I just had the opportunity to speak with Kathleen a few minutes ago, a little bit ago, and she again asked me to make sure I sent my greetings to all of you. She is sorry that she's not able to be here, but we are very thankful the Lord brought our three boys home safely from California. And so they are there and we are thankful for that. If you have your Bibles, please turn with me again to Paul's epistle to the Romans. We're going to continue using our text in Romans 13 verses one through seven. Again, I think a text that is pivotal in our understanding of these questions that we are dealing with concerning such things as governments and criminal punishment and just war. So let's begin by reading the first seven verses. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resist God what God has appointed and those who resist will incur judgment for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on wrongdoers. Therefore, one must be in subjection not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason, you also pay taxes for the authorities or ministers of God attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them, taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Let's pray. Father, we do thank you for this opportunity to gather again this evening to look into your word concerning these questions of monument importance to us in our day. We ask for your wisdom, we ask that your spirit would be pleased to lead us into all truth. We ask that you would give us hearts of faith and love, that we would receive your word, that we would lay it up in our hearts and that we would truly practice it in our lives. And for this, we thank you and we do praise you in Jesus name. As I come to this particular subject this evening, the lesser magistrate and the theology of resistance Having heard much of what we've heard over the last evening and the earlier part of today, we would almost wonder if there is any kind of theology of resistance in the Bible. One thing that is certainly very clear is that God has put a high regard upon the government that he's established among the nations of men. And one of the things that we want to remember is that though we think that the government that we have in our own country is certainly a government that is consistent with the word of God, Yet we have to be very much aware that there are many forms of government that are given to us in Scripture that certainly are in accord with the Word of God. I sometimes feel a little uneasy about the idea that one of the purposes of the United States is to spread democracy all over the whole world, though I'm thoroughly convinced that That would certainly be a good thing. I'm not convinced that that is something that we have necessarily biblical warrant to do, especially when it talks about the overthrow of other kinds of governments, though they are not democratic. in the way that they function, they still often function within the realm of acceptable practices of God's Word, so that just simply to say, well, you know, our government is better than a monarchy, or our government is better than this kind of government, I don't know that we have that kind of biblical warrant. So these remarks that I'm making are not just limited to a particular form of government, like democracy, so that we would say, well, as soon as we get the whole world democratized, then this will be applicable. This is applicable to all nations, in all times, of all people, in all circumstances, as we come to the Word of God to look at them. I also am going to, as I said, be looking at and comparing two different Reformed theologians' views concerning this theology of resistance. I don't usually find myself in a position to have to disagree with one of my favorite theologians and preachers in the world, but in this particular case, I'm always reminded that men have clay feet, the best of men are men at best. And no man, any one man, nor any particular theological movement necessarily has the corner on all of God's Word. But the two individuals we'll be looking at is Samuel Rutherford, especially as he expresses himself in Lex Rex, or The Law is King, and John Calvin in Calvin's Institutes, particularly in his fourth book, Towards the End, where he begins to deal with civil magistrates and the theology of resistance. And so, having introduced us, as I will, calling to mind a little bit about what we talked about this morning, and then moving on to look at these two views in their historical context. Remember, Rutherford is writing during those days called The Time of the Covenanters in Scotland, and the abrogation that is taking place by the King of Scotland, also the King of England during that time, and Calvin writing earlier, especially, specifically writing to the King of France. Remember that many of those whom Calvin was teaching in Geneva were all French refugees who had fled France to come to Geneva to escape from religious persecution. And so you would look at that situation and certainly think that, especially from Calvin, we would be getting some kind of theology of resistance that probably would have a low view of the civil magistrate, but in actual fact we have Calvin espousing a very high view, as does Rutherford, but the way they look at their responsibilities before God and what God has called them to do is slightly different. We'll try to take a look at that and then draw some conclusions for ourselves as we look this morning at Romans thirteen, which again is that classical text. If we start talking about civil governments and civil magistrate in the New Testament from a biblical perspective, the place that nine times out of ten we will turn immediately will be to Romans chapter thirteen, and it speaks to us much about the Bible's view of the civil authority. We said there, as we looked at this particular portion, as we began to open that up, that there are three primary truths that underline Paul's teaching here in these seven verses. Truths that we must always keep in mind when we begin to talk about any kind of theology of resistance. The first truth that we said underlied or underscored Paul's teaching here is that God is a judge, an avenger of evil. We look specifically at the scriptural teaching about God as being righteous, showing his justice and the administration of that justice, that God's justice both guards who he himself is as God, but also guards the moral government that he has set among the nations. And that when we begin to talk about the civil magistrate, when we begin to talk about those governments that God has instituted, Paul says to us that this is not only a practical discussion that we are to have, because obviously God has established that righteousness would be exalted and that evil would be suppressed, but he also reminds us that it is a matter of conscience. It is a matter of conscience before the Lord. And only God is Lord of the conscience. Nobody can tell us how it is that we are to live except for God's word. And as God's word is opened up to us and as we learn from it, that God himself is the establisher of governments, as Paul clearly says to us in these first couple of verses of Romans chapter 13, that God is the one who has established government. To resist government is to resist God. And that should have tremendous sway with us as we contemplate any kind of theology of resistance. That if we are in the wrong, that we fight not simply against men, but we fight against God. It reminds us of the wisdom of Gamaliel in Acts chapter 5, when he begins to talk about that persecution of the apostles, when he says to the Sanhedrin there, take heed, lest ye find yourself fighting against God. If this movement is of the Lord, then you will never be able to put it down, never be able to resist it, never be able to stop it. But if this is a movement of men, as we've learned from history, it will come and go, as many movements have, because God's word will not be thwarted, his word will never return to him void. but God will and does accomplish all that he sends it to do, so that we might find ourselves resisting God and not simply resisting men, because God is a judge and the avenger of evil. And though we have the best of intentions, though our motive might be right in terms of throwing off a wicked government, we might find ourselves doing it in a wrong way. And again, we have that