be fruitful, he's 
told to multiply, he's also told the civil government now has 
the sword and the capability and the power to execute criminal 
offenders. That will hopefully deal with 
some of the situation that we found ourselves in in Genesis 
6 when the earth was filled with violence. So you see, it is not 
only a Mosaic thing, but it's Noahic, and then as well the 
New Testament, Romans 13, the power of the sword there. If 
it means anything, it certainly means the ability for the governing 
authorities to execute criminal offenders and to engage in just 
and necessary war to stop the criminal hordes from invading 
our borders. Again, these things are just 
commonplace. What was one of the identifying 
features of city-states of the Old Testament? They all had walls. 
They all protected themselves. Today we're told that's just 
wicked to want to protect yourself. Why do these people have walls 
around their homes? Why do they lock their doors? 
Let's be at least consistent. If having a wall or protecting 
our border, however we choose to do it, is inherently wicked, 
then leave your front door open at night. Why in the world, on 
principle, can you forbid one and then practice the other? 
It's insanity. So to look for the government 
to try and protect you or defend you is not strange. It's not 
outlandish. what they're supposed to do. 
That's their job, that's what they're paid for, and that's 
what we ought to expect. So the command given to Noah. 
Now, you might be interested to know that within the civil 
code in Old Testament Israel, nine of the ten commandments 
were punished by execution in certain situations. Nine of the ten. Guess which 
one wasn't punished by death? The tenth. What does that tell 
us? God does not have the government 
police your thoughts. God does not have the government 
punish you with death for evil thoughts. God knows your sin 
and God will deal with your sin. But when he gives the magistrate 
the sword, they're not to police the thoughts, they're to police 
the external acts that are wicked and a threat to the civil order. 
That's what Paul says in Romans 13. Again, it's reflected in 
the Old Covenant code, but notice in Romans 13. This whole idea 
that if we arm the magistrate with the sword, they'll barge 
into our bedrooms and they'll cut our heads off because we 
had a wicked thought. Well, they might. I'm not going 
to suggest they won't, but they're not supposed to. It's not supposed 
to be Orwellian. It's not supposed to be thought 
crime. But notice in Romans 13.4, for 
he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, in 
the context, it's evil works. Look at verse 3, for rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to evil. Not just evil in general, 
but to evil works. They're not a terror to good 
works, they're a terror to evil works. In other words, the magistrate 
is not about punishing thought crime. The magistrate is about 
punishing crime, acts that threaten the civil order. That's what 
he's supposed to be about. But in the Mosaic Code, murder, 
of course, adultery and sexual immorality, bestiality, homosexuality, 
rape, incest, the incorrigible son, Sabbath-breaking, kidnapping, 
solicitation to apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension 
to prophecy, and blasphemy. In many instances, or instances 
where these crimes are dealt with in the Old Testament, there 
is the application to the death penalty. And again, before we 
go, wow, I can't believe they would do that. Remember, it was 
indeed a theocracy, and to disobey God was to commit an act of treason. 
That's how you need to understand, you know, Deuteronomy 13, where 
God tells Israel, if a false prophet entices you, kill him. 
If your wife entices you or solicits you to commit apostasy, kill 
her. Now again, he doesn't mean, you know, put a knife in her 
belly. It means due process, go through the courts, all that 
specific stuff. Well, we look at that and we 
say, well, how barbaric. That's treason. To commit apostasy or 
be, you know, led astray into idolatry. In a constitutional 
republic that is a constitutional republic defined by the decalogue 
or the moral law of God, those were acts of treason. We're supposed 
to punish traitors today by the sword. I mean, that's, I think, 
in probably every country's law code, a man that tries to betray 
his country. You don't just send him to club 
fad and let him have a wonderful life for the rest of his life. 
No, there's punishment for that. So when you read that Old Testament 
civil code, don't immediately conclude, wow, that's so barbaric. 
Well, you need to look at the particular text. You need to 
look at the particular context. You need to compare scripture 
with scripture. And then I think it's always good, just by way 
of a practical exercise, to say, is the way we do it any better? 
