Pastor Joel Webbin and Pastor Toby Sumter dissect Theonomy's view of civil government, defining crimes as objective public harms requiring punitive justice rather than preventative mandates. They argue for constitutional limits protecting family and church spheres, utilizing lex talionis and double restitution instead of modern incarceration, which they label state-sanctioned slavery. Citing Daniel and Hebrew midwives, they advocate for righteous civil disobedience against idolatrous laws while appealing to lesser magistrates and the U.S. Constitution as ultimate checks on tyranny, urging believers to prioritize biblical authority over human decrees even in authoritarian regimes. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Civil Government and Natural Law00:15:14
All right, welcome back to our six part mini series on God and government.
I am Pastor Joel Webbin, your host with Right Response Ministries, and I am having a discussion in each of these episodes with Pastor Toby Sumter.
This is our fifth episode, and so in this episode, we're dealing with the government of the state.
We're dealing with civil government.
What is their God assigned jurisdiction, their responsibility, their rights and privileges?
How can we tell when there's tyranny within the state, and how do we as Christians resist tyranny in biblical ways?
Applying God's Word to every aspect of life.
This is Theology Applied.
All right, here we are coming back.
This is now episode five of Toby's 50 question long catechism on the government.
And so there are six episodes that we're doing.
This is on Theology Applied with Right Response Ministries.
The first episode is an introduction, the sixth episode, the last one is a conclusion, final thoughts, the four in between.
Episode two, three, four, and five is self government, is number two.
Family government is number three.
And then we have number four is church government.
And this is episode number five, civil government.
We're going to be talking about the government of the state.
Let's begin by just doing the questions and the answers.
Toby, thanks for coming on the show.
Why don't you go ahead and start with question number 30.
You bet.
I just want to point out that 50 questions is actually kind of short for Reformation catechisms.
Yeah.
And they went into like hundreds of questions usually.
So I'm just, just want to point that out.
Very brief.
For all the Baptists out there, all right, civil government question 30 What is the sphere and assignment given by God to the civil government?
The sphere and assignment given by God to civil government is punishing criminals, establishing good order and justice in society through equal weights and measures, and praising the righteous.
Question number 31 Does the Bible require a particular form of civil government?
Answer The Bible allows for some flexibility and freedom in the form of government.
But it clearly teaches a constitutional and representative form of government, governed by scripture, common law, and natural law, prioritizing personal, local, and covenantal relationships and loyalties, with multiple checks and balances, given the natural tendency of sinful men to abuse power.
A Christian civil order requires a limited government.
Question 32 How is civil government to be limited?
Civil government is to be limited by honoring the assignments given to the Governments of the family and the church, not meddling in or taking to itself those assignments, and remaining steadfast in the sphere and assignment given to it by God, punishing criminals and upholding justice.
Question number 33 Who are the officers of civil government?
Answer Following the pattern of scripture, the officers in civil government are ordinarily qualified men who are judges, legislators, and executives, beginning with local magistrates in the city gates.
Question 34 What are the sanctions granted to the civil government?
God has granted the civil magistrate the sword with which to execute God's vengeance on criminals.
The basic principle is the lex talionis, eye for eye, which requires strict, punitive, or retributive justice, and biblical restitution in cases of theft, property damage, or divorce, but may also include stripes, banishment, exile, or the death penalty.
Incarceration is not an ordinary tool given to civil government.
Question number 35 What is the difference between a sin and a crime?
Answer Not all sins are crimes, but all crimes, if defined by the Bible, are sins.
However, sins are the jurisdiction and ministry of individuals, families, and churches.
Crimes are the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate and do objective public harm to life, liberty, and property.
The Bible identifies crimes as those actions which require restitution or penalty by civil magistrates.
For example, in the Bible, drunkenness and ethnic animosity are sins but not crimes, while adultery is a sin and a crime.
36. Are the civil laws of ancient Israel binding on all civil governments for all time?
No.
The specific laws of ancient Israel have expired with that nation state.
However, those laws were based on the general equity of moral justice based on the eternal character of God.
Since that eternal character cannot change, those common law principles are still binding on all nations for all time.
Question number 37.
What does natural law teach and require?
Natural law is the revelation of the eternal character and attributes of the triune God found in all of his creation, including his image found in all human beings in their conscience, customs, creativity, and cultures.
And it teaches and requires all men to acknowledge him as creator and praise and obey him in all things.
Because of sin, natural law must be interpreted and checked by Scripture.
38. What is the difference between preventative and punitive justice?
Preventative justice is the attempt by humanists.
To prevent crimes by limiting liberty through endless regulations, fines, and inspections, whereas biblical punitive justice leaves men free and only punishes where actual crimes have occurred.
Question number 39 What is necessary for a civil magistrate to administer just punishment?
Answer Civil magistrates administer just punishment when crimes are clearly identified in the Bible, confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses, when the accused Have the right to answer their accuser and cross examine any witnesses, and when the penalty is commensurate with the crime.
In short, the Bible requires fixed equal weights and measures, due process, presumption of innocence, and convictions based on established facts, evidence, and testimony.
Question 40 Does the Bible require the execution of rebellious children, adulterers, or homosexuals?
No.
The Bible allows the death penalty as a maximum sentence for such crimes, but only requires execution.
For intentional murder.
Question number 41.
Since God establishes the authority of civil magistrates, must they always be obeyed?
Answer.
No.
Jesus says that we must only render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but we must always render unto God what belongs to God.
Question 42.
But doesn't the Bible also teach that we must sometimes submit to evil rulers?
Yes.
In matters that do not require us to directly disobey God, We are free to submit to evil rulers in order to be a testimony to them of grace and truth.
But we are also free to disobey, especially when God raises up righteous lesser magistrates that we may follow instead.
We must never submit when a magistrate commands us to disobey God.
Question number 43 What are some examples of righteous civil disobedience?
Answer The Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh and refused to kill the Hebrew baby boys.
Gideon threshed wheat in a wine press to hide it from the Midianite tax collectors.
Daniel and his three friends refused to participate in idolatry in Babylon.
Daniel prayed with his windows open in defiance of the king's decree.
Paul fled from a warrant that was out for his arrest.
Question 44 What is the duty of Christians toward civil government?
It is the duty of Christians to seek the good of their cities, counties, states, and nations, as well as pray for and honor those who serve in every area of civil government.
