Well, today is going to be one of those rare, rare times that I'm going to give a topical sermon, but I want to begin by reading Psalm 2. Why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord shall hold them in derision. Then he shall speak to them in his wrath and distress them in his deep displeasure. Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree. The Lord has said to me, you are my son. Today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel. Now, therefore, be wise, O kings. Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son lest He be angry and you perish in the way when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and as we study it, it is our heart's desire that we would be changed by it, that we would learn to glorify you and live by it day by day. So I pray that you would anoint my lips and enable each of us, Father, to grow in you this morning. In Jesus' name, amen. Well, as Gary mentioned, today is Reformation Day. And as I was reviewing what topics I have preached on on Reformation Day over the last three decades, I covered just about every topic except for one. I have failed so far to preach on the reformation of politics. And I'm really surprised by that because I love preaching on that topic. But believe it or not, there are several books out there that talk about how The Reformed doctrines gradually transformed the West, especially the doctrine of the sovereignty of God and of human depravity. Those two doctrines made the Reformers not trust the government with very much power. They really believed in limited government. And if you want a lot more material on that particular subject, you could maybe start by reading John Idesmo's books that show how reform doctrine had a profound, profound impact upon American politics. Now, I'm not going to deal with that today. I want to address the frustrations that many have felt about how to vote when all of the candidates seem to be majorly flawed. Indeed, what do you do when presidential candidates seem to be living apparently unrepentant lives with regard to immorality and abortion? Both have given some support to homosexual marriage. For example, Trump said to a gathering of homosexual activists he hosted a party for the log cabin Republicans, and he said this to them. We are fighting for the gay community, and we are fighting and fighting hard. With the help of many of the people here tonight in recent years, our movement has taken incredible strides. The strides you've made here is incredible. Now obviously, one of the candidates is much more radical than the other candidate, but think about it. Marriage and life are really foundational issues. And people wonder what they should do. Now, one pastor who's planning to vote for Trump and trying to convince everybody to vote for Trump, he gave a sermon where he was talking about God's anointing of Jehu. And he said that he anointed Jehu with the express purpose of destroying the anti-life, deep state corruption of Ahab. And God did so even though Jehu was inconsistent on that very issue and was a godless man. And so he said, we can vote for President Trump for the same reasons. It was actually a fascinating argument that he gave, probably the best argument that I have heard. And while I will respect you if your approach to this next election is in that direction, I want you to at least consider another approach. And that is to trust God with the outcome without voting for either candidate. It may seem like foolishness, but hear me out, and you know you always have the right to be Bereans and check everything I say against the Scripture. And if what you hear from me does not seem to line up with the Scripture, you ignore it, right? You have the right to do that. But I do believe that what I'm going to be sharing with you is not only biblical, it was the pervasive viewpoint of both politicians as well as citizens of America for, you know, perhaps the first hundred years of this republic. This is not going to be anything new. Now, I'm going to be giving a lot more Scripture than they did. But the concepts are not new and I'll start by pointing to the Holy Spirit statement in 2 Samuel 23 verse 3 Which my researchers showed was preached on over and over again very very common passage to preach on in early American history now that verse states He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. There are two essentials laid out there, and the context actually lays out other essentials as well, but it emphasizes here justice and fear in God. Now, just to be fair, people on the other side of the equation could easily point to verse 5 where David says that he didn't live up to the qualifications that he stated in that passage himself, and that's true. David says, although my house is not so with God. In other words, David blew it. He blew it big time. He committed adultery, like Trump has. He had murdered Uriah, which is an equally serious form of murder as abortion is. In fact, you could strengthen the pro-Trump argument by reading all of verses five through seven and saying that those verses distinguish three kinds of candidates, not just two kinds of candidates. There are kings like Josiah who met all of the conditions in all three circles that I've laid out for you on your outline. And then there are kings like David who failed some of them, and then there are kings like Ahab who should have been impeached and executed, certainly should not have been voted for. Let me read those verses to you. David said, although my house is not so with God, yet he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure, for this is all my salvation and all my desire. Will he not make it increase? So that deals with, Kings, rulers like David, who were saved, who wanted to do right, but who were imperfect. Next comes kings like Ahab in verses six through seven. But the sons of rebellion shall all be as thorns thrust away because they cannot be taken with hands. But the man who touches them must be armed with iron and the shaft of a spear, and they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place. Now, toward the end of the sermon, I'm going to be returning to those verses and giving my interpretation of them. But I will have to admit it was a pretty decent argument in favor of thrusting Camelot away as a thorn that will pierce your hand much more quickly, much more painfully than voting for Trump will do. But hold your judgment at least a few minutes. And, by the way, this sermon is not just about presidential candidates. I think everything we're going to be talking about can be applied to a lot of issues on every level of civics. So don't just apply it to national issues. My hope is I will give you enough information that you're going to be able to say, okay, I think I can vote with a good conscience, without any