I mean, there's all manner of brutality out there today. I'm 
not convinced that what we're doing is, you know, absolutely 
wonderful as compared to what we find in the Old Testament 
civil code. So the death penalty is certainly, 
or the sword is part of his authority. So our sinus makes this observation. The magistrate, therefore, may 
be guilty of doing wrong not only in being cruel and unjustly 
severe. We'd all agree with that. You 
know, cruel and unusual punishment, we don't authorize that. The 
king or the civil authority doesn't have the ability to just, you 
know, punish and destroy and, you know, twist people and do 
all manner of cruel and unusual things. But he says, but also 
in being too lenient in granting permission to certain persons 
to injure others. You know, a judge that allows 
a murderer to walk and he goes out and commits another murder. 
Yes, you definitely punish that murderer, but you might also 
look at that judge. You hand a monkey a gun and he 
shoots people. Yeah, take the monkey out, but 
who handed the monkey the gun? Let's deal with that individual, 
too. 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. That's a great comment 
on the role of the magistrate in Romans 13. Then notice the 
Christian involvement in civil government. Is it OK to work 
for the government? Now, there may be challenges, 
especially in this day and age where you just say Christian, 
and you're intolerant, and you're a pig, and you're prejudiced, 
and you're all these sorts of things. I'm not going to tell 
you that it's going to be easy. But if some of our young men 
and women want to go into such endeavors, we don't say, well, 
no, it's intrinsically evil, it's horrific, it's bad. We can 
give them the cautions and the warnings, but the Bible does 
not tell us that to work for the civil government is necessarily 
evil. It's necessarily sin. I had a 
friend, or the guy that sort of first discipled me in Christianity, 
I got converted by the grace of God, and I met this brother, 
He kind of took me under his wing, and he was an interesting 
guy. I mean, I had only been saved for a few months, and he 
was talking to me about stuff. I don't think as a, you know, 
I would tell new believers for, you know, years, you kind of 
ease people into stuff. But I always remember him saying 
that, oh yeah, I'd be the executioner. They could pay me. I'd flip the 
switch or, you know, do whatever it is that they said. And, you 
know, most Christians are like, okay, it's a lawful calling under 
God. Somebody's got to do it. You 
wouldn't work much either, especially in Canada or the US. I mean, 
you just sit around all the time. But the first response, if he 
were to say, or one of our 20-year-olds said, instead of college, I'm 
going to get myself into the government. I want to be the 
executioner. We'd say, well, little Billy, 
are you sure about that? Why wouldn't we be sure? Is it 
or is it not a lawful calling? Is it or is it not something 
that God has sanctioned? I don't think God means, you 
know, Romans 13 means that Justin Trudeau or President Trump actually 
wield the sword. They used their workers, they 
used their servants. Just like Joseph of Arimathea 
didn't hew out the tomb, he probably hired some guys to hew out the 
tomb. Justin Trudeau, President Trump, 
they're armed with the sword and they delegate the implementation 
of it. Why isn't that a lawful calling 
under God to be the swordsman in that instance? Now again, 
I'm sure that, you know, mommies aren't praying that their children 
will grow up to be the executioner, but we need to understand that 
it is a lawful thing. So back to our confession, don't 
want to get off the beaten path too far here, the statement of 
lawfulness. It is lawful for Christians to 
accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. That is a great statement. It is lawful for Christians to 
accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto. Again, I'm not suggesting that 
it wouldn't be without its challenges or its difficulties in a context 
like ours that is so rampantly politically correct and so blatantly, 
in many respects, anti-Christian. It would be a great challenge. But to say that a Christian can 
never pursue this as a course of life is to go beyond the scripture. And if the church had thought 
biblically, and if the church had thought confessionally, maybe 
we wouldn't have abdicated in this role, and maybe there would 
have been some faithful Christian magistrates doing a good job. If we take the position, well, 
it's all just wicked, and we never seek to infuse into it, 
a good use of the word infuse, a good and godly influence, then 
we reap what we sow. I mean, if we constantly just 
encourage the God-haters to be the governors, and then, you 
know, never tell our young people, yeah, why don't you consider 
a career in politics? Oh, you can't do that. Why not? 