This good is to be defined by the Bible and not vague humanistic notions or cultural fads.
This good is primarily performed through faithful living in the other spheres of government, free associations and markets, as well as direct participation at various levels of civics.
Fantastic.
All right.
I think we should start with question number 35 in terms of fleshing it out.
What is the difference between a sin and a crime?
There's a lot that we could, you know, other questions that we'll get to, but you said not all sins are crimes, but all sins, if defined by the Bible, are sins.
However, sins are the jurisdiction and ministry of individuals, families, and churches.
Crimes are the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate and do objective public harm to life, liberty, or property.
The Bible identifies crimes as those actions which require restitution or penalty by civil magistrates.
For example, In the Bible, drunkenness and ethnic animosity are sins but not crimes, while adultery is a sin and a crime.
And so, with this, how do we define?
How do we do?
Is it all the Ten Commandments?
So, one of the questions that comes into my mind that I get a lot of people asking is it just the second table of the law, commandments number five through 10, that deal with how to love our neighbor?
Or what about, is it a crime to blaspheme?
Is it a crime?
What about the first four commandments that deal with idolatry?
What would you say about that?
Yeah, no, I would say that this distinction runs through the entirety of the Ten Commandments.
But I think the crucial thing that we're trying to make sense of is why in the Old Testament law were there civil penalties for some things and not others?
And so there were civil penalties for blasphemy, there were civil penalties for.
Various elements of the first part of the first table of the law.
And so I would say that it is right and proper, as was the case in our nation for a long time, it is right and proper for the true religion and the true God to be honored in civil law, including having civil penalties tied to that.
So you say that out loud nowadays, and everybody says, ah, you want to be a Christian Taliban or something.
But first of all, number one, there were civil laws.
On our books protecting the Sabbath day, Sunday, all the way up until just five minutes ago.
Like, seriously.
And probably in some of your states, it's still there, just nobody's enforcing it anymore.
I believe almost all 13 of the original states had Sabbath laws.
Many of the early colonies had Sabbath laws.
And that's the fourth commandment.
And the notion that the early states would have been okay with.
Public blasphemy against Jesus Christ, or some kind of public celebration of using God's name in vain, is absolutely ridiculous.
The early founders of our country, and I'll say this, the very same ones who adopted the First Amendment, nevertheless, at the same time, had rules on their books, civil laws on the civil books.
Protecting the first four commandments in the civil sphere.
So I think that's historically been the case.
It was the case in English common law, which is what we inherited from Great Britain, going all the way back to King Alfred.
King Alfred was the one who actually took the book of Deuteronomy and wrote the first English law code based on the principles he found in the law of God.
So what we're doing is we're saying if God says that sometimes it is right to give a civil penalty to these things, then we're saying, yes, there's a sin there, obviously, to take God's name in vain.
Is a sin before God, but it is also right and proper for a magistrate who is seeking to honor the living God as he should to also enforce it through civil penalty.
Define for us, and so that we can see the distinction between divine law and natural law.
Yeah.
So there is not actually a true distinction in the sense that because the same God who created the heavens and the earth is the God who spoke to us in his word.
Right.
So it's the same God and it's the same principles.
But what I would, but natural law is, is a parallel, runs parallel to natural revelation.
And so those would be principles of justice that we have, that we can have perceived in creation, nature, in particularly in human societies, in our conscience, and so forth.
It actually in reality mirrors God's sacred law.
But it's what we're getting at is the fact that God's Nature is not entirely hidden even from pagans, and God's truth and justice is still resident in the image of God that's found in all people.
And so, the fact that you could learn something from Plato or Aristotle, the fact that you could learn something from China or something like that, that tells us something true about the nature of God and the nature of justice, or even how to organize human society, that's what we're getting at.
Yep.
I'm reminded of Romans chapter 2.
Let's see.
Romans 2, verse 14.
For when Gentiles who do not have the law, speaking of divine law, special revelation, a Bible, for when Gentiles, or in that case, the Torah, who do not have the law by nature do what the law requires, it's one to one ratio.
He doesn't make any exception.
Then they prove, essentially, is what he's saying.
I'm exegeting a little bit here.
They are proving by their actions, by doing, by their obedient actions, doing what the law requires, they're proving that they are a law unto themselves.
Even though they do not have the law, again, being the Torah, special revelation, divine law.
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, natural law.
So, natural law stems from natural revelation.
So, God is a speaking God.
He has spoken through natural revelation and special revelation, right?
So, Romans 1 is kind of dealing with natural revelation, and Romans 2 is dealing with natural law.
Would you agree with that?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Yeah, Romans, I don't know if I would make a hard and fast distinction between those two things, but Well, yeah, yeah, there's overlap.
But just that when I think of the quintessential text that the presuppositional apologist is going to be using with Romans 1, you know, that you're lying, suppressing the truth, these things are clearly perceived.
Romans 1 and Natural Revelation00:04:19
That's like talking about natural, like the attributes of God, the divine attributes of God have been clearly perceived by what he has made natural revelation, his creation.
And so we have, you know, God has made the world and he has made it in such a way, not just that these things have been communicated clearly by God, but they've.
Romans 1 says they've been perceived.
So it's not just that God didn't fail to get out the message, but also even the pagan, the unregenerate person, has received the message.
So, you, a man, are without an excuse.
Yeah, absolutely.
I was going to say that.
Yeah, they're without excuse.
You receive the message.
So, even if you never had a page of the Bible, special revelation, you have had natural revelation simply by being a human being created in the image of God, living in God's world.
So, you have, God has given the message to all those people, and all those people have perceived, received the message, and therefore they cannot claim ignorance.
Now, people do become progressively ignorant by sin.
That's what sin does, is that sin, unrepentant sin, further and further sears.
The conscience.
But there's a sense, it's funny.
People are born rebellious.
So, ignorance and rebellion.
People are born rebellious.
That's the doctrine of total depravity.
But biblically speaking, they're not born ignorant.
So, it's not that people are born ignorant and because they're ignorant, they choose to become progressively rebellious.
No, people are born rebellious.
It's a moral problem, not intellectual, but first and foremost, a moral problem.
Because they're born rebellious, they choose to lie and suppress the truth and deeds of unrighteousness, which makes them progressively ignorant.