example of David that is given to us when he brings the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, which was probably one of the greatest blessings that came to pass in his life and in his ministry when he did bring the Ark of the Covenant back into Jerusalem. But remember, the Ark of the Covenant didn't return to Jerusalem until his second attempt. Though David's heart was pure before the Lord, though David had every good intention, every right motive to bring the Ark of the Covenant back into Jerusalem because he sought to do it in the wrong way, he brought death and destruction upon the children of Israel, especially as it was expressed through the life of Uzzah, who was struck dead by God as the oxen stumbled going over the threshing floor in Obed-Edom. And so it's important for us to keep that in perspective. God is a judge and he is the avenger of evil. God brings down governments. God will raise governments and he will do that in a righteous and holy way. The second thing that we saw in the text as we look at it this morning was that God has appointed the civil magistrate. Now I didn't really concentrate specifically on the text here I showed using the fifth commandment and other places about God establishing government, but I think it's with significance the terminology that the Lord uses concerning that a map that magistrate is that he has appointed in this particular text. We read early on, let every man present be subject to the governing authorities in the Greek there. It speaks about rulers, those who have been set by God to rule over the people. He calls them a little bit later, servants of God, using that Greek term, Deacon or Diakonos. that these ones are appointed now right away. We start thinking about those servants that were appointed in Acts chapter six to serve the church in the disputes and in the troubles that were going on there among the people in the early church as that division and debate arose over the division of food among the people that God appointed servants And the servants in the church's purpose was to bring peace, to relieve the apostles so that they were able to give themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer, but for this ministry, this diaconal ministry within the church, to bring peace to the church so that the ministry of Christ could be forwarded and the kingdom of God advanced. And it's with significance, I think, that the Apostle Paul refers to these magistrates when he reminds us that we are to be in subjection to them. But also, a little bit later, Paul speaks about them in verse five and following says, Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason, you also pay taxes for the authorities are ministers of God. Now, the particular term that Paul uses here is like Turgos, which is the same Greek term that we get our English term liturgy from. And every place in the New Testament that that word is used in every other context is used with religious connotations. We see it used of Christ in Hebrews chapter one and verse seven and again about the angels in Hebrews chapter one and verse fourteen. We see it again used of Christ in Hebrews chapter eight and verse two as he being the minister of God's covenant. We see Paul using it about the Gentiles, as he is called to be a minister to the Gentiles for the sake of the kingdom of God and so this term. Minister is a very significant term, and for it to be applied in this context to civil magistrates, to those who are rulers, called of God to be servants, it is of significance that Paul uses such a term. It's also significant that he uses all three of these terms, generally terms that we see in a religious context. Again, we refer to rulers in the church, ruling elders, having the rule, God's commandment that in the church we are to submit to those who have the rule over us and whom God has appointed as rulers. Servants in the church, ministers of the gospel are often referred to as being servants. Paul uses the term in Acts chapter 20 when he talks about the under shepherds, the servants of the church of Jesus Christ, and then those ministers of the gospel of our Savior. Thirdly, we recognize that in this particular case, as those who had been appointed by God in the church had been given the keys of the kingdom, Matthew chapter 16, that whatsoever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. With regard to the church, we recognize that in this context, as these ones have been appointed by God to be his rulers, his servants, his ministers, to them he has delegated or given the sword to execute criminal punishment. Now again, as we read these particular texts, as we see this in its context, then we should come away from these verses with a very high regard of the civil magistrate. It is not something that just occurred as a result of sin, which is what many believers think, that before the fall there would have been no government, God would have established no authority. After all, there was no reason to have someone or something that would suppress evil and promote good. After all, there would have been no evil in the world, and so there was no need for government. But that's not, I believe, the teaching of Scripture. The Bible reminds us that God is a God of order, and that all things are done decently in order, and because God is the just ruler of heaven and earth, as the moral governor of the world that he's created, he has also appointed a moral government to rule and to conduct the affairs of men. And so we recognize, though, that the aspect of the sword given to the civil magistrate is an aspect of sin, Prior to that time, the sword was not given to the magistrate. In fact, the first place that we really hear of that language of sword is in the garden when Adam and Eve have been banished from the garden and God sets his messengers, his ministers, his angels at the head of the garden with a sword, forbidding the way of Adam and Eve to enter back into the garden. And it's from that point that the sword, as we see it unfolded for us in Scripture, takes on significance. In a sense, the Scripture reminds us that, again, even these civil magistrates are as angels, like that angel that stood at the head of the garden bearing a sword. So do these ones appointed by God stand at the head of God's created order as those who are commissioned by him to execute criminal punishment for those who have violated his law. And again, we would look at this and as we read this and we think, well, there is very little room for any kind of dissent or resistance or rebellion or revolution concerning the government of God. so the question arises for us does the Bible have a theology of resistance That's the first question that we have to answer. Does the Bible have a theology of resistance? And if it does, what is that which constitutes legitimate resistance? And how is that resistance to be carried out? Well, I think to answer the question of does the Bible have a theology of resistance? We can say emphatically, yes. And the text that we would look at to see that primarily is in Acts chapter five in verse twenty nine and following. Remember, in Acts chapter five, after the time of Ananias and Sapphira, many signs and wonders were being done by the apostles in the city of Jerusalem, so much so that a stir is being created in the city. It's brought the religious leaders of the day to a great tizzy concerning this whole thing, and in verse seventeen it says, The high priest rose up And all who were with him, that is, the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in public prison. Now, during the night, an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out and said, Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this light. And when they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and began to teach. Now, when the high priest came and those who are with them, they called together the council and all the Senate of Israel and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the officers came, they did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported. We found the prison securely locked and the guard standing at the door. But when we opened them, we found no one inside. Now, when the captain of the temple in the chief priest heard the words, they were greatly perplexed about them, wondering what this would come to. And someone came