anxieties whatsoever, based on the Scripture. Hopefully you'll be able to vote in faith and not in fear. But I'm going to start by saying that I agree that there really are three kinds of kings. They don't line up with the three circles that you have, so don't think three kings and three circles. Those are just, they happen to be three, but there are three kinds of kings. It isn't a false dichotomy between King Josiah and everyone else. We do not need to be perfectionistic in our politics. We don't. But before you jump to conclusions on whether one or more candidates in our election fit into one or more of those three types of kings, I want to dig into God's qualifications. If one looks at all of the so-called good kings in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, one finds that none of them were perfect. And a couple of them met all of the qualifications in all three circles pretty well. But we're not going to be giving you an idealistic list of qualifications this morning, not at all. But I will also point out that several of the good kings had major sins in their lives. Others started well and ended poorly. And so the question I want to address this morning is, what made some imperfect kings acceptable to God While other imperfect kings were not acceptable, and God said very explicitly in the Scripture, they should not have been acceptable to the people either. Do the Scriptures hold out any objective criteria by which we can judge less than ideal candidates when we live during a time of downgrade? And I believe we can. But it also helps us to see what God's minimum standards are. Now, I'm going to start by mining a bit of information from the contrast that God made between King Saul and King David, and I think they're very helpful models from which to derive information precisely because their similarities explain why both were chosen by God at the beginning and Saul was rejected later. But he didn't reject the repentant, and I emphasize the word repentant, David. And I won't mention the boatload of support scriptures or we'd be here for two hours, but I have a lot of scriptures in my notes here. I'm just going to try to summarize them. First, both Saul and David were genuine believers to the day of their death and ended up in paradise when they died. It might seem hard to believe that Saul was a true believer, and if God himself didn't say so, I would have had a hard time believing it. But 1 Samuel 28, 19 makes it very clear that Saul was going to be with, after he died, was going to be in Sheol paradise. And that was in the underworld back then. It was not until the time of Christ that paradise was transferred up to heaven. But Samuel made it clear. Saul made it to paradise. He was saved. Now, he may have been saved by the skin of his teeth, but he was a believer. And I believe being a believer is an essential qualification. But here's the thing. Being a believer is not enough. It's not enough. Saul was later rejected by God, even though he was a believer, and God expected that the people should have rejected them, and I'll give you some hints of that in a little bit. Second, both Saul and David were chosen by God, and so you can be chosen by God and rejected later. You know, God made it very clear that Jehu was later an utterly unqualified king. What we need to ask is why Saul and Jehu were initially chosen by God and were rejected later. It's not on a scholarship to just kind of merge their whole lives together. Third, both Saul and David began their reigns with at least the appearance of humility. Samuel said of Saul, when you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And we'll see in a little bit that humility is one of the essential qualifications for office. Fourth, both Saul and David were anointed with the Holy Spirit for their office. Now, the Holy Spirit later on left Saul, and a demon came to afflict him. That's pretty significant. Now, I'm not going to get into right now whether that's one of the essentials. Fifth, both Saul and David prophesied by the Holy Spirit. Now, I don't think that that is an essential, but it is interesting they both prophesied. Sixth, both Saul and David started with great success. They were both very capable leaders. Being capable and fighting the worst enemies is not a sufficient qualification. Saul, too, was a candidate who took on the deep state of the Philistines, who ruled over Israel at that time. But God later rejected him and he wanted the people to reject him too. Saul did a pretty good job of reversing the Weapons Control Act of the Philistines and reversing a number of other tyrannical things that the Philistines had imposed upon them. God providentially used him for a time. Seventh, both Saul and David engaged in grievous sin. So sin is not necessarily a disqualification. It is what you do with that sin. Eighth, both Saul and David were attractive to the citizens of their nation on many levels. Even Samuel begged God. He grieved when God rejected Saul. Samuel wished God would let Saul continue to be a king. Believe it or not, Saul was wildly popular. He was a very charismatic individual. And if there was going to be a confirming vote a few years into his reign, I expect that he would have had the popular vote of the people. So popularity is not sufficient. Ninth, both Saul and David were amazing military leaders. Some have suggested that military prowess makes for a good candidate. Well, it is a good qualification. But starting with Saul, There were several bad kings who were excellent, excellent commanders of the armies, and then it appears that there was more than one good king, in God's sight, who blew it militarily, was not a brilliant commander. So by itself, it's not enough, and I think we're naive if we do not look at all of the detailed nuances that the Scripture lays out. Now, the contrasts Scripture portrays between Saul and David also give us several clues, and let me list some of those for you. First, Saul had a lack of enduring humility. Saul's appearance of humility, his being small in his own eyes, actually sprang from insecurity. It was not humility. In fact, insecurity is completely compatible with pride. In many cases, insecurity springs from pride. Okay, so in contrast, though pride crept into David's life in 2 Samuel 24, especially the first four verses, he was very quick to repent, and he recognized the dangers of pride in any king in 2 Samuel 22, verse 28. So pride versus humility, that's a key difference. Second difference is that Saul repeatedly had incomplete obedience versus the wholehearted obedience of David. Saul claimed to obey the Lord in 1 Samuel 15-20, but because, in that chapter, God says his obedience was not complete, Samuel denied that it was true obedience. Samuel makes obedience to God's word a condition for continued kingship. And yet