So, people become ignorant, but they're actually born seeing.
That doesn't mean that we still need spiritual eyes.
We need regeneration.
We need the power of the Spirit to see the beauty of the gospel.
But we don't, in our natural selves, we do see the existence of God, the holiness of God, the law of God, natural law.
And so you're arguing that the Ten Commandments, which would be the blueprint, right?
That's the general equity that we find in all these civil commandments.
But you're arguing that the Ten Commandments, all ten of them, including the first table, the first four, we can see that that is in natural law and can be seen by natural revelation?
Would you agree with that?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't think so, but part of the check here, of course, is that, as I said somewhere in here about natural law, was that because of sin, we can't see it clearly.
And as you noted, we already have knowledge, but we also have this moral depravity, which we have an incentive not to see clearly in our sin.
And so, yes, it absolutely is there.
You know, Psalm 19, so the heavens declare the glory of God.
Romans 1 says, Yeah, his invisible attributes are clearly seen.
Everyone's without excuse.
But in our sin, we also suppress that truth and unrighteousness.
But I would say, Yes, absolutely.
The Bible tells us exactly what is resident in creation.
And so I would even, you know, even something like the Sabbath command, God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
And that, so that's from the jump.
So even that is embedded in the natural world.
So, I think.
And out of that, that being the blueprint, that's one of the Ten Commandments, part of the Decalogue.
But out of that comes certain civil laws like giving in the seventh year, right?
I'm going to double production in the sixth year, but in the seventh year, give the land a rest.
And that's not just something that God did with Israel, we still have these principles at play with agriculture today that the land needs to rest if it's going to long term be productive.
And so, meaning natural revelation, farming the earth, the soil, nature, what God has made.
Teaches you the principle of a one in seven pattern of rest.
That's right.
That's natural revelation.
Exactly.
And so, if we're going to take dominion wisely, we have to recognize, okay, God was teaching Israel something there important.
I believe that in some of these laws, there are what I would call ceremonial aspects that were tied particularly to the ceremonial system.
Some of them are entirely ceremonial, like the sacrifice of lambs and goats.
We know from Hebrews that's fulfilled in Jesus.
We don't need to do any more of that.
But I think.
Like the Sabbath command, for example, would say, I think there were ceremonial elements to it, but I also think there were moral and civil elements.
Biblical Principles of Separation00:03:40
I think it actually held all three together.
And so, what we're our job to do is to see, okay, God created the world this way.
So, there is a principle here that goes all the way into creation.
And as you note, scientists are busy telling us, like, you know, agricultural specialists saying, you can't just keep planting and harvesting every year and not give this land any rest.
Right.
So, God was giving true moral wisdom about how to care for creation.
Another example of sort of natural law at work from history would be.
The whole idea of mixed government goes back to the Greeks who first started positing this idea of what is a sort of a republic, which is what America was founded to be.
And some of these early Greek philosophers said, you know, as we look at history, the societies tend to careen into ditches.
And they careen into ditches basically, and if you know, work with me here in the analogy, into three different ditches.
And there's sort of anarchy.
That breaks out when democracy goes to seed.
There's tyranny that breaks out when monarchy goes to seed.
And there's oligarchy that breaks out when what you might call the elites or the hierarchy goes to seed.
And so they said largely in most societies, you have sort of cultural elites, military generals, CEOs, Jeff Bezos and Cook types.
And then you have good ones like Elon Musk.
We'll see how it goes.
But then you have the dictator types, the monarchs, the kings, and so on.
And then you have the people.
Or you could call it the commoners, the nobility, and the kings, or whatever.
And so some of these ancient Greek philosophers say, I bet you the best form of government would be some way in which you could have all three of those interests blended together, sort of checking and balancing one another.
And so now there's not a verse in the Bible that says that.
Right.
But what we do see in the Bible is, I would say, a rudimentary form of that, where you have, for example, in Exodus 18, Jethro telling Moses, you need to stop trying to take care of the needs of all these people all by yourself.
You should establish rulers of tens, hundreds, and thousands and have these representatives be sort of these lesser magistrates.
And then as the need is, you can appeal it to a higher level.
Otherwise, you're going to burn out.
There's a check and a balance system being worked out there.
You also have just the distinction between actually the priesthood and civil government being slowly emerging.
It's a little mixed together, but it's not quite as confused as a lot of moderns think.
Moses does some things that Aaron doesn't do, and Aaron does some things that Moses doesn't do.
And that's actually getting worked out by the time of the kings, where you've got King Uzziah, for example, thinks he's going to go right into the temple and offer incense, and there's an armed priestly guard that ushers him out, and he's struck with leprosy for usurping that distinction between what we would now call church and state.
They are both under God, they both answer to God, but they have different jurisdictions.
So, but basically, I would say there's rudimentary principles of separation of powers and representative government that you find in scripture that we need to honor.
Nature Sufficient to Condemn00:05:42
But I think we can also learn from human experience and the speculation of even Greek pagans who say, you know, this is how societies tend to go corrupt.
What if we tried to balance out those instincts in what they called a mixed or a blended government, which is, I think, what our Christian fathers sought to do here in America was say, let's take these biblical principles, let's also take some of this, what we would call natural law and common law principles, and seek to apply them in the best possible way.
Yep.
Well, one further thought on natural law, real quick.
So, natural revelation revealing to us God, his existence, his holiness, the things that he requires from us.
And that being synonymous, this natural law written on the hearts of men, right?
So the Ten Commandments, I've always argued, the Ten Commandments have not, they did not come into play at Mount Sinai written on tablets of stone, but they were written on hearts.
That to Adam and Eve were given 11 commandments, 10 commandments and one positive precept, that if Adam had never eaten of the fruit, but he murdered Eve, the covenant of works or covenant of life would have been broken, right?
And so we have these written on the hearts of men, this natural law that stems from natural revelation.
But because man, because of the fall, because of sin, right?
God is tarnished, a vestige remains, but the image of God is tarnished.
So, John chapter 3, Jesus is the light of the world, but men loved the darkness because their deeds were evil.
But I was wondering this, I'm curious your thoughts.
I've thought about this a little bit lately, but I haven't read anybody on the subject.
So, man, the image of God in man is tarnished because of sin.
So, man's ability to interpret natural revelation is flawed because he has a bias, namely towards sin.