and told them, Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people. Then the captain with the officers went and brought them but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people, and when they had brought them, they set them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, saying, We strictly charge you not to teach in this name. Yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring the man's blood upon us. Well, it wasn't the apostles that were bringing the blood of Christ upon the head of the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, the Council. They had done that sufficiently themselves in rejecting the Christ and having him nailed to the cross. Then it says that he goes on to build and bring his blood upon us, but Peter and the apostles answer. We must obey God rather than men. The God of our father's race, Jesus, whom you killed by hanging on the tree. The question, does the Bible have a theology of resistance? The answer is yes. Resistance to civil or religious authority is valid under those conditions where governments transgress or attempt to suppress the preaching of the gospel or some clear commandment of God. Now, most Christians everywhere agree on this point. the Bible is full of the kind these kinds of situation we can talk about the Hebrew midwives we can talk about Shadrach Meshach and Abednego we can talk about Daniel we can talk about the prophets we can talk about Rahab there are multitudes of incidences in situations throughout the scripture where we clearly see this kind of resistance a resistance to both civil and religious authority under those conditions where those authorities have transgressed or attempt to suppress the preaching of the gospel or some clear commandment of God. Obviously, if someone comes to us, and even though they might be higher than us or a magistrate that commands us to sin, I think the Bible is quite clear. We emphatically and definitely can say no. Now, it might be that we would suffer the consequences. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown into a fiery furnace. Daniel was thrown into a lion's den. Many of the prophets were killed. Jeremiah was put into the miry clay. The consequences are often severe and harsh, but the clear conscience issue here is that they have an obligation before God to obey Him and not man. And so, right away, we recognize that there is a theology of resistance. None of us would be in a circumstance or situation to recognize that if someone came to us and said, deny Jesus or die, that we don't have the right to deny Christ. that we must stand. Jesus says, if you confess me before men, I will confess you before the father, regardless of the circumstances, regardless, even if it means the end of our life. That's quite clear in Scripture, but where it becomes a bit more ambiguous for us is when we begin to talk about political resistance. What about those areas where there's not a clear cut transgression of or attempt to suppress the preaching of the gospel or some clear commandment of scripture? What of this resistance in the realm of politics or with regard to political authority? Is there a biblical theology of resistance? Now, this is where we really push. And again, having seen Paul in Romans 13, 1 through 7, has given us such a grand theology of government, this question becomes all the more important. Now, we can see its importance also historically. Many times the Christians and the Christian church has gone through great persecution at the hands of unjust and ungodly men who wield political authority. We think of the multitude of Christians that were being fed to the lions, being burned at the stake in Rome. We think of the apology of Justin Martyr. Now, remember what Justin Martyr argues there. He argues and says to the emperors of Rome, you are gravely mistaken in this endeavor. And what is the logic that he uses? The logic that he uses is because they are model citizens. They are the kind of citizens that you want in your nation. They are the kind of citizens that build up a people and bring the blessing of God upon any nation. To rid yourself of them not only is going to incur God's wrath because of the unrighteous deeds in which you do, but also is going to doom that nation to failure because they have, as it were, cut off the cream of the crop. Now, certainly, Justin Martyr would not have been able to argue in such a way if Christians had just generally taken an approach to government as government is evil. Anytime they do something bad, we have the right to resist them. The reason that Justin Martyr was able to argue in that way to those Roman authorities was because of the model, character, and conduct of those Christians that lived in the Roman Empire. And so we see again that Paul has exalted the civil magistrate and that it has been the thought and the understanding of Christians, especially during that time of early persecution. As we said, this text tells us that the Apostle Paul has taught us that the government has two primary purposes, and that is to promote the good of society and to punish evildoers. Now, those are just kind of heading duties. What comes under both of those duties, in the promoting of good and the punishment of evil, is all kinds of general applications as those are applied in everyday life. But in this, we recognize that government, as it seeks to promote good and to punish evil, is fulfilling that function, that God-ordained function, that function that God says for a man to resist is to be resisting God, that they have authority to carry out, and God has given them a sword to accomplish their purpose. Now, as we said here, Paul says they don't bear the sword in vain. In other words, the sword in the hand of the magistrate is ultimately going to be effectual because it is a means of God's work. The sword isn't just because one man says, I'm going to rule the world and he picks up a sword and he goes out to do it. No, the scripture says that the authorities that be are appointed by God. So that brings us to realize and conclude that every nation known among men, among us today, is God appointed. Now we look around the world, we see some pretty wicked nations. But we have to come to the fundamental truth that God does all things, He does all things well, that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, that God causes nations to rise and God causes nations to fall. And those nations which are arisen and stand at this day are by the appointment of God. So we must take very seriously any question of resistance to them. But as we begin to speak about the authority of nations, we also need to recognize that authority of nations is not an absolute or ultimate authority. The authority of government is a delegated or, in this sense, what we could call a ministerial authority. It is the same way within the church. The authority that rulers in the church, whether it be pastors or elders, or as they meet in their representative bodies in the session in Presbyteries and General Assemblies, it is delegated authority. The church has not the right to legislate to God or to his people. God is the legislator. He is the only legislator. The laws are appointed by Him, and the authorities that be have been appointed by Him, delegated by Him, to carry out that authority. Now, where the real rub comes is when those authorities begin to look at themselves as being ultimate or absolute. Now, one of the things that we'll see that Samuel Rutherford is fighting against and one of the things that he is dealing with, and I think it was a legitimate problem to deal with, was the whole right of the divine right of kings. The kings were claiming that they had ultimate authority in and of themselves and not in and of the fact that they had been delegated by God. They became a law to themselves and they became a law to themselves and demonstrated that they thought themselves as a law to themselves because they considered themselves as being above the law. That they themselves were not under the authority of law, but that all others were to be under law as under them. And again, this is a clear violation of that authority that God has established in government, and one which we should take seriously as we consider these particular questions in the historical context. But even in that, we must ask the question, does failure on government's