Samuel insisted that Saul, quote, rejected the word of the Lord and had a heart of rebellion. And this is a recurring theme through the later kings. And on Initiative 434, you need to ask if it is in any way obedient to the Scriptures. Third, and I believe this is key, Saul had an incomplete repentance. When he was confronted over sin, Saul either ignored the rebuke, There's some verses on that, made excuses, some verses showing excuses, made rationalizations, tried to cover his sins from the people. In contrast, David confessed, freely confessed his sins before God and before the people. Fourth, Saul feared man more than he feared God. Saul admits, quote, I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Samuel made fear of the Lord a condition for continued kinship, but Saul continued to show more fear of man than he did of God throughout the rest of his story. And then the final contrast is that though Saul made a pretense at seeking the Lord's guidance, he already had his mind made up even before he sought that guidance, and you can see that very clearly in 1 Samuel 14, 36-37. Now because of that, God stopped answering Saul. Saul's record shows more dependence on the wisdom of man than on God's Word, much like modern politicians don't look to God's wisdom when they're dealing with key issues like ecology and taxation and homosexuality and economics and abortion, Initiative 434, you name it. But more to the point of imperfect candidates in an imperfect world, what we have covered so far indicates that God did not expect all kings to completely live up to all of the qualifications I've laid out in all three circles in your outline. It appears that there are three different groupings of qualifications. Now, you might disagree with one or two of the things that I've placed in the various levels of those circles. But if you look up each of the verses in the inner circle, you'll see that each of those are absolutely essential qualifications, whereas kings that are labeled as good kings sometimes lacked some of the qualifications in the second and third circles. Second circle deals with secondary qualifications. They're super important. Not necessarily disqualifying. The outer circle deals with tertiary qualifications that the best kings had, but some good kings did not. All of these qualifications are a standard to which all rulers should aspire, and they are a standard by which we really ought to prefer one candidate over another. But I think we can also conclude that when candidates for office lack certain things, they are utterly unqualified for office even if there is no other candidate that is available. Now let me read some of the Scriptures I've placed under the essential qualifications list, that's the inner circle. And I'll take the first two qualifications together, faith and submission to Jesus. God expects rulers in the new covenant times. Okay, not just the Old Testament, but in our times, in New Covenant times, He expects them to be genuine believers. How else can they be ministers of God? Romans 13, 4 and 6 uses the same word for minister that He uses of Paul and ministers of the gospel, and people respond, hey, I'm not voting for a pastor-in-chief, I'm voting for a commander-in-chief, right? But let me read three verses from Psalm 2. Psalm 2 makes faith a requirement for kings and judges in the Messianic era when it commands post-cross kings to, quote, kiss the son, lest he be angry and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in him. That's for our era. So it tells rulers to trust Christ or you're out. And people say, really? For America? This was a standard requirement in most states of the Union for a long, long time. If you look at the second to last quote box on page two, here was the requirement in the North Carolina Constitution in 1876. It says that no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within the state. So this point that I am bringing up this morning would not have been considered weird at all back in those days. God told Solomon, but if you or your sons at all turn from following me, and it goes on to say, God will bring judgment on them, and he'll bring judgment on the people. And you might wonder, why would he bring judgment on the people? Well, when people vote for a candidate that God has rejected, God says, you deserve that candidate, and you deserve the judgment he receives as well. The people, too, are responsible. Psalm 2 requires that all kings in the New Covenant kiss the Son of God. And if the people themselves come under God's wrath when they choose unbelievers, it indicates that God holds citizens accountable for selecting those unbelieving rulers, okay, and for failing to impeach them when they fall away from the faith. But we'll see that faith is not a sufficient qualification. I'll take the next four qualifications together. Wanting to be righteous, seeking to be impartial in justice, fearing God, and not having personal or state syncretism. Proverbs 16.12 says, it is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness. Any throne is established by righteousness. It's one thing to commit wickedness and then to repent of it, which is what good kings did, but to persevere in wickedness, to praise wickedness, to defend it, that is an abomination to God. What about if a ruler wants to do good, but he surrounds himself by wicked people on his administration? Proverbs 25.5 says, take away the wicked from before the king and his throne will be established in righteousness. Well, that implies it will be disqualified. It will not be established if he surrounds himself with a wicked administration and he follows their advice. What about the fear of God? I've given several scriptures under that point that make this an essential qualification, even in the New Covenant. Psalm 211 commands modern kings, serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Two ways of saying the same thing, fear God. As to syncretism, the book of Revelation makes this principle a post-cross principle for all rulers, and I've given a bunch of scriptures for that. Just as Saul sought to worship God, but also dabbled in the occult, There were believing kings who were disqualified as bad kings because they mixed the worship of God with occultism, even worshiped other gods. It is clear this was a major reason why God rejected Jeroboam and Ahaz. God told even good King Solomon, if you or your sons at all turn from following me and go and serve other gods and worship them, and he goes to say, Judgment's going to come upon you. Now, thankfully, Solomon repented in his later years. And interestingly, though the king's own involvement in religious compromise disqualified him from office, failure to remove idolatry from the land did not necessarily disqualify him. For example, God said of Amaziah, he did what