But could you argue that natural revelation itself, what God has made, Also, it continues to speak and it continues to speak something true about God, but that at times it might speak something that is less than true because creation itself is under a curse.
That means that if I go out into the world and I look at the world, I'm seeing things that are true about God because the world contains still God's good and wonderful design, but the world is also put under a curse that creation itself groans under this curse of sin.
So I feel like there are times where I've so my this is what I'm getting at.
So the person who would say, Well, you know, um, well, you do find homosexual relationships in nature sometimes.
Or a praying mantis, the female praying mantis will eat the head off of its mate after cordis.
And I guess what I want to say in that is say, but when we look at the millennial kingdom and we look at Isaiah chapter 65, the leopard and the lamb lying down together, what I want to say is that nature speaks something about God, natural revelation, and it is sufficient to condemn.
We need special revelation for salvation, but it's sufficient to condemn because it says something true.
And something that is somewhat exhaustive.
It doesn't just say one or two things.
It says a lot about God that is true.
But even not only is man himself under the curse of sin and therefore flawed in his ability to interpret natural revelation, but the nature itself under a curse sometimes says things that may not be true of God because nature isn't speaking truth about God, but it's not speaking as clearly as it was meant to.
What do you think about that?
Is that out of bounds?
I think it's pretty straightforward, man.
I'm with you.
I think the fact that God pronounces a curse on the ground is going to grow thorns and thistles, that a woman giving birth is going to experience more pain, that there's going to be more enmity and animosity between people and between the earth and people and between God and people.
I think all that together combines to arrive at exactly what you're talking about.
I think it does speak truly and it's sufficiently to tell us that there is a God and that we need to turn to Him.
But I do believe you're absolutely right.
I think it is groaning under the weight, not only of that curse, but also groaning under the weight of our failure to properly rule it and take dominion of it.
And so I think creation spoke truthfully in the beginning, but part of the command to take dominion and make the world fruitful also implies the idea that we were actually supposed to make creation, in a certain sense, speak even more clearly about the glory of God.
As we take dominion and we make the world beautiful and orderly and we care for it, it speaks even more truly.
And so that's why creation groans for the redemption of the sons of men, Romans 8, so that it will come into its own.
It will finally be the glory that it was created to be.
So I think you're absolutely right.
Amen.
So creation is not groaning for a mercy killing from the Lord to dissolve like snow in the literal sense.
Yeah.
No, it wants to be made new and better.
Amen.
All right.
Let's do this.
We got to do this question 38.
What is the difference between preventative and punitive justice?
That's so helpful.
Can you talk about it?
Because I've heard you guys with Cross Politic and I've been on the show a couple of times with you guys, but.
You especially, you know, between you and Chalk Knox and Gabe, just talking about, yeah, like you're not going around looking for crime.
And part of what I think in that, and I know I probably got this from you, but if it's just punitive and not preventative, right, you don't have the thought police and you don't have the Ministry of Truth that Biden's now setting up, the Disinformation Council, I mean, just Orwellian stuff, guess what?
You don't need as many employees paid by the state.
Like, one way to get a smaller government is to stop doing the, what was it called, the Tom Cruise movie, The Minority Report or something, where they're, Trying to, you know what I mean?
Reasonable Requirements for Safety00:11:50
Like, it's just this eerie kind of thing.
And they got it wrong.
The whole purpose of the movie was they didn't see the future correctly.
Go ahead.
Right.
Yeah, no, that's right.
That's like preventative justice gone completely, you know, back crazy.
But the, yeah, so the classic law that I would point to that's used by many people who want to apply the general equity of the law is the law that required Israel to have a, a, a, Bannister or railing around the roofs of their houses.
And so, but what you find there is the reason for that is this is an application of the sixth commandment thou shalt not kill, which means that you are also required to reasonably seek to protect the lives of those around you, not cause them harm.
And in ancient Israel, and still the case to this day in many Middle Eastern countries, the porch, the balcony, is actually the roof of the house.
Most houses are constructed in those countries as a flat roof.
And they were required to have a railing around the roof.
And it says in the law there that if they don't have a railing and someone falls off the roof, they are held liable for that bloodshed.
It's a form of, you were not protecting the lives of your neighbors.
Now, so the principle there would be then, so somebody, initially, so how does this apply in the modern day?
Well, I would say, well, if you have a flat roof and you hang out on your roof, you need to have a railing.
And it's not tyranny for the civil government to say you need to have a railing.
A railing around your roof if that's where you hang out.
In American culture, we don't typically hang out on our roofs, but we have balconies and we have swimming pools and ponds and lakes and places like that, or maybe a steep incline.
And if that's your part of your property and that's where people hang out, it is a reasonable requirement of the civil government to say you need to have railings there to protect the lives of people that are hanging out there.
But to our point, in terms of preventative and punitive, it's reasonable for them to require that of houses.
And property.
But what you don't find in ancient Israel is home building inspectors.
There's no penalty for not having a fence.
There's no penalty for not having a railing.
They're commanded to, but there's no penalty for it.
So they may be sinning by not having a railing, but they're not committing any crime yet.
The crime comes in if they're having the party and somebody falls off and they are hurt, it does say you'll be held liable for that blood.
If it's If it's just an injury, then they can be required to do restitution to pay for the medical expenses of the person who was harmed.
And if they died, presumably, depending on how negligent it was, they could be liable all the way up to death.
Because if it was massively negligent, then they basically did murder.
Right.
But the point to preventative and punitive is that same principle is at work.
The Bible establishes this.
This general equity, this basic principle that says the civil government certainly may have laws on the books that require reasonable protection of human life, but it does not have the authority to come into my home and see if I've done it.
It only has authority to do that if there's been harm or damage done to somebody.
So they would, presumably, if I have an upstairs balcony in my house, And I have a railing around it.
But if I didn't have a railing around it and there were people in my house and we were having a party and somebody fell off and got hurt or died, then you really would have the civil magistrate would have the right to come in and see what happened and check my house and hold me liable for that negligence.
But what you're absolutely right, the principle there though is that punitive justice means that the civil magistrate, again, this goes back to the job that God has given the civil magistrate, his job is to punish evildoers.
It seems that.
The most he could do is put some in terms of prevention.
He can put laws on the books that would provide, you know, that say you need to do this.