part, even when governments fail, legitimize or call for resistance? In other words, every time a government stumbles, is that an automatic go card for resistance, rebellion and revolution? And on the basis of what Paul has been teaching us here in Romans 13, I would answer that question to say no. It is not a go card, it's not an automatic pass that we are to resist or to throw off a particular government or whatnot because of their failures, but Paul says we are to submit to those authorities. And yet we recognize that the scripture does speak about illegitimate governments. We do recognize that the scripture does speak about, as we saw here in Acts chapter 5, that there is a resistance. But again, how far does that resistance apply? Now, in answering that question, I want to look at the two great theologians, as I said, Samuel Rutherford and John Calvin. We'll look at Rutherford in Lex Rex, we'll look at Calvin in his Institutes. Calvin and Rutherford, in answering the question, is there a theology of resistance in the political realm? They both answer the question, yes. That there is biblical warrant for resisting unrighteous governments. But both of these men give different grounds for and different agents in biblical resistance. Both are going to seek to argue their positions from scripture. We want to hear those positions and try to evaluate them. Let's begin with, though he is later historically in time, begin with Samuel Rutherford. And the reason I'm beginning with Rutherford is because Rutherford probably has had more effect upon us in 20th, 21st century America than John Calvin has. And so we probably find ourselves much more in affinity with Rutherford than we do with Calvin in this regard. And especially because there are some great theologians of the present day, such as John Whitehead or even the late Francis Schaeffer, who more or less argued a Rutherford position with regard to resistance in the modern world. Samuel Rutherford, first of all, argued that the ground for resistance was on two places, at two places, two grounds for resistance. The first being, he said, when any government or civil magistrate regulates to itself ultimate or absolute authority, it transgresses the appointment of God and thereby forfeits its right to claim the subjection of its citizens. Rutherford basically argued that any time a government became totalitarian or a despotic regime, that the citizens had the right to resist. Okay? Now, again, he's arguing in Scotland. He's arguing against the Scottish kings, as they are espousing their doctrine of the divine right of the king. In other words, the king is ultimate, he is absolute, everyone is underneath him. And Rutherford would argue that the moment a man claims such a right, then he automatically forfeits the right to claim the subjection of his citizens. Well, we can look briefly and compare that to Romans 13. Certainly, we would say that King James I of England, King James VI of Scotland, was a scoundrel. But he certainly wasn't as bad as the Roman Caesars that Paul is writing about and during the time of writing Romans 13, writing to the church at Rome. Paul doesn't say that we are to obey them except if they transgress the appointment of God because they thereby have forfeited their right to claim subjection of its citizens. Paul says, listen, if you resist them, you resist God. He even goes so far as to say, for the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God attending to this very thing. So you are to pay to all what is owed to them, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due. Paul even goes so far as to say, Brothers, not only are we not to resist them, but we're to support them with the giving of our taxes. We talked about that text in Mark's gospel, where the scribes and the Pharisees seeking to trick Jesus comes to him and says, Are we to pay taxes? And Jesus says, Bring me a denarius. They bring it to him. He says, Whose inscription is upon it? They say Caesar's. And he reminds us that we are to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and we're to give to God that which is God. The second thing that Rutherford says in this regard is that the state is to be ruled according to God's word. Not to do so is tyranny. And Rutherford defined tyranny as lordship over the conscience. You see, no man has a right to command another to do anything that God hasn't commanded him to do. Only the Lord is Lord over the conscience. That is true within the realms of religion and also in the realm of society. And so Rutherford very rightly said, anyone who rules outside of God's word is a tyrant. He's exercising lordship over the conscience. Tyranny can be resisted. It can be resisted. But he goes on to say it must be resisted. Well, those are, again, pretty heavy statements. I mean, basically, if we were to follow Rutherford in his conclusion on these two grounds, we would have to ask the question, where in the world would there not be civil war today? What nation among the nations of men in our own day, or even if we take some trip back through history to look at, what nations ever conformed to these two grounds? 90% of the nations in the world today consider themselves to be absolute, they've regulated to themselves ultimate or absolute authority, transgressing God's appointments. We can look around the nations and see the way that totalitarianism is, the despotic regimes of many nations, the subjugation of people. So do those people have the right to claim that they no longer are in subjection to those governments? Or what nation ultimately is ruled according to God's word? Many nations have not the Scriptures do not seek the Scriptures in terms of ruling. Rutherford is not talking here about natural revelation. He's not talking about natural law. He specifically says if they are not ruled according to God's Word, they are tyrants. And if they are tyrants, you not only can resist them, but you must resist them. Again, I don't know that we find that in thinking of Paul in Romans 13, though we certainly can feel the heart of Rutherford as he is suffering under the hands of a tyrannical government that has forbidden him to preach the gospel, to be in his hometown, has put him in prison, is harrowing the lives of many of the Scottish clergy. putting them out of their pulpits, causing great discord and discontent and destruction among the Scottish people, so that he would say they not only can be resisted, but they must be resisted. So it's on those two grounds. Now the question is, okay, if those are the grounds, then who are the agents? Who resists, who has been appointed by God in this particular circumstance or under these circumstances to resist this tyranny, to resist this one who has claimed ultimate or absolute authority? Well, for Rutherford, the agents of resistance are, is the citizenry. Any private citizen can resist a despotic or tyrannical government. private citizen. OK, that means from the smallest subject in a nation to the oldest subject in the nation, all are not only able to resist because they have warrant from God's word, but they must resist the private citizen. Again, that puts us into kind of a quandary here. We must recognize that Rutherford's not an anarchist, even though I think that this kind of idea leads to political anarchy. If every time somebody, and who decides who has become a tyrant? Who decides when someone has taken absolute or ultimate authority? Who decides when someone's not following God's word far enough? Even Rutherford understood that in Scotland, even with the king having listened to the demands of the Covenanters, that it wasn't going to still be a society that completely conformed to God's Word. So where do you draw the line? In fact, in the Covenanter movement, one of the things that you'll see as you go through history is that there is constant division within the Covenant movement, because some Covenanters said, OK, they've conformed enough, and others said they haven't conformed quite enough, and led to even years of persecution and the final destruction of many of those common enters after many of them had already given up and said we've gone far enough. So who draws the line here? How do you come to that conclusion? Well, the Apostle Paul, I think, is again very clear here. The Word of God draws the line. The Word of God has drawn the line in favor