Why not? Why can't we consider a career 
in being a lawyer? Typically the case, lawyers all 
become politicians. You have a society run by lawyers 
and politicians. That's not the nicest thing to 
think about, but such is the way it is. So it is a lawful 
thing. And then notice the implications 
of this lawfulness. It says, in management whereof, 
as they ought especially to maintain justice and peace. That's the 
function. That's the role. That's why a 
Christian ought to pursue politics if he or she is so inclined. 
In the management whereof, as they ought especially to maintain 
justice and peace. This is the role of a Christian 
magistrate. Arguably, it's the role of all 
magistrates. This is what they should be about, 
justice and peace. Again, these are the things that 
we just don't even consider when we go vote now or that politicians 
run on. My platform is built on justice 
and peace. So what? What are you going to 
give me? That's more of the mindset. I don't want justice and peace. 
It doesn't increase my paycheck. I want this, I want that. Well, 
justice and peace ought to be the cornerstone of our civil 
government. And then notice, it goes on to 
say, according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. Now, that would probably be a 
great big sideline discussion. What are and what aren't wholesome 
laws? So that's not the point of our 
discussion at this particular time. But suffice it to say, 
if it is not contrary to the law of God, if it is not contra 
the law of God, we would call that a wholesome law. I mean, 
there's many laws that we are bound to that we may not necessarily 
like. But, they're not necessarily 
contrary to the law of God. And so, therefore, we need to 
submit. This is the Romans 13 ideal. 
Submit to every authority, because there is no authority except 
from God. If you resist the authority, then you are resisting God. So, if it's not contrary to God's 
law, then we need to submit. Now, notice, goes on to say, 
but I like this, according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom 
and commonwealth, the divines recognized that each kingdom 
and commonwealth was not the theocracy of Israel, that each 
kingdom and commonwealth would indeed enact laws as they saw 
fit for, you know, justice and peace within their kingdom or 
commonwealth. So in this new covenant era, 
there are those who say, well, we need the law of Moses, including 
the civil sanctions applied right by the Canadian government. I'm 
not suggesting they couldn't or shouldn't, but at the same 
time, I'm not certain that it's a necessary mandate. It did. The judicial law, according to 
chapter 19 in our confession, expired with that body politic. What remains is the general equity. In other words, I think there 
is a right use of Old Testament in New Covenant era laws. What 
does the Bible say with reference to rapists? Well, in the Old 
Testament, it mandated execution. Well, we see how God sees that 
particular crime. We're not doing it because it 
was commanded to the Commonwealth of Israel. We're doing it because 
it's a just law that provides justice and peace for our body 
politic. So, that whole teasing out the 
general equity principle of the judicial law of Moses can be 
difficult, but it's certainly not impossible. And then notice, 
at the end of that particular paragraph, so for that end, they 
may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just 
and necessary occasions. That's a powerful statement. 
Again, it's so contra the pacifism of Anabaptists. If you had this 
idea that we can never, you know, go shoot guns, I don't know, 
do they take pacifism that far? Can they shoot targets? Okay, 
but they just can't be human targets that are coming through 
our front door to get our women and children. Okay, all right. So it's not anti-gun, it's anti-where 
that bullet goes. Okay, I get that. But anyways, 
imagine this. That's not what this section 
of the Confession says. So for that end, they may lawfully 
now, under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary 
occasions. Again, if we look at the Old 
Testament, there was a command by God for the execution of holy 
war in Deuteronomy 7, 1 to 5. Now, I wouldn't put the New Covenant 
era magistrate as bound by Deuteronomy 7. In other words, I don't think, 
you know, the prime minister ought to, you know, mount up 
squads and go out and wage holy war. That's not what I'm suggesting. But to say, is war ever acceptable? You look at the Bible for the 
answer. Now in the conditions of the 
commonwealth of Israel, in the Old Testament theocracy, as they 
were about to enter into the land of Canaan, God mandated 
that they execute in warfare every Canaanite in the land. So it cannot be in principle, 
well, it's just contrary to the love of God. Well, God was loving 
in Deuteronomy 7 as well. He hasn't changed. He didn't 
get loving after Deuteronomy 8. God is love, but he's also 
justice and righteousness and holiness and all those other 
sorts of things. So when we look at that, we see 
a law for holy war. We see laws specifically governing 
warfare in Deuteronomy 20 and 21. When we get to the New Testament, 
we see a favorable view of the military. In other words, when 
John the Baptist is dealing with soldiers who want to know what 
the fruits of repentance look like, he doesn't say, you need 
to get out of the military. You need to turn in your sword. 