You should have a fence around your swimming pool.
But he doesn't have the authority to come out and check and see if I've done it.
He only has the authority to check and see if I've done it if something bad has happened because his job is to punish criminals.
Or if somebody accuses me of doing something bad and I didn't do it, you know, I didn't do it.
You know, someone could accuse me of negligence and he could come out and say, oh, no, but he's got a fence.
But it's not.
Not constant inspections, not regulations and fines, which is what we live in.
If you build a house these days in many counties and states, you find out just how tyrannical of a state we live in, a police state we live in, that you do not have the right to do what you want on your private property unless you pay thousands of dollars and get inspections and permits from your local county and cities.
That's wicked.
That's against God's word.
It would be fine, in my view, biblically, for the county to have basic law codes that they said, this is for health and fire hazard safety that was reasonable.
But then they shouldn't have any authority, though, to check and see if I did it unless something bad happens.
Right.
And then if a crime is suspected that has occurred, then sure, they can inspect and see, did I take reasonable precautions to protect life or not?
But that ought to be based on biblical law and common sense, not, you know, you have to have studs, you know, 16 inches apart.
And, you know, I had a, as we were building our house, I had an inspector tell me that in a small closet bathroom that my toilet was too close to the sink.
And we had to tear out a wall and redo the bathroom, you know, because it was only like 25 inches away or something like that.
And code said 30 inches.
Um, but you know, that's that's um, that's called living in a police state, that's tyranny, yeah, and it's tyranny and it's not freedom.
And I don't, I think we've just gotten used to it, and we, you know, we've just sort of said, all right, um, I, you know, and this is how Joel, I'm sure you know this connection, but this is how we end up with mask mandates and vaccine mandates.
Um, we've been uh complying with preventative law for decades in this country, we've been complying with it, even though the state doesn't have authority to do it from God.
Um, they've been acting like tyrants from for decades.
Doing inspections, doing preventative stuff, saying you have to do this.
And the defense is, well, something bad might happen.
And they don't have that authority from God.
They don't have that authority from natural law or common law.
They have the authority to punish when crimes have actually occurred.
But if you let that keep going, you end up with them saying, well, a mask might help prevent losing life.
And you don't have anything to say back to that.
And then two years later, they say, whoops.
I guess it didn't help.
Yeah.
Well, I don't even know if they've completely admitted that.
The CDC has said that, not with the N95, but they have said any cloth mask, a CDC member said was a facial decoration, it turns out.
Did no good.
Right.
After two years.
Until they changed their mind again.
Right.
But this is also why you have to get a vaccine.
They're invading our private property.
And our family government, which is what that is.
We've talked about the family government previously.
It's the family government's job to protect private property, to do what we want on our own private property, to protect the health and welfare and education of those that God has entrusted to us.
It's not the state's job, but we've been acquiescing for decades on this.
And then when they come and say, well, now you need to have this thing on your face or you need to get this jab, we lost the argument decades ago because we did not guard the distinction between preventative and punitive justice.
That's super helpful.
One thing I want to say about just on that point, and then I have another question, but punitive and preventative, I think it's also helpful that the listener understand that punitive does have a preventative effect.
So it's not going around policing, but when justice is administered swiftly, the rest shall stand in fear.
And we see that even when it comes to within the sovereign sphere of the church.
So 1 Timothy 5 if an elder persist in sin, rebuke him publicly.
So that the rest shall stand in fear.
And so when justice is delayed, that actually causes.
So, what we see, what we ultimately see is the exact, and it's what we should expect as people rebel against the Lord.
But we see the exact perversion, the exact opposite of what got it.
So, we have lots of policing, the preventative stuff.
And then, when crimes are actually committed, justice is delayed.
People sit on death row for decades, eating up taxpayer dollars.
And then people get slaps on the wrist.
And so, blah, blah, blah.
So, if we actually punished criminals properly, And swiftly, proportionally, impartially, all those things that the Bible says, then you kill two birds with one stone.
Number one, you don't need near as many government officials to carry out that ministry as you do to go around and spy on everybody and regulate everybody.
If you just deal with actual crimes that have actually been committed, one, you can immediately have a smaller government.
You want to fix the economy?
Boom, everybody pays less taxes.
We're out of inflation.
Everything's immediately fixed there.
And it is still preventative.
If it's swift and proportional, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life, somebody kills somebody, and all of a sudden that person is being hung in the public square where we can all see.
And that is just and that is good and that is right, and it curbs the actions of the wicked.
So there is a preventative effect of punitive justice.
And so it kills two birds with one stone with a lot less government employees.
And so praise God for that.
His word is always good.
In addition to that, can you talk to us about the lesser civil magistrates?
So, we talked about, you know what, actually, before we get there, real quick, jails.
Talk to us about jails.
Yeah, okay.
There are hardly any of them in the Bible.
And frequently, when we find them, they're only used to lock up good guys Joseph, Daniel, and his three friends, Paul.
Wow, that's a good point.
Good guys.
Where are the.
Where do we see in the Bible an example of, you know, an endorsement, a helpful endorsement of prisons or jails?
The closest thing I can think of is you have something vaguely reminiscent in cities of refuge.
Restitution Over Criminal Justice00:09:10
But there, they're not locked up in a cage.
Someone who has accidentally killed somebody, not intentionally, but accidentally killed somebody who wants to flee from the Avenger.
The blood avenger, which was a form of punitive justice that God regulated.
And that was a family member, right?
Yeah, a near kinsman.
So it's the same word, kinsman redeemer, that Boaz is for blood avenger.
So a near relative could do what Boaz does marry a widowed woman and raise up offspring for a dead relative, or could also carry out justice if a family member was murdered wrongfully.
But God sort of regulated that allowance by saying, but if it was really an accident, you can flee to a city of refuge and you can remain there.
The elders of the city will inquire and confirm and make sure that it really was an accident and you're not a murderer who needs to be held liable.
If they find that and there's concern for your life, you could remain in the city until the high priest dies and your life will be safe there.
But again, you weren't locked up in a cage and it was not for actually a crime you committed, it was to protect you from the blood avenger.
Otherwise, I think the only other use I can think of that is.
Sort of reasoning by sort of good and necessary consequence would be I think it certainly would be reasonable to hold a murderer while they're having a trial, right?