was right in the sight of the Lord. However, the high places were not taken down. God said of Azariah, he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, except that the high places were not removed. The people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places. And the same was true of good King Asa and good King Jotham. So what it appears to me is that personal syncretism and allowing syncretism in the state, completely disqualified, But the inability to remove syncretism from the public did not necessarily disqualify him. The seventh essential seems to require some degree of humility before God. Psalm 2 describes this humility, and again, this is of New Testament kings and judges, as serving Yehoah with fear and trembling before God. Romans chapter 13 verse 1 describes this characteristic as the fact that a king cannot have any authority that he does not derive from God. Literally, you can render it, there is no authority if not from God. Failure to recognize and repent of one's own pride and arrogance was clearly a disqualification in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 15, 17. This was true of even Hezekiah, who was one of the best of the kings. 2 Chronicles 32, 25 through 26 says, quote, wrath was looming over him because his heart was lifted up. But then it goes on to say, but Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah. In other words, he recognized his pride, he repented of it. But even his example shows how a lack of humility can eventually become a disqualification for even a good ruler. They need to see themselves as servants of God. Now, you'll see in your outline that official acknowledgement of biblical law is another qualification, a necessary qualification for a ruler. And you might say, really? That's utterly, utterly ridiculous in America. But up until my lifetime, this was standard for presidents to acknowledge God's law. And even during my lifetime, there's been some presidents who have done so. Psalm 2 guarantees, whether sincerely or not, It guarantees that even after the time of the cross, the Messiah's judgment would fall upon rulers who cast off the bonds of God's law. If they officially did that, they cast it off. The book of Revelation describes judgments that Jesus promises to bring on rulers who rejected His authority. That's clearly New Testament. It's our time. Samuel told Saul, because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he also has rejected you from being king. And even though Samuel loved Saul, he told Saul, I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel. So since God rejected Saul, Samuel felt duty-bound that he could no longer support Saul. He could not go with him, and he refused to be with Saul from that time on. In other words, citizens should reject a ruler if God rejects that ruler. Now, if impeaching such a civic officer is not possible, the citizens should at least engage in passive resistance to the unlawful statutes of those rulers, just like David did. Just as modern rulers are technically disqualified if they're not willing to rule in terms of the Constitution, that's very clear in the law. The evidence I've given so far shows that biblical rulers were disqualified if they rejected God's law as being the law of the nation. 2 Kings 17.8 particularly ascribes God's judgments on northern Israel as coming because they rejected God's civil statutes and instead, quote, walked in the statutes of the nations. Well, that's exactly what's going on in America today. God told Solomon, if you or your sons at all turn from following me and do not keep my commandments and my statutes which I set before you, then a prophesied judgment will come upon them. Next qualification is teachability, a desire to know God's will. Psalm 2 makes this a continuing essential for kings and rulers in the post-cross period when it instructs them, be wise, O kings, be instructed, you judges of the earth. This is given as a necessary qualification if Christ is not going to strike those kings with His rod of iron. So how can we vote for a person that Christ intends to strike with His rod of iron? And by the way, Revelation 2, 26-27 makes this relevant to both kings and citizens. It was precisely when David lost teachability in 2 Samuel 24 that God's anger loomed over Israel despite David's repentance. Similarly, Joash started off good, but later apostatized and refused to listen to the prophets. The next qualification is seeing civics as a calling, a calling to serve God. Psalm 2 makes this a new covenant responsibility for civic rulers when it calls kings and judges to serve the Lord. Likewise, Romans 13 gives civic officers the calling of being God's ministers, right? Civics is a calling accountable to God, not just accountable to the people. Now, this all may seem just so theoretical, but this was standard fare for politicians in America for generations past, and I'll demonstrate that in a bit. But take a look at the second quote on page one. And I took this right out of a Supreme Court decision. of the United States, Justice David Brewer said, our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. That Supreme Court decision was made in 1892. And it goes on to say that civil office is a calling under God. It's accountable to God. It points out that God's authority over the state must be recognized. Next qualification. When a ruler refuses to punish crimes, such as abortion or homosexuality, what's the point of being a ruler? Romans 13.3 says that rulers are required to be a terror to evil works. to not be persecuting good works. The ruler in Romans 13 is supposed to not bear the sword in vain, right, against he and his crimes. The sword was given to him to punish what God considers to be a crime, and the Bible doesn't actually give very many crimes. It's very, very limited government. There's thousands. Actually, there was a study that was done one time by the Congress And I forget now how many, but they spent two years studying and they finally came to the conclusion nobody knows how many laws are in the books. You could be a felon, you won't even know it because if the Congress itself doesn't know how many laws are in the books, how can we know it? But anyway, God's government is very limited, very few crimes that the Bible sets out, but He wants us to take them seriously. The next qualification is that the ruler is not supposed to be bought off or bribed. Deuteronomy 16 shows that a bribe eventually blinds the eyes of magistrates. Now, I've mentioned before that Megan Basham wrote a book on why seminaries, colleges, and pastors have been bought off. by big money and it changed the way they think, it changed the way they preached. Well, there needs to be a similar expose of the myriad ways in which big pharma and other corporations have bought off congressmen and