Get rid of your battle axe. No longer kill those invading 
hordes. Don't do that. Go bake pies. He doesn't do that. He tells 
them to be content with their wages and don't engage in extortion. You see, Jesus had a favorable 
view of military authority in his ministry. We see it in Paul. 
We see it throughout the New Testament, not least of which 
is Romans 13. Let every soul be subject to 
the governing authorities, for there is no authority except 
from God. So the role of civil government 
is not just to protect the body politic from internal threat, 
but from foreign threat as well. Now, when we say, or when it 
says, you know, may lawfully now under the New Testament wage 
war upon just and necessary occasions, we need to remember that Let's 
just imagine for a moment, or maybe it would work the other 
way. Let's just say the US wanted to annex Canada because they 
wanted more property and territory, and they wanted a place to grow 
more crops. That's not outlandish in terms of the sinfulness of 
man, because that's precisely what Ahab did when he wanted 
Nabal's vineyard. He wanted to increase his vegetable 
garden. So imagine US wants to annex 
Canada. That's not a just and necessary 
occasion. We don't say, yeah, just gobble 
up more territory. Tell those Canadians to get out, 
submit, or die. That's just not legit. When we maintain that the civil 
government may wage war, it's not on any occasion that they 
wish. It's not on whatever increases 
their empire, or whatever increases their holdings, or whatever brings 
more riches, but it's upon just and necessary occasions. Now, 
brethren, the Reformed have discussed these things for centuries. It's not just Jim Butler sitting 
here on a Sunday morning telling you things that maybe you haven't 
thought about before, like maybe my little son will grow up one 
day to be the executioner. But these things have been dealt 
with and have been discussed, and the best of the Reformed 
theologians deal with these issues, and they don't provide hard and 
fast rules, but they give us things to think about concerning 
the application of these principles. Hodge makes this observation, 
if it is right, for an individual to take life in self-defense, 
which it is. Exodus 22, the book of Matthew 
and Luke, Jesus assumes the legitimacy of self-defense. Jesus assumes 
that as part of his teaching. So, self-defense is legit. Now, that doesn't mean every 
time somebody mugs you or they happen to run by and take something, 
you don't have to shoot them in the head. You can use less 
than lethal force to subdue that offender. But if it happens to 
be the case that you must execute or you must use rather lethal 
force, you're not guilty according to the Scripture. That's the 
scenario envisaged in Exodus 22. So, Hodge makes this observation. If it is right for an individual 
to take life in self-defense, it must equally be right for 
a community to do so on the same principle. In other words, if 
the hordes are coming and killing us, What do we do? Well, we wish 
you wouldn't do that. Let's have some tea and discuss. 
They're not listening to reason. They are coming at us with guns 
and bazookas and tanks. They don't want to be reasoned 
with. There is one way that you try 
and stop that and it is to meet it with force. The government 
has that right. 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. Again, war is, you know, probably 
one of the biggest expressions of just how bad life can be in 
this world, right? I mean, you look at war and what's 
the purpose? To use a Rush Limbaughism, it's 
to break things and to kill people. I mean, isn't that what war is? 
You break stuff and kill people. It's an expression of man against 
man. But sometimes, in that exchange, 
one group of men are actually in the right. Should they be 
brutalized and destroyed by those who are obviously in the wrong? 
No! We have the right to protect 
ourselves, self-defense, and then in terms of the civil government. 