Or a other dangerous violent criminal, a rapist, or something like that.
I think a temporary holding cell seems reasonable while they're awaiting trial.
But again, back to your point, if we're following biblical rules of justice, the trials should be fair, judicious, but also relatively swift.
And then the penalty should be carried out swiftly, not taking decades and so forth.
So the issue, the problem though, is that we have rejected biblical restitution.
So basically, the Bible is.
There's death penalty for capital punishment, capital crimes, capital murder, and I would say other violent crimes like rape would commonly be taken care of by execution.
Other crimes, as mentioned in the catechism, like adultery, like sodomy, like persistent rebellion and criminal behavior, may rise to capital crime level, but Are not required in my view, and defense for that would be that in some instances in the kings, um, the kings exiled homosexuals, um, rather than putting them to death.
Um, and so I would allow for exile in some respects, but again, that's not putting somebody in a cage, right?
It's sending them away out of the land, banning them from the land, yeah.
And you're not having to pay to feed them, exactly.
They're they still have to support themselves.
We punish the innocent in our culture.
In our society.
And the last category, most other crimes that are like property damage and maybe somebody who gets hurt, not killed, but somebody hurt, most other crimes, theft, property damage, and physical harm, God requires restitution.
He says, basically, put it back.
And it's a really glorious standard.
This is actually based on the eye for eye, tooth for tooth principle.
And what restitution is, is it's restoring.
What you took, damaged, or harmed, and ordinarily plus double.
So if you stole somebody's car, you have to return the car or the same value of the car, and what you intended to do to your brother is to be done to you.
And so that same value or the same car is to be doubled and given to the brother, and then you're done.
That's it.
That's it.
And it's glorious also because it's so humane.
I mean, you talk about, you know, moderns are so concerned about humane punishment and not being inhumane or whatever.
Right, right.
Well, stop.
Treating people like animals.
That's right.
Stop locking them up in cages for decades of their life with, you know, porn and cable TV and surrounded by other gang members.
And like, what could go wrong?
Like, in the name of rehabilitation, we are basically ensuring that they will continue to act and live like animals for the rest of their life, which is, I believe, incredibly inhumane, in addition to being just directly rebellious against God.
And people don't think about that, but it is far.
It attributes far more dignity to the criminal to publicly beat him with rods based off of his crime than to put him in jail for 12 years.
Yeah, put it right, make it right, do the thing that needs to be done, whether it's a, there is permission for beating and restitution.
Right, restitution in terms of damage and theft and those kind of things.
But I'm thinking like if there was assault or something like that, like there would be some things where it's not so much just, and it's never paying a fine.
The state doesn't get.
Paid because you robbed someone else.
Why does the state benefit from this?
This person was robbed.
They should benefit.
It's evil incentives.
I mean, the state is sort of, it's created a racket where they're like, we get paid, we get money through this wicked criminal justice system rather than what it should be, which is pay the person you harmed, put it right with them.
When a crime has been committed, it has not been committed against society.
No, it's been committed against a person, a family.
And that's who needs to make it right with them, which is also in a glorious kind of way when we follow these principles.
There's an opportunity there for some measure of reconciliation when you put it right.
Rather than just being locked away, and now my tax dollars, maybe I'm the victim, now my tax dollars are going to support this guy locked away, treated like an animal, and chances of reconciliation are slim to nothing.
We hear the occasional story about somebody forgiving somebody, and that's glorious, but I think we would see a lot more of that when the guy has to bring back what he stole, plus double, and it's personal and you receive it.
And I think we would see a lot more healing.
We talk about our society being so, having so much animosity and so much brokenness, but I think we are creating the animosity by our prison system.
And so we need to return to just basic restitution, put it back.
It's double ordinarily.
This is also, the law actually allows for if a criminal repents, if they're, before they're caught, before the cops catch them, if a criminal repents and brings back what they stole or admits that they damaged something.
The restitution is actually, it's cut um, and what you bring is you return what you stole plus only 20 of the value, a fifth of the value, um.
And so this I, you know, Christians need to know about this, because some Christians have actually committed crimes in their lives um, maybe you never got caught, or maybe it happened before you were a Christian, maybe as a kid you stole something um, and you've sort of always been.
It's always eaten at you.
Well, God tells you what to do, return the value plus 20 if it was a long time ago, take into account some inflation, Add that to the 20.
Add that to the value.
But that's what you're supposed to do.
And then the law actually says that if you can't find the person that you stole from, if you can't find them, if you stole from a store and the store is closed down, or it happened in elementary school and you have no idea where the kid is that you stole his bike or you stole his shirt or whatever, the law says to give it as an offering to the Lord and it will be accepted.
Wow.
So you can do restitution even then and just give it to the Lord, and the Lord says it's all taken care of.
You've done restitution.
This is restorative.
But it just puts the thing back and that has been broken.
That's good.
One other thing with that.
So, in terms of double restitution, if the thief steals, sometimes the thief steals because he doesn't have much, and that's no excuse, but because he doesn't have much.
And I can imagine cases where he could not then afford to give the double restitution if he was caught.
So, is this where a form of indentured servanthood would come in?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
So the assumption is, and it's provided for in Scripture, that if you can't pay the debt, then you work it off.
And again, this is incredibly humane.
What we are doing is we are dignifying a human being with saying what you have done was wrong.
You have moral agency.
Righteous Civil Disobedience00:07:41
But because you're made in the image of God, you have the power and the ability to put this right.
And so you're going to put it right, even if it takes you some years of working off this debt.
So, absolutely.
And, you know, remember, of course, we never have abolished slavery in our country completely.
Absolutely.
But back to the prison system, the 13th Amendment explicitly says that only the federal government can have slaves.
Only the state can have slaves.
In the 13th Amendment, the government, the civil government said, we can be slave masters of criminals.
And that's what the penitentiary is.
That's what the prison system is it's a mass form of slavery.
And they take them out and you see them doing road work and things like that, but they're not doing something for the individual that they actually committed the crime against.
That individual is getting no restitution.
They're going out and doing things for the state.
Right.
But I think it just goes to show that some form of servitude, some form of slavery is inescapable.
Right.
The only question is, are we going to follow biblical principles or not?
But in the case of an indentured servant who is working off a debt, we are dignifying that human being with the opportunity to work it off, put it right.