in this context of the civil magistrate and that the citizen doesn't in and of himself have the right to resist. Now, Rutherford is sane in all of this. As I said, Rutherford is not a rebel. Okay? And so, this is where his sanity begins to show itself. Rutherford did not want to destroy government per se. Rutherford did not think that government was evil and that the best world would be a world that was devoid of government, contrary to what many of our young people during the 60s thought. As you know, many in the world at that time were of the persuasion that the best world is a world without government. If we could get rid of government, we would get rid of all the heartaches and the problems that exist in the world. Well, again, that's not realistic. either in the world in which we live, nor biblically, because it fails to recognize the total depravity of man and the sinful wickedness of the heart of man and his rebellion against God. The worst thing that could happen to the world is an overthrow of government per se. Well, Rutherford wasn't at that place, and so Rutherford to, in a sense, Dole, some of the pointed things that he said with regard to the grounds for resistance and the agents of resistance, advocates levels of resistance. And he advocates these levels in such a way that you must exhaust every level before you can move to the next level. So you can't just... I remember when my wife was having Toby giving birth to Toby we had gone through all the Lamar's classes and and we had been given these ten exercises and and they said to my wife Kathleen you need to work your way slowly by slowly through these ten exercises while you're going through labor and when you as you labor intensifies you increase it level by level but make sure you don't increase it too quickly or won't do you any good well Kathleen had gone into labor, we'd been in labor about 45 minutes, and I said to her after I thought she was still breathing the first exercise, okay, why don't we move to the second exercise? And she said, second exercise? I've been on exercise 10 for the last 30 minutes. And sure enough, it did no good. Well, Rutherford would argue, if we run through these levels of resistance too quickly, in essence, they won't do us any good. What were those levels? Well, first of all, Rutherford said the first level of resistance, and again, this is resistance by any private citizen, is the level of protest. Now the level of protest for Rutherford would be similar to our court system or taking legal actions. redressing grievances through the apparatus that has been appointed in the particular government under which we live. Now, for those of us who live in a country like the United States, those opportunities of protest or taking that kind of legal action is multiple for us. We have it on local levels, we have it on state levels, we have it on federal levels, we have it on a national Supreme Court level even. So, to really exhaust this would often take time. Well, in Rutherford's day, it didn't take all that much time, but Rutherford was very clear. You must proceed with every legal recourse before you do anything else. You must exhaust every avenue that is given to you under the particular government in which you stand. Not to do so is to violate the order that God has established in his word. Now, Rutherford then moves on from this level of protest, and we might think that then he moves on to the level of armed resistance, but he doesn't. Rutherford's second level of resistance is flight. If you have exhausted every protest avenue that has been given to you, the second thing that you have is to flee. Now, many Puritans, in England and many of the Covenanters in Scotland took advantage of this second level. We know that many of them ended up in Holland, in the Netherlands. We know that guys like John Knox ended up in Geneva as he took flights. We know that many of them fled the British Isles completely and came to the American colonies. And some of them were even thwarted in that particular situation. One of my favorite devotional readings that I do is in the letters of Samuel Rutherford. And I don't know if Banner Truth has just recently published again the whole unabridged collection of those letters. Fascinating letters dealing with men. In fact, a couple of days ago, I was just reading one of the letters that he wrote to one of the ministers who had left Scotland to go to Ireland. Having been in Ireland and being persecuted then in Ireland, he had left Ireland to go to the American colonies. But because of bad weather, the ship had to turn around and come back, and the man ended up back in Scotland. In fact, the man's name was John Livingston. Livingston became a instrument in the hand of God that was of great force in Scotland, and he was able to preach. one particular communion season during this period of time where there is a record that more than five hundred people through one sermon made a profession of faith. God used him mightily. Now God had, according to Rutherford, God, or Rutherford would say to encourage many of these pastors to join the cause of the Covenanters and fight and take up arms, and that's the third level of resistance. Rutherford said the use of force was the third level. Again, you mustn't rush through these levels too quickly. The levels certainly seem to make sense, that first level being all legal reaction. If the government closes legal action to you, then you flee, you go. And if that door is closed to you for one reason or another, you use force. Well, in our day, we're really forced into using level one and level three. If we were to follow Rutherford here in the United States, for instance, we have the opportunity in terms of protest. But let's say protest is closed to us. We've already exhausted all the protests, we've carried it as high as we can. Regrettably, in our country, a lot of times it's as high as we can afford to carry it, as opposed to as high as we actually can carry it. But we've exhausted our resources, we've exhausted our opportunities. How do we flee? Where do we go? What place in the world can we go for, if we follow Rutherford's criteria for the grounds for resistance, what country in the world can you go to? Better than the United States. I mean, there's not many of them out there. Now, for years, there were many who would go to a place like Switzerland and say, hey, let's go to Switzerland. It's a, you know, a neutral country. They don't get involved in war. They're pacifists as a nation and go, well, even that. is not really an option and a viable option to us. So really, if we were to follow Rutherford's scheme here, we would go from step one, protest, to step three, armed resistance or the use of force. But even as we look at the use of force, how practical is the use of force in our nation today? We read and hear about resistance that are going on around the world. We also recognize that it's generally the United States that furnishes the line of defense, in a sense, to take care of that. Who among us would like to go up against the United States government or the army of the United States? I know many of you in the congregation. Quite frankly, I don't think I'd like to be standing on the opposite side of the battle line from you, especially not as a private citizen with my Twenty-two. It would serve me no good cause. Again, I think that the practicality of Rutherford's position demonstrates itself in that it doesn't stand the history of time. It doesn't stand. It doesn't prove to be workable. And I think that it's because there are some errors in terms of Rutherford's thinking and what he has tried to do. Let's move on to look at Calvin. Again, remember the situation in Calvin's day. Calvin is writing in book four, beginning specifically at chapter 20 in book four, through about chapter 32 of that book, where he's dealing with the civil magistrate. Calvin's institutes are dedicated to the king of France. Calvin is specifically, in fact, I believe what the institutes are, it's Calvin's track, it's Calvin's apologetic to the King of France. Again, along the lines of Justin Martyr saying to the King of France, listen, the doctrine that we teach is the doctrine of the Word of God. And this doctrine of the Word of God doesn't produce rebels. It doesn't produce unruly citizens. But it produces God-fearing men and women who are