The sword executes criminal offenders within the body politic, and 
the sword protects that body politic from the invading hordes. Why is this such a mind-blowing 
thing to people today? Again, we go home to our homes, 
we lock our fences, we lock our front doors, we lock our bedroom 
doors, and then we say, oh no, just let everybody come through 
the border. You don't live that way at home. Why should we be 
forced to live that way in our homes? You see, this is biblical 
stuff. Now, notice finally the Christian's 
duty towards civil government in paragraph 3, the necessity 
of submission. Civil magistrates being set up 
by God for the ends of foresaid. 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. Notice what it says. Subjection in all lawful things 
commanded by them. In other words, if they command 
you to do lawful things, you need to obey them. Even when 
you don't want to, or you don't like to, or you may be convinced 
that a 40-kilometer zone could really be a 60-kilometer zone. 
I mean, in your heart of hearts, you believe that to be the case. 
You don't have the right to not obey them and go 60. As hard 
as that may be at times, If they are not commanding us to sin 
against our God or violate God's law, then we are to submit. Now, the confession indicates 
that. Subjection in all lawful things. The Bible affords us examples 
of exceptions to this rule. Notice in Acts chapter 4. Acts chapter 4. Verse 18, so they called them, 
this is the unbelieving Jewish leaders, they called them and 
commanded them not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and 
said to them, whether it is right in the sight of God to listen 
to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak 
the things which we have seen and heard. And then notice in 
529. But Peter and the other apostles 
answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men. So when persons tell us to violate 
the law of God, then we must obey God rather than men. But 
insofar as they are not telling us to disobey God, We need to 
obey man. We need to obey the civil authority. 
We need to obey civil government. If we're upset that the 40 should 
be 60, then vote. Express that at the voting booth. 
Don't express it through lawlessness and anarchy and rebellion against 
God's instituted authority. That's the point. That's the 
purpose. And what's one of the remedial effects of this? Christians 
ought not to be looked at in the Commonwealth as the most 
troublesome, the most irksome, the most burdensome, and the 
loudest whiners. Do what you're supposed to do. 
Keep to yourself. What does Paul tell the Thessalonians? 
Work with your hands and mind your own business. I don't know 
if he said it quite like that, but that's the way I read him. 
Just do what you're supposed to do. I think this is, at least, 
I probably shouldn't comment, but didn't you love that? I shouldn't 
comment, but I'm actually not going to there. But the idea 
is that we're supposed to be good citizens of the civil polity 
that we find ourselves in, not worshipers of the state, not 
bowers to Caesar, not confessors of Caesar as Lord and Savior, 
but good citizens that do what they're supposed to do. They're 
not the biggest whining, grumbling, sniveling babies on the face 
of the earth. If you got that, pray about it, 
vote properly and accordingly, and express yourself in lawful 
ways. So, subjection and all lawful 
things commanded by them ought to be yielded to us in the Lord. 
And then the reasons. Very good, look it. Ought to 
be yielded by us in the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience 
sake. Now, it would be good that in 
every instance we only ever did what was right for conscience 
sake. In other words, I'm going to obey the civil authority because 
it's right to do so and I want to honor God and fear Him. But 
notice they indicate not only for wrath, I think the civil 
polity ought to be such that you should be afraid to go out 
and commit crimes. You should be afraid to go out 
and commit murder. You should be afraid to go out 
and rob banks. You should be afraid because 
the government or the magistrate is going to punish you if you 
get caught. You see, that's a principle that 
unfortunately is somewhat lacking today. Persons get out of jail 
after they've committed murder. Can you imagine anything more 
inconceivable than that? You can murder somebody and get 
out of jail? I mean, in lieu of the death 
penalty, and I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment. If it were 
me, I'd rather be executed by the civil government. than live 
life in prison. To me, that's far more barbaric 
than the death penalty. But, in lieu of the death penalty, 
if we're going to cater to all these bleeding-heart liberals, 
then at least leave the murderer in prison for the rest of his 
life so he doesn't go out and do it again. That persons can 
see the light of day again after committing murder? When God says, 
whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed, for 
in the image of God he made man? And also, Numbers 35 is also 
very clear. There are crimes committed in 
the Commonwealth of Israel where you can accept a ransom payment. 