senators. It's legal bribery and it's huge business. Isaiah 5.23 condemns those who justify the wicked for a bribe and who take away justice from the righteous because they have been bought off. The next qualification requires truthfulness. If a person is an inveterate liar, he should not be in office no matter how skillful he may be. You can't trust him. You know, he may make all kinds of promises to you. How do you know he's going to keep those promises? Christians are so naive when it comes to the promises of candidates that they vote for. But worse, Proverbs 29.12 says, if a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked. And verse 14 says that the ruler who values truth will be established on his throne. I believe I've only put into the inner circle the things that Scripture seems to indicate God will not budge on, and if God won't budge on it, we should not budge on these things. Then finally, Isaiah 16 verse 5 says, in mercy the throne will be established. Proverbs 20, 28 says, mercy and truth preserve a king, and by loving kindness he upholds his throne. And this would include mercy and loving kindness to the unborn. I believe that the books of Judges through Chronicles were given to keep us from perfectionism on the one extreme and to keep us from ignoring God's qualifications on the other extreme. And I've tried to keep in the essential circle only those things that resulted in God rejecting a king or would say that God establishes a throne by them. Now, you may disagree with some that have been placed there, but at least you got some biblical data to help guide your voting. Now, since I've preached on 2 Samuel 23 before, I'm not going to go in depth on that, but let me pull a few ideas from this passage that I think could help inform you on how to reform politics and what kind of candidates we need to encourage to run. Maybe they don't want to run, but you believe that they should run for office. We need Christians in office. We desperately need them. And by the way, again, this was a favorite election day passage for a long time in American history. In verses 1 through 5, David advises us to unashamedly urge our nation to be one nation under God. Now, we have on our dollar bills, In God We Trust. We don't really believe that anymore. It's hypocritical, but it's still there. A few years ago, there was a lawsuit brought against Congress by Michael Newdow, and the suit claimed that the national motto, In God We Trust, is unconstitutional. Of course, he failed, and he failed because even our unqualified judges recognize that this is so strewn through the law that there's no way that they could deny it. that deny the truth. Anyway, let's dig into the passage. First, we find that God raises up rulers. Who put David on the throne? Verse 1 says, God did. Thus says David the son of Jesse, thus says the man raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob and the sweet psalmist of Israel. Now, he words it in a way where we cannot just dismiss this as theoretical. David was a real king, the son of Jesse. He was an imperfect king, and yet a king who was loved by both God and by the people. It is possible to rule in a way that is pleasing to God even in an imperfect society. He's a good role model, even though he's not a perfect exemplar. And I think this passage warns us about the total perfectionism that some people take toward politics. There are minimum qualifications that David sets forth, but I don't think we should be accused of perfectionism when we insist on these qualifications for a ruler. David was not perfect, yet we could have voted for him. Let's take a look at the qualifications. First is the issue of calling. Whatever else David was, he was anointed by God, he was raised up on high by God, God called him to office. So just as an uncalled man should not serve in any office in the church, an uncalled man should not serve in any office in the state. Sometimes they do, and until they're impeached, we need to treat them as unqualified. Now, I would say, let's say that there's an unqualified person in office, we still need to respect the office just like David did. Okay, so there's going to still be a call for submission, but this issue of calling is an important one when we're choosing candidates. Has God really called him? Would God say, yeah, yeah, go ahead, vote for this person? Back in the 1800s, Senator Daniel Webster said that this issue of calling is critical for citizens to consider on election day, and he was personally opposed to any candidate who was not called and who was not a Christian. And so the first thing implied by these words is calling. By the way, Daniel Webster totally agreed with my list of essentials for office. He was a congressman, he was later a senator, later he was a secretary of state. He was no chump. And he represented many politicians of that day who said, these are qualifications that are critical for the survival and the future of America. So again, what I'm preaching on today is not theoretical, irrelevant information. This is as American as apple pie. It's really when Christians start embracing incrementalism that God's qualification started going out the window in America. But the second thing that is implied in our verse is accountability to God. An elder is held accountable for how he relates to those under authority. Well, that's true of a civil magistrate, but far more important is he's accountable to God. He must live as a spokesman for God, not for special interests, and special interests have absolutely ruined our nation. But if we had in the past been voting for men who had these essentials, they would not have succumbed to special interests. It's the fault of the citizens. But if God raised him up and anointed him, it means that God is the ultimate authority. And it's more than just a theoretical authority above the king. And what do I mean by a theoretical authority? Well, I could illustrate it with the kings of England in the past who claimed the divine right of kings. They believed they were the highest authority. They represented. What they said was what God said, and so they came up with the label Rex Lex. Rex means king. Lex means law. The king is the law, right? What the Puritans did is they turned that around and they say, uh-uh, it's lex rex. The law is king. So the king claimed to have full authority of God in all that he said and did. And the Puritans showed that this claim was nonsense and that the Scripture disapproved of many of the things that the king commanded, and even commanded people to disobey the king in certain situations. Even Jesus engaged in civil disobedience. We can maybe talk about that afterwards. But they also pointed out that the very idea is so theoretical that it is meaningless. There is no objective standard against which you could test