And then they walk away with a certain kind of human, and I mean this in a good sense, but like a certain amount of pride.
Right.
In saying, I did something wrong and then I put it right.
Rather than wasting away in a cell, or maybe you occasionally pick up trash on the side of the road, but there's no sense of closure there.
There's no sense of, I did something wrong and then I put it right and now I'm back on my two feet.
Yep.
All right.
Last thing when it comes to that's so good, Toby.
Thank you.
When it comes to righteous civil disobedience, okay, the clearest thing that we have, you know, like the apostles, you know, we must obey God rather than man.
So, So, we would all, I think, just about agree.
I guess, you know, it's taken two years of learning this to get here, but I think most Christians would agree okay, when the civil magistrate commands us to do something God forbids or forbids us to do something that God commands.
So, we see both examples super clear in the book of Daniel.
The chapter three, with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, they're commanded to bow down, to commit idolatry, and they refuse.
So, they're commanded to do something God forbid.
Daniel chapter six, right?
The edict on prayer, right?
And it's only temporary 30 days to slow the spread of prayer, you know, and, you know, and like, If people just, you know, just 30 days to slow the spread, you know, and then the government will let up.
But during that, and that was universal, it didn't just affect Christians.
It was, you cannot pray to any God or petition any man.
So the atheist and agnostic were right there.
It was universal.
But wrongful laws from the civil magistrate always affect Christians the most because we're the ones who our law is the law of liberty.
So Christians always, I think, suffer the most.
But, anyways, the point is Daniel chapter six, there's something God commands, namely, Prayer and the civil magistrate is forbidding.
So, whenever the civil magistrate commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands, we must obey God rather than man.
But when it comes to being overtaxed or when it comes to wearing a mask, right?
Or when it comes to these kinds of things, right?
So, the infamous example would be Todd Friel with the pinwheels on the side of your head, right?
And I think Todd Friel was very stupid with that.
And I think what you're saying in your catechism is that if the civil magistrate commands pinwheels on the side of your head, that's not something that God forbids.
And so, you may.
And I think that's key.
You're saying you may submit to that.
And if you're an idiot like Todd Friel on this matter, then you will submit to it.
But Todd Friel doesn't make that a commandment for all Christians.
We may submit to it, but we don't have to submit to that.
And especially we don't have to submit to it if we're going to civilly disobey through the proper avenue of a lesser civil magistrate.
And so, again, back to fear sovereignty, right?
We can't, a vigilante, being a vigilante, we can't do that.
So if somebody, if somebody, Does something against me, I cannot, as a father within the sphere of the household, I can't hunt that person down in the middle of the night and try to kill them in order to.
That's a vigilante.
I need to inform the state that you've got to go through the proper avenue.
However, if the person, if they're an intruder in my home, they're standing in my home threatening my wife and children, I can shoot them in the head because now they're in the sphere of, you know, that's a castle.
I forget the law, but, you know, we have it here in Texas.
I'm sure you guys do in Idaho, but defending my castle.
You know, I am a king in my castle.
They're in my domain.
They've stepped into my sphere, the household.
And so I have authority there.
And so a husband can't administer the sacraments to his children on a Tuesday afternoon, you know.
And so all these jurisdictions, all that said, though, When it comes to civil disobedience, choosing to righteously civil, righteous civil disobedience to something that the government is not forbidding, something that God explicitly commands, and they're not commanding us to do something God explicitly forbids, so the pinwheel example is a good one.
We can disobey, and it would be ideal for us to disobey through a lesser civil magistrate.
So, can you explain that to us, this doctrine of the lesser civil magistrate, going through the proper avenue?
Right, yeah.
So I think there, what I'm saying is that when it's not expressly forbidden by God what's being commanded, or it's not expressly commanded what is being forbidden, then we recognize that we are in an area of wisdom.
There's a wisdom call there.
And that means then, I think, being strategic.
What we want to do is we want to maximize the glory of Christ.
And I think sometimes that will mean submitting to stupid decrees.
Because it's just clear that the way that the gospel is going to go forth right now is submitting to some foolish things so that I can have the maximum punch for the gospel.
I think other times it'll be different.
Like I use the example of Gideon, who's hiding his threshing in the winepress from the Midianite tax collectors.
Again, I would use that as an example.
He was free to do that.
He didn't have to submit to unlawful taxation.
In our day, I think it's pretty stupid to be a tax evader, even if I do believe that the tax rates are unbiblical and wicked, and I do.
But I don't see how you win in our day being a tax evader.
But I would say Gideon did it, which means I think that you can be and have a clean conscience.
I'm just not sure it's smart.
I don't think you're going to win.
And at the moment, we have bigger fish to fry, would be my general encouragement.
Like, let's resist tyranny.
Let's get them to stop killing babies first.
Let's reform the prison system.
Let's do some of these big, heavy things.
And maybe we completely gut the civil government, like you said earlier, such that they don't need to have such high taxes.
But we've been acquiescing for a long time, taking all these benefits, letting the state basically be our nanny, and then we suddenly object to high taxes.
But nevertheless, you know, the mask thing or other things like that, I would say you're free to disobey because God doesn't require us to wear masks and we're free Christians.
Defending the Constitution Against Tyranny00:09:20
I also think we have the advantage of having a constitution that protects those rights.
And the constitution and our form of government is clear that the constitution is the highest government in our land, not judges, not governors, not county commissioners, not health districts.
And so I think we can.
Obey Romans 13 by submitting to the Constitution and saying, You don't have authority over my body that way.
You don't have authority over my health care decisions.
But to your question in particular, the way that God intends for civil magistrates to be checked in the cleanest way is through other civil magistrates.
So all civil magistrates may have different roles, different jobs, and we may even speak of it in some sense as a little bit of a hierarchy.
But even lesser magistrates.
Really, you are ordained by God to do justice.
So, you may just be a sheriff, or you may be a mayor, or a county commissioner.
Or you might be Ron DeSantis pushing back on the president as a governor.
Exactly.
Or you may be a judge, or you may be a police officer.
You may be any one of those things.
But the point is that God establishes civil magistrates and He gives them jobs.
And if you are a civil magistrate, even if you are a lesser one, you have still been ordained by God to do justice.
Right.
And If the guy above you is doing injustice, you're the first one in line to hold that guy accountable.