There were crimes that were committed where you could pay a fine. Not to the state. It's another 
thing. We don't pay our debt to the state. Pay your debt to 
the guy you victimized. Pay back from the guy you stole 
from. If I go out and steal, or if 
I'm stolen from, I'm doubly penalized. I get somebody to steal from 
me, and then I get to pay taxes to support him. It's just not 
right, brethren. Before we go nuts against the 
Bible, think about what we've got. You get stolen from, that 
guy goes to jail, and you still have to pay for him to live in 
jail. So you've been doubly hit. See, 
the Old Testament, if you stole from somebody, you paid them 
back. If you didn't have money to pay them back, you were their 
servant. Oh, horrors of horror. Why? That 
guy could then learn a trade. He could learn to be a decent, 
functioning human being. He could be in a home where people 
actually do what they're supposed to do. And once he pays his debt, 
you know what else is good? He's done. You go to prison now, 
you come out of prison, what happens? You can get a job at 
a car wash. I'm a firm believer if a man has paid his debt, let 
him get a job that's better than at a car wash. He's paid his 
penalty. Why is he still being penalized 
for the rest of his life? It's just a lot of unfair things 
that go on in society. But there ought to be a righteous 
fear that the people of God and unbelievers have with reference 
to the sword wielding magistrate. And then the final clause says, 
and we ought to make supplications and prayers. On the one hand, 
obey, submit, do what you're supposed to do. On the other 
hand, pray for them. 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." Now obviously the text there is 1 Timothy chapter 
2. We don't have the time to look at that, but that says what 
1 Timothy 2 says. What's Paul say? First of all, 
I entreat, I exhort 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 peaceable and quiet lives. I think the 
background is Jeremiah 29. You've heard of Jeremiah 29, 
right? I know the plans that I have 
for you. It's for peace and not for tragedy. That's a letter 
to the exiles in Babylon. It's not a letter to Charismatics 
to tell them to go to Bible school and then launch their own ministry. 
Jeremiah 29 is written to the exiles in Babylon as to how they're 
supposed to function in that contingency. You know what they're 
told? To pray for the city that you live in, that there'll be 
peace in the city. So an Israelite who's been carted 
off to Babylon is told to pray for a Babylonian city so that 
they can lead peaceable lives? Exactly. And that's what Paul 
tells us in this New Covenant era. Pray for kings, pray for 
all in authority. Why? So we can lead a peaceful 
and quiet life. Certainly the church flourishes 
during times of persecution. Look at China. Praise God for 
the amount of Christians that are in that land. Look at nations 
where the government oppression is heavy upon the people of God. Brethren, it can flourish in 
times of peace as well. You know, sermon audio is a great 
evidence of that. How many people are listening 
to sermons from sermon audio all over the world? Well, that's 
a convention that flourished in a peaceful society. Christian 
publishing. Again, we complain a lot. And 
I'm not suggesting we shouldn't complain about the encroaching 
totalitarian state and their secular agenda. But we can publish 
a whole host of good Christian books. I mean, there's more good 
Christian books out there now than probably every Christian 
gathered together could read in their lifetime. We have benefits 
in this protected society to do good things, and we ought 
to pray to God that it would be kept this way. Well, that's 
our conclusion. I want to close with a brief 
word of prayer. Father, we thank you for what the Scripture says 
concerning this issue of the civil government. We thank you 
for the responsible dealing of this subject in our confession 
of faith. Give us grace and wisdom to think 
through these things and to apply them in our hearts and in our 
lives, to obey the governing authorities and all things lawful, 
to pray for those who have charge over us, and God help us to live 
peaceable, quiet lives as individuals, families, and as churches. And may we indeed grow in the 
grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ as a result of these 
many, many benefits that you give to us in this nation that 
we live in. We ask that you would go with 
us now into worship and help us to glorify you, and we pray 
through Christ our Lord. Amen.