the king's claims. In contrast, the Puritans said, Lex Rex, the law is king. God's authority is meaningless. Let me repeat that. God's authority is meaningless if there is no law above the king that the king himself is obliged to obey. And therefore, the very idea that God raised him up and anointed him implies that David was accountable to obey his superior by obeying his word. If the king can do anything he wants, there is no law above him. Well, then God's not really his superior, is he? But there's a fourth thing implied in these words, and that is that the king's own authority, if it is a legitimate authority, is a limited authority, a delegated authority, and a specified authority, not something that just comes out of his imagination. The king is not God himself. So, he must derive legitimate authority from God. So, it's automatically delegated, specified, limited. And if you studied American history very much, you see those three words coming up all the time, right? It keeps the state from deifying itself. Well, if we took it all seriously, the first four implications of this passage for rulers, then we would only elect Christians. And did you know that this was the pattern for many, many states long after the Constitution was ratified? Delaware required the following oath of office and continued to require it long after the ratification of the First Amendment. I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore. I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration." You couldn't even be in office in the state of Delaware without taking that oath of office. Maryland's Constitution of 1851 required this of public officials, a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion. You couldn't even be in office if you held the ACLU's position. Here is another one. 1876, almost 100 years after ratification, North Carolina Constitution still stated and still enforced, quote, that no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion or the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this state." Pennsylvania, other states had similar requirements. And I give these because it just shows how far we have fallen away as a nation. Almost nobody back then would have considered my graphic in this outline to be ridiculous. They lived by it. Now, back to our passage. Verses 2 through 3 show that God speaks to those to whom he calls. David says it's not enough to theoretically acknowledge, yeah, God's the sovereign. God appoints public officials. No, they need to listen to God. Hopefully that makes sense. If they're accountable to God, they cannot refuse to listen to Him. And God does indeed speak to rulers through the Scripture. Okay, verses 2 through 3, the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me and His Word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me. Now, it's true that David received divine inspiration, prophetic revelation through himself that he gave to others, and he wrote some of the Scriptures, right? But he was… many statements that David made that he was completely accountable to submit to the rest of the Scriptures. Either way, he was willing to listen. The phrase, hear what the Spirit says, is used before a quotation of Scripture. Nor was it just Israelite kings that needed to listen to God's wisdom. In Proverbs 8, 15 through 16, personified wisdom is speaking and says, by me kings reign and rulers decree justice, by me princes rule and nobles, all the judges of the earth, not just Jewish judges, All the judges of the earth are required by God to rule consistently with the Scriptures. Now, if those we elect into office are to rule effectively, they must listen to God. Now, they might not listen perfectly, but that should be at least their intention to do so to the best of their ability. And so Deuteronomy 17 says that every king was to be familiar with the Bible. In fact, let me read you that section because this says reading the scripture is an absolute precondition to having the fear of God and having some of the other conditions that we're going to be looking at. Deuteronomy 17, 18 through 20, also it shall be when he sits on the throne of his kingdom that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, and that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment of the right hand or the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom." Now, can you imagine how long it would take the king to write out the first five books of the Bible? Those are a lot of words. And you might think, a king, you know, he's just come to office. He's got a lot of things to learn. He's going to be too busy. Surely a secretary could copy it for him. But no, God insisted the king himself write it out by hand because he wanted him to be thoroughly familiar with God's word, the true law, and then continue to read it every year. God wants rulers to be thoroughly conversant in the Scriptures. Third, God is the only security for our nation. It's not the military. It's not a balanced trade agreement or good treaties. It's not even ensuring that Kamala Harris does not get into office. The only security for our nation is God. In verse 3, David says, the rock of Israel spoke to me. Now, Iraq was a, you know, a natural fortress as well as a strong foundation. And so this is yet another feature that we need to look at in candidates for office. Do they find security in God or do they find their security in something else? And Psalm 33, 12 says, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. And so our money says in God we trust. We really don't anymore. Now, Benjamin Franklin warned Congress that their only security was as they trusted God. It's a shame when a deist like Benjamin Franklin has to rebuke Protestants who are not deists for refusing to do exactly the same thing. Now, some people say he ceased being a deist and no deist would write these things, I don't know. But anyway, let me read his words. He said this to the whole assembly. In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend, or do we imagine? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain to build it. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. Well, David goes on to say in verse 3, he who rules over men must be just. If you have a candidate who is the lesser of two evils, but he is still unjust, God says you should not choose him. Okay? Just write in a candidate. Pragmatic consideration should not trump God's must. He who rules over men must be just. And who defines justice? It's God. God's Word. It's not just advice for he who rules over ancient Jews. This is a universal must. He who rules over men must be just. And if God's law is the definition of justice, we are in deep trouble in America. The ancient church father Augustine said, without justice, what are states but great bands of robbers? That implies that the definition of justice comes from outside the state because he is calling the state unjust. The state is defined as unjust by something other than the state. Let me repeat that quote. I think it's a profound statement on civics. Augustine said, without justice, what are states but great bands of robbers? Do you feel robbed by the state? I sure do. Virtually all of the taxes we are paying are unbiblical. But Augustine's point was that if God does not limit government with biblical principles of justice, then there is no limit to the tyranny that the state can engage in. It's true, there is no limit. The state becomes the definition from which you cannot appeal. Ultimately, only Christ, the King of kings, is perfectly just, but it is by His grace that He enables rulers to rule in justice. Isaiah 42 prophesies of Christ saying, Behold my servant whom I uphold, my elect one in whom my soul delights. I have put my spirit upon him. He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will bring forth justice for truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth and the coastlands shall wait for his law. Now the mention of discouragement anticipates that there will be opposition to Christ's justice. God's not surprised by that, but as God's people live by faith, over time Christ will establish justice in the nations of the world. Scripture prophesies all nations will eventually bow to God's law. But God has ordained it will not happen until people live by faith, and it has to come by His grace. Our Founding Fathers said this republic would stand only so long as the people are a moral people. The following words are inscribed on the Department of Justice building, Washington, D.C. Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as it first resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens. And it can only reside in our hearts as we are being sanctified, and we can only be sanctified if we're Christians, if we're justified by His righteousness. So, brothers and sisters, we have a lot of work before us because we don't have justice in the state of Nebraska. We don't have justice in our nation. The evil of homosexuality is called good. The evil of abortion is protected in our courts. Even Christians are now calling us to vote in favor of limited abortion. Land is confiscated from farmers, the IRS and other agencies. They're utterly unaccountable. We live in a topsy-turvy world when it comes to justice, and the reason, here's the reason, the church itself has abandoned the law of God. Only God can define justice. New Jersey used to have this Bible verse as its official seal, righteousness exalteth a nation, and then the rest of the verse goes on to say, sin is a reproach to any people. Well, our text goes on to connect justice with the fear of God. Third part of verse 3 says, he who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. This is probably the fundamental problem in America. Our nation has no fear of God. Rulers and judges have no fear of God, and even Christians in office fear their constituents far more than they fear God's opposition. It appears that Christian voters fear Kamala Harris more than they fear God. Some of you have McGuffey's Readers in your home. We've got a copy in the church library. But in his fifth eclectic reader, he says this, erase all thought and fear of God from a community and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man. The two go hand in hand. A man without the fear of God will eventually fall into any sin. That means that without the fear of God, any politician can fall into the sins that Kamala Harris is involved in. Proverbs 16, 6 says, by the fear of the Lord, one departs from evil. So here's the thing. We see people going to Washington, D.C. And they're opposing abortion. After one term, they start supporting abortion. What in the world is going on? Well, there's a number of reasons. One is that they don't have God's protection from the demonic attacks that constantly come upon politicians. They don't have God's protection. They're not surrounded with and camped round about by God's protective angels. And so they're subject to demonic deception and demonic temptation. But I believe it's also in part because the fear of man will change your behavior depending upon which men you hang around. And the only remedy for the fear of man is an even greater fear of God. And so David says, he who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. It's not an option for any ruler, and I think that ought to inform our voting. This is why Patrick Henry, perhaps the most consistent of the debaters, at the Constitutional Convention, one of my heroes, he was an anti-federalist, said that Christianity and biblical law is imperative in rulers. Let me quote him. He said, it cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A true patriot, as well as a genuine leader, must always take the higher ground of God's law when confronted with the evils of man's law. Very, very interesting. He says man's laws can be evil. can be abominable, and the only remedy is a return to God's law. He continues, government is not the enemy, for it is ordained of God. The enemy to freedom is tyrannical government that presumes to take the place of God. And I say amen. He is right on. It really is a fundamental issue. Do rulers fear God? And so this is becoming my prayer request. Lord, make these men tremble at your word and fear your name. Without the fear of the Lord, we cannot return to being a godly republic. And I believe our republic was blessed beyond measure because we had so many generations of men who feared God. Yes, they were imperfect. There's plenty you could criticize and I would criticize of some of the politicians from the past, but for the most part they feared God. Next point, verse 4 indicates that blessing comes to a nation that is under God. Look at the beautiful description of blessings promised in verse 4 to such kingdoms. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, like tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain." That's a poetic description of blessing and happiness that God gives when rulers rule in the fear of God with justice. I fear that the blessings that America has enjoyed so long are soon going to run out if America does not repent. Senator Daniel Webster said in the early 1800s, if we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper. If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall always live in the fear of God and shall respect his commandments, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country. If we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity. Pray that our nation would not just embrace the blessings, but would embrace all of the undergirding prerequisites to those. Next point, David brings a hint that He himself did not live up to the description of a king that's just been given. Verse five says, although my house is not so with God, yet he has made with me an everlasting covenant. Now, if you have an ESV version, you'll notice it says the opposite. It says, for does not my house stand so with God? It's very opposite meaning of what I just read, and I will say it's the exact opposite of what David said about that covenant in 2 Samuel 7, and what God said when he established that covenant with David. God spoke of chastening in that chapter, chastening David's house with the rod of men and blows of the sons of men. And David says, who am I? Oh, Lord God, what is my house that you have brought me this far? He realized his house had not lived up to God's expectations. In that chapter, he speaks of God's mercy on David's house. He needed mercy. He asked for mercy and he received mercy. And 2 Samuel 7 made clear that apart from the gospel of Christ, unless God saw David as united to the king of kings, David too would have been rejected. Again, he needs the gospel if he's to rule in a way that is pleasing to God. So David is not saying he was blessed because he was so good. That's the way three versions translate it, and that's the implication of the ESV. He's saying the exact opposite. He is saying that God has blessed him and made a covenant with him despite the fact that he had messed up many times. Let me read three translations to this effect. Okay, I read the New King James, although my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant. ASV says, verily, my house is not so with God, yet He hath made with me an everlasting covenant. WEB translation, most assuredly, my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant. Now what difference does it make how we translate that? Well, to me this is a statement that can give us tremendous comfort as we pray for our nation. All it would take is God's grace to invade the heart of a sitting president or a sitting congress or a senate for them to come to repentance and change their policies. And He can do that. He did it with the entire city of Nineveh. He did it with Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. He did it with Cyrus, king of Persia. Now, sometimes, and I think it's more often than not, God brings war and other judgments to bring nations to repentance. God's mercy rests upon kings and nations who submit themselves to His rule, but it's mercy, not what we deserve. We have sex scandals in Washington, but so did David. We have liars in Washington, but David engaged in lies and cover-up and deception too, okay? Our nation has murder on its hands, but so did David, right? We have lies, we have abuse, we have oppression in government, over-taxation, but so did Solomon, David's son. at least in his backslidden years. God recognizes that even in government we are not perfect, and the only way He can bless government is through the mercies of Jesus, which will only come when there is repentance. Okay? Mercies of Jesus, who is the only perfect King of kings and Lord of lords. Everything in life needs to be seen through the eyes of Christ, including civil government. We must not be perfectionistic, but that doesn't mean compromising incrementalism either. It means looking to Christ. And don't think that things are hopeless for America today. The Davidic covenant that David speaks of here brought tremendous encouragement to the Reformers because it meant that God can bless nations despite imperfections if they confess their sins like David did and turn to the Lord. What God is interested in is our covenantal relationship with Christ. It's not being comfortable. you know, in our nation apart from Christ. It's not less taxes apart from Christ. The question is, are we as a nation willing to covenant with Him once again, willing to have Him rule over us? Verse 5 indicates that salvation and gospel must be applied to politics. Although my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure, for this is all my salvation and all my desire. Will you not make it increase?" And that increase speaks of sanctification and growth in the application of God's law and gospel in a ruler's life. Now, what are the alternatives to such a total submission to Jesus? They're not very good. Look at verses 6 through 7. But the sons of rebellion shall all be as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands. But the man who touches them must be armed with iron and the shaft of a spear, and they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place. That's the destiny of all ungodly rebel rulers. And I won't spend a lot of time on these verses, but let me make a couple of key points. First of all, I think it's worth asking if your vote is promoting a son of rebellion when God wants him thrust away. David says in our passage there can be no neutrality. We're either for Christ or we're against Him. Now certainly He's a merciful King. He's blessed our nation richly despite our repeated sins against Him. But there comes a time when He says enough is enough. He says, but the sons of rebellion shall all be as thorns thrust away. So, it's not enough for you to vote for a person who has the best economic plan, or who can debate the best, or who has the best plan for some pet project, or who is able to keep a worse candidate out. If you are voting for a man or a woman who is a rebel against Christ's kingdom, who is determined to destroy Christ's laws, such as Christ's laws against abortion and homosexuality, you are voting for thorns destined for God's judgment, thorns that God wants His people to thrust away. If Christ wants them thrust away, how on earth can you think you are pleasing to God by choosing such a ruler? You don't embrace a thorn, it will hurt you." And he goes on to explain, "...because they cannot be taken with hands." Why? Well, in the physical realm, you know, it's obvious. A thorn's going to hurt your hand. But in the political realm, the same is true. The answer to liberal humanistic politics is not conservative humanistic politics. They are both thorns to be thrust away, and we've seen it. Despite the squabbling between the Republicans and the Democrats, they're not that much. It's just one's more radicalized than the other. They're not that far apart. They both advance the same thing, one slower than the other. They both have advanced collectivism or statism, and we're hurting for it. We've got to get back to a scriptural perspective on politics. And by the way, there are enough Christians in America that if they would once again embrace God's plan for voting, things could be turned around very quickly. The conservative and the pragmatic approach to politics has not worked because it violates God's spiritual laws of harvest. If you insist on planting thorns, you're just going to