Your job is to uphold biblical justice and protect the people under you.
Now, you still need to use wisdom there in terms of how you exercise that authority.
But in the ideal world, the way that, and this goes back to the reformers and just war theory, but we would hold that individuals, as you note, are not to be vigilantes, we're not to take justice into our own hands.
And this is why Christians have held for centuries that it is not right for any individual to take matters into his own hands to try to get justice or to revolt or to usurp lawful government, except an extreme self-defense, as you know.
However, it is absolutely right and proper for lesser magistrates, those rulers, and we see this oftentimes in the judges, for example, where God raises up.
Judges, and God uses them to push back his enemies and to defend justice and defend the poor.
And so, what you want to be praying for specifically right now, I would say in our day, is godly lesser magistrates.
Yes.
There's low level ways in which I think I would encourage Christians, because of the Constitution, because of the Bible, we ought to feel free if our city mayor reinstated some kind of mask mandate.
You know, I know confidently that my elders would meet the next week and say, We're going to church this Sunday and we will not enforce that decree.
And, you know, my policy and my family was during, throughout mask mandate season here, was that we did not voluntarily put on masks.
And when we were asked, we would, or required to by somebody, we would determine at that moment whether, how big of a deal it was that we needed the service.
Or goods that we were there to get.
Sometimes we would walk out and say no, thank you.
Sometimes we might temporarily put it on because we needed to get the goods or service.
But the point being that we wanted to actively lean against it.
And I would encourage people to be doing that.
But I think the prayer should be that God be raising up godly mayors, godly county commissioners, godly representatives and senators and governors and attorney generals who will stand up for us because then we can stand behind them and submit to them.
As they lead us in real freedom.
Amen.
Let me go ahead and conclude this episode by saying this.
So, what I hear you saying, and kind of a general rule of thumb that I would offer to people, is I like how you mentioned the Constitution, and it's the highest civil magistrate in our form of government.
And by design, it's not a human official and it's not a living document.
It is still and it is sturdy and it's a document, not a human official, and it's the highest in our land.
It is the highest law of our land.
But the reason why I think it's helpful, everything that we went through and that you went over, is because sometimes people think, well, what about the Christian in North Korea?
What about the Christian in China?
And the beauty of this.
We can't merely, my point is, we can't merely argue from the position of, well, the Constitution gives us this freedom.
We want to have a theology, good biblical theology helps people in all times and all places.
And so if you're living, you know, even under tyranny and an authoritarian, you know, government with a dictator, you know, or a communist government, even in that society, number one, you have freedom from the scripture, which is the highest authority over all kings and kingdoms.
You have authority from the scripture to, you know, To you don't have to do if your ruler is commanding you to do something God forbids, you can say no.
If he's forbidding you to do something God commands, you can say no.
And when it comes to everything in between, then you can, not as a church, not as a family, not as an individual, not as a church, storm the castle and resist, but you can pray that God would raise up Christian, lesser civil magistrates within that government that you can get behind them and in that avenue go for it.
And in America, so that's you know, China or something like that, but in America.
We can exercise what I hear you saying, Tobin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can exercise the doctrine of the lesser civil magistrate.
But we can also frequently take use of the doctrine of I haven't heard anybody say this, but you could maybe coin it the doctrine of the highest magistrate being the Constitution.
In most cases, I don't even feel like I have to find a governor or a mayor or a police officer or a sheriff to rally behind.
In many cases, because we were a Christian nation currently apostatizing, but because of our founding, I can just go not to find a lesser one to push back on this tyrant, but I can supersede him and go straight to the highest civil magistrate, namely the Constitution, and say, You don't have that authority.
You don't have that authority.
I don't even need to find a mayor or.
What do you think about that?
Yeah, I think we're free to do that.
The issue, though, is just that we have to be willing to take the consequences.
That we might not win.
We might not win.
Right.
And I think the Bible does urge us to be wise.
And so I think.
There are times to resist and take the consequences.
And there are times maybe to not resist because you realize that it's just not the moment.
So there are forms of tyranny that we may submit to because they don't forbid us from doing something God commands.
They don't command us to do something God forbids.
So we may, three options we may submit or we may disobey, righteously disobey by executing the Constitution in America, the highest civil magistrate, but know that we might not win.
And so we'd be best to disobey with a lesser and the highest, like.
Appealing to the Constitution, but also with that lesser civil magistrate in our court helping us along the way.
I mean, and so this is exactly what happened, for example, in the American War for Independence.
In the American War for Independence, what the colonies appealed to was the colonial charters that King George had made with them and his predecessors.
He signed agreements with them, guaranteeing them colonial rights, that they had their own forms of local government.
And it was those local governments, for example, that had the authority to tax them.
And they had.
But according to those charters, Parliament did not have authority to tax them.
Parliament could ask their local governments for helping them to tax them.
But what Parliament did was it sidestepped their local governments and said, We're going to tax you directly.
And what they did was they appealed to the charter, the covenants that the King of England had guaranteed to them, that guaranteed them local magistrates.
And so when they rebelled, it was those local magistrates that actually led in the rebellion and said, When they signed the Declaration of Independence, it was lesser magistrates.
Telling a superior magistrate, the king, that he had broken covenant with them and therefore they were declaring themselves independent.
Now, even in that situation, of course, they were taking a massive risk.
And they say that at the end of the Declaration of Independence.
We swear to one another our fealty, knowing that our lives are at stake in this.
They were all going to either hang together if they lost.
The Cost of Civil Obedience00:01:02
But certainly the weight of biblical and just human wisdom would urge us to.
Do everything we can to make our resistance as strategic as possible.
And I would say, even to the person in China who doesn't have a constitution, you do have the word of God.
And to the extent that you can get away with civil disobedience, I would say, feel free.
Yep.
Amen.
Under God, you're free to.
You just need to recognize that if you get caught, count the cost.
What level is this?
Super helpful.
Thanks so much for tuning into this episode.
As a special thank you for your gift of any amount, We'll be happy to send you a free digital book from our store.
To access this offer, visit rightresponseministries.comslash offer.
We highly recommend Pastor Joel's book, Am I Truly Saved?
If you or someone you know has wrestled with doubts about the love of God, this would be a great resource.
As a reminder, to get this offer, go to rightresponseministries.comslash offer.