model citizens of any nation of any country. And I think Calvin comes with a real wallop in doing that. Now, the response of France in Calvin's day was, well, we don't believe it, and so we want to exterminate you from the face of the earth. We know that multitudes, in fact, I believe that one of the reasons why France is as France is, is because of its rejection of God's word in those early days. to such an extent, more than any other country, that besides the more strict Catholic countries, such as Spain, that under Ignatius Loyola, that and earlier on in the Inquisition and those times, just tried to decimate any clear biblical teaching. But we want to look at Calvin and as he writes here. The first thing that we need to realize or to see in Calvin is the development of what is called Calvin's two kingdom doctrine. Calvin taught that every individual is either the member of one kingdom or two kingdoms. He is the member of an earthly kingdom to which he owes allegiance. And every true Christian is a member of Christ's spiritual kingdom. Now when Calvin is dealing in this particular aspect of this kingdom theology, he is writing to the king of France and he is describing to them those who are true believers. And that these believers have true citizenship. and that one is that citizenship in a kingdom, and the other of the earth, and the other is that citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, and that these two citizenships are not mutually exclusive of one another. Being a citizen of the kingdom doesn't make one a bad citizen or negate his citizenship in the temporal kingdom in which he lives. In fact, Calvin would argue that the spiritual kingdom makes him a better citizen, as being a citizen in the spiritual kingdom makes him a better citizen in the earthly kingdom. and that the true Christian recognizes his duties and his responsibilities before God in both kingdoms. Now, Calvin said that though these are separate kingdoms, in a sense, in the life of the believer, we can't separate ourselves from them. You can't just simply say, well, I'm living in the spiritual kingdom, have nothing to do with the temporal, or I'm living in the temporal and have nothing to do with the spiritual. He saw them as circles, in a sense, that overlaid one another. But there were responsibilities for each kingdom that could not be transgressed. Now, in some of our Puritan brothers, I think that this is one of the ideas in Calvin that is overlooked by them. This seems to be a point of difference between Calvin and Rutherford. Rutherford saw Scotland as the kingdom of heaven. So that's one of the reasons why Rutherford comes to the conclusions he does, and I think one of the reasons why Calvin comes to different conclusions with regard to this theology of resistance. Again, what for Calvin are the grounds for resistance? Remember that Rutherford has told us that the grounds for resistance are when any government or civil magistrate relegates to itself ultimate or absolute authority. It transgresses the appointment of God and thereby forfeits its right to claim the subjection of its citizens. Or if the state is ruled by anything except the word of God, it has become a tyranny. What does Calvin say the ground for resistance are? Well, Calvin starts off his chapter here by speaking, first of all, negatively, what are not the grounds of resistance, before he speaks about the ground of resistance. Calvin says, first of all, what are not the grounds of resistance is we cannot resist because there happens to be pagan rulers. There's no ground for resisting a government appointed by God simply on the basis because the ruler is a pagan and not a believer in Christ. It says there's no grounds. The Bible clearly teaches from beginning to end that submission is due to authority not on the basis of there being pagan or Christian, but on the basis of God's appointment of government. as an ordinance of God. So simply to say, for instance, if you're in the United States and two men are running for election, one is a Christian and one is a pagan. And the one you say, if the Christian gets elected, then I'll submit to the United States government. But if the pagan gets elected, I won't. Calvin says that is no grounds for resistance. You cannot simply turn away, because God has appointed the institution of government. All authority has been appointed by God. That authority is the instrument in God's hands. And we ask not the question of whether or not He is a Christian or not. And this is something similar, I think, that Calvin would argue with regard, for instance, to the sacraments. When you're a young toddler in your mother's arm, and you're baptized, and you grow up, and you come to make a public profession of faith in Christ, you do not have to ask the question whether or not the man who baptized you was a true believer. It makes no difference. Why? Because baptism is the appointment, the institution of God. God blesses His own institution, and it's not dependent upon the man who administers it. Or for instance, you know, you're baptized and the man that baptized you made a profession of faith. But 25 years later, he commits adultery, runs off with his secretary, apostatized from the faith. Do you need to step back and go, oh, no, maybe my baptism is invalid because he wasn't a Christian. I don't have to answer that question. Calvin is saying, along those similar lines, that it isn't a question of whether or not the ruler is Christian or non-Christian, even if he is a non-Christian, such as the Caesars were non-Christians. Though Paul does tell us in the New Testament that as a result of his ministry in Rome, many within Caesar's household were being converted, we have no evidence that the Caesar, at the time of the Apostle Paul, writing in the Book of Romans, had made a profession of faith in Christ. In fact, history tells us just the contrary. Nero would put Paul to death. And yet Paul would not change the words of Romans 13, 1 through 7 on the basis of, well, we don't have to obey him, brothers, because he's not a Christian. Calvin understood that. Calvin said that is not a ground for resistance. Secondly, Calvin there in the Institutes says, that it is no ground for resistance if a country, a nation, is not ruled by the Bible. Now, in our day, certainly, we have the opportunities and we seek, by God's grace, to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, to quote the Apostle Paul in Corinthians. Paul would say to us the same thing. But Calvin, I think following Paul, says, just because a nation hasn't come under the full authority of God's word does not grant us grounds to resist that nation. There are many things about nations that God has blessed by his common grace. we might not always agree with some of the laws. For instance, I didn't always agree with some of the laws of Uganda. because many of its laws were not shaped as a result of a serious study of God's Word, but they might have been done for pragmatic reasons, or maybe because of traditions in animism, or whatever the case might be. But the fact of the matter is, the government of Uganda was a legitimate government, and Christians were to obey it. It wasn't a perfect government, It isn't a government that is ruled by the scriptures, but it is a government that does maintain the law. I might not agree with all of its laws, but it seeks to maintain the law, though they are not necessarily biblical laws. Again, Calvin says it's no ground for resistance because a king or leader is a derelict or tyrannical. Calvin says, just simply because someone has become tyrannical, government is not to be overthrown. Now, in a given society or situation, Calvin would argue that if you are in a place where you can replace those who are in the midst of government, replace them. But you have no ground simply to kill him or to resist him on the basis that he was a tyrant. And this was some of the dispute that went on among the English and the Scottish in particular concerning the successors of James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, some of the infighting that went on trying to restore the king. keep the king out of the country, what was the position of the people, what were they supposed to do? Calvin, some would argue and say, well, hey, James II, again, is a scoundrel, we can't have him. Others would argue he's the legitimate heir of the throne of Scotland and England. He must be put on the throne. You could not, according to Calvin, just simply use the argument, well, the guy's a pirate, therefore he's to be assassinated or rejected. So then what are the grounds that Calvin saw as legitimate for resistance? Well, Calvin gives us those when he says, the grounds of resistance is the crossing of God's appointed boundaries. For Calvin, the grounds of resistance is the crossing of God's appointed boundaries. In other words, he says, when a civil magistrate crosses the boundary from the temporal to the spiritual, he may be resisted. Now again, remember Calvin's doctrine of the two-fold kingdom. Calvin wants to say, when the temporal crosses the boundary to the spiritual, he may resist. Well, in essence, I think that what Calvin is saying there is that what we read in Acts chapter 5. If any civil or religious authority crosses the boundary calling us to transgress or us to move in a direction that is contrary to anything that God has commanded us, it is to be resisted. Calvin puts it in those terms. He says, crossing the bounds of God's appointment. When a civil magistrate crosses from the temporal to the spiritual, he may be resisted. Now this, for Calvin, also worked in the other direction. Hence, Calvin's participation in the Reformation, which really, in some sense, is a movement of resistance towards religious authority. Calvin would argue that when a spiritual authority crosses the boundary from the spiritual to the temporal, he may be resisted. When the Pope desired and sought to usurp his authority over the temporal nations, Calvin said the Pope could be resisted, and resisted him fervently and explicitly. Calvin always taught that the priority was obedience to God in the spiritual realm. That's first, that man owes allegiance to God in the spiritual realm. But Calvin also taught that obedience to God in the spiritual realm will never make a man contrary to the temporal kingdom. It'll only be as the temporal kingdom seeks to usurp its authority and move into the realm of the spiritual. So Calvin would argue that all resistance must, by the nature of the case, be defensive. In other words, resistance would not come from the side of the spiritual kingdom. Because as we live in terms of the spiritual kingdom, it will make us model citizens. But it'll only be when the temporal seeks to usurp the authority of God, and it may be resisted. Okay, so there's a narrowing on the grounds for resistance in Calvin that we certainly don't see in Rutherford. Rutherford would basically argue that pretty much you get down to a certain place, you can resist for just about anything, and any private citizen can do it. Chooses, decides. They've overstepped the bounds here, they've done this, therefore we can resist. Calvin comes back and says, no, that's not quite the case. He dismantles, even though he writes before Rutherford, he pretty much dismantles what Rutherford says before he ever says it in terms of his criteria or those grounds that are not legitimate for resistance. Now this is the second place then that Calvin will differ from Rutherford in that Rutherford speaks about the fact that you can resist as a private citizen. Calvin is not going to hold to that position. Reading from the Institute's Chapter, Book 4, Chapter 20, Paragraph 23, Calvin says this. Moreover, under this obedience I conclude that restraint which private citizens ought to bid themselves keep in public, that they may not deliberately intrude in public affairs, or pointlessly invade the magistrate's office, or undertake anything at all politically. If anything in a public ordinance requires amendment, let them not raise a tumult or put their hands to the task. All of them ought to keep their hands bound in this respect. But let them commit the matter to the judgment of the magistrates, whose hands alone here is free. Now what Calvin is dealing with here in this section of the Institutes is the agents of resistance. And he says two things to us there. He says the agents of resistance are not private citizens. That they should keep their hands, as it were, bound. And at any place where there is grievance, they should pass the matter to the magistrates of whom the Lord has made their hands free. to deal with these particular circumstances and situations. So Rutherford and Calvin disagree on these two points. Rutherford says that every private citizen, as unto himself, can resist. Calvin says that resistance can only be through the agents of the magistrates. Now, that raises the question, what if it is a magistrate that is sinning? What if it is the magistrate to which we have grievance? And this is where Calvin's doctrine of the lesser magistrate comes in. Calvin basically understood that governments were set as structures, and that there are magistrates that are appointed within that structure to police and guard from the higher magistrates. Now, we, in particular, should have some concept of this. I think, in some sense, this is what the founding fathers were driving at when they had the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and the representative branches of government, or the court branches of government, so that these three become checks on one another. Certain powers are given to the President, certain powers are given to the Congress, certain powers are given to the courts. The court's powers are not to be ultimate, the President's powers aren't to be ultimate, the Congressional powers are to be ultimate, but they are checks and balances on one another. And a society functions well when those magistrates function in the way that they ought. And so Calvin says if we have a tyrannical executive branch, the place where we ought to be turning is to the legislative and to the judicial branch. And if we have a judicial branch that has run away with itself, the place we should be turning is to the legislative and the executive branch. And we've tried to build that into our Constitution. And I believe that that's the principle that Calvin is speaking about here when he's talking about the lesser magistrate. But we not only have that built in into a system in terms of our federal government, but as we were constituted as a nation, we built it into our state governments, our county governments, our city governments. Each of them functioned as magistrates to protect us, not simply from evil, but from the evil that could come from magistrates. Calvin was, and recognized, I think, that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that there was a necessity within the structure of government to build those safeguards, as it were, as God did in the scriptures, and that as we were in our governments. Okay? So Calvin simply says, then what are the forms of resistance? Well, certainly Calvin would argue that flight is a form of resistance and a legitimate form. If you can't correct the situation, please someplace else. But Calvin said that basically all forms of resistance were all legal means. So Calvin avoided what I think Rutherford didn't and that was the open door of vigilantism. Every man becoming what is right in his own eyes or becoming his own law in deciding. Now Calvin also said that those legal means included arms. But again, Calvin was not an anarchist, he was not a rebel. Calvin said that the use of the legal means was for the purpose of reestablishing proper rule and not overthrowing proper rule. That's why Calvin doesn't speak about a theology of revolution, he speaks about a theology of resistance, that men are to resist but resist biblically, because God is a God of decency and of order, and so he is established and appointed a way. Now, I think that basically these are the two positions. I think as we look at and compare those two positions with Romans 13, we would conclude that Calvin's position is more in accord with the high view of the government that God has appointed and the way God has appointed than Rutherford's view was in that. in that particular situation. So, what does that mean for us? Well, first of all, I think it means for us as Christians, living even in the day that we are in, that we need to take seriously Calvin's exposition of the scriptures with regard to the civil magistrate and resistance and look seriously at some of what we hear and think seriously about some of what we read with regard to resistance today, even as they come out of individuals that we might hold in high regard in other particular matters, that we really need to seriously think about those things. We're hearing all kinds of calls today in our country about... failing to pay taxes. We're not supposed to pay taxes. We've had men who were in the OPC and then in the PCA and then went out someplace else and took matters in his own hands and tried to blow up an abortion clinic and was subsequently put to death. And many Christians were outraged that this was the height of tyranny where I just basically looked at it and said, This is good government. I mean, this is what ought to be going on. Though I feel sympathy for the individual involved, I have sympathy for the cause that he was speaking about, the death of millions of children, yet that is not the way of God's appointment. Men taking the law into their own hands in a vigilante way, going to bring their own solutions. Certainly, it would not give us the grounds that Calvin argued in the Institutes, that Justin Martyr offered in the Apology, that Christians are the best citizens and therefore should be protected under the law. Secondly, I think that it should cause us seriously to reconsider, in our political understanding, the whole role of the lesser magistrate. I often hear Christians, as they talk about political things, talking about the highest levels. You know, we need a president that's going to do this. We need a Congress that's going to do this. We need a Supreme Court that's going to do this. Well, frankly, we need to recognize that this side of glory, that the best of men are going to be men at best, and there will be all kinds of circumstances and situations where men get put into office, men that we think are good men, who turn out not to be so good for one reason or another, or there are changes that take place, and then we have nothing under that. We don't really start thinking about who it is we're putting in the positions of the lesser magistrates, such as, you know, the governors of our states, and the senators, and the congressmen, and the county councilmen, and the mayors of our cities, and those that we put into government, and we need to be much more aware If this is God's structure of those whom we put in, because those are the ones who will be those last lines of defense, as it were, as we have opportunity to carry our complaints whom we should expect and demand, as it were, to stand in the gap as higher authorities neglect their responsibilities and bring destruction upon us. And I think then that also, not only in terms of being aware that that is the way, is to be much more aware of our own responsibilities to think about those positions. Again, often when someone begins to talk about politics, if I say something about serving in the government, somebody just automatically says, well, I don't want to be president. Well, okay, but there's more to than just being the president in the governments of the United States. Why not consider being the mayors of cities, and the supervisors of counties, and working in the state political systems of our country? As we begin to sure up, as it were, this whole structure that God has given to us, we would find ourselves less likely being aggrieved And as this works down toward the lesser magistrate, let us not forget that God is appointed also in the other direction. When we are aggrieved at a lesser magistrate, we always have the opportunity to step up to the next step. Now, again, this is something that should not be foreign to us as Presbyterians. Most of us realize, and I believe that part of the genius of the Presbyterian form of government is that it is the biblical form, and that God has laid it down to us in his word, and we recognize and we realize that if we are aggrieved at the local level, we don't get what we believe ought to be our due from the session, we can appeal that to the Presbyterian. and have the opportunity to present our case before the Presbytery, and if the Presbytery doesn't hear us, we have an opportunity to carry that case before a Senate or a General Assembly, so that the whole Church has the opportunity to hear that case. And we know that, and we practice that, and we realize that very much. But also, what we don't realize is it works the other way. If our General Assembly doesn't do what it's supposed to do, whether it's not protecting the Church doctrinally, not with upholding its standards, not carrying out discipline cases the way that it ought to be, Presbyteries not only have the right, but they have the responsibility as lesser adjudicatories to protect the Church. They are to stand in. This is called the doctrine of interposition. They're to stand in the gap. And if a prospitory errs, a session has a responsibility to interpose, to stand in the gap, to protect a congregation. It works both ways. And in the same way, we recognize that in the civil government. God has arranged both of these spheres in a similar way. Now, we live in a country where we're privileged to be able, that if we are aggrieved at a lower level, we can carry it to a higher court. But also, God has appointed a government in which we can have our grievances recognized and our rights protected by those lesser magistrates that he's put over us. Now Calvin is very clear. Calvin says to us, in these cases, when we are under the authority of a magistrate that is over us, As a result of the dereliction of a higher magistrate, we have not sinned against God as we obey and submit ourselves to that lesser magistrate. But simply to take the law into our own hands is anarchy. Now, regrettably, I think that if you follow Rutherford to his logical conclusion, you end up in anarchy. But I believe that Calvin, in his doctrine of the lesser magistrate and resistance, biblical resistance, is following a biblical pattern. God has not put us under the tyranny of unrighteous men, but has made a way, a structure, for us to deal legitimately that doesn't destroy the concept of government, but upholds it and reestablishes it when it is falling. But with all of that, brethren, we have to be aware of the realization and the understanding that God often chastens His people and nations with tyrannical and unholy and unrighteous governments. And when we have exhausted all of those ways, the attitude of the Christian is, Thy will be done, O Lord. Give me grace to be faithful in whatsoever circumstance you place me in, even if that means losing my life. God has not allowed us to step outside the bounds of his own governmental structure. I think Paul is clear here. To do so is to resist the ordinance of God. I believe he's given us much freedom and much power in the system that he's created. If we follow it, if we live by it, if we depend upon the Holy Spirit in it, we will see the name of our Savior lifted up, and I believe we will see his kingdom advanced. But we cannot just simply sit back and hope. that it will all happen, because God uses means, and the means He uses is our own willing submission to the structure that He has appointed in His Word. So I think as we weigh these two ideas, that we find the idea of Calvin and the lesser magistrate in his theology of resistance to be that which is in accord with Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7. Let us pray. Our Father and our God, we do thank you that even in the midst of this sin-cursed world, O Lord, that you have not been pleased to leave us to the tyrannies and the whims of tyrants. But, O Lord, that you have provided for us, according to your word, a structure, a government that promotes righteousness and godliness and peace. Father, we pray for our own government. We pray that you would cause it to be at rest, that you would give the leaders of our government wisdom and grace. that in the decisions they make that they might be made honorable before you, whether they recognize them or they don't, that you might grant us peace in this land for the propagation of your word that the elect might hear, and in hearing they might believe, and in believing they might call, and in calling they might be saved. Father, we desire that the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ, will be exalted, and for this we give you thanks. For He alone is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. We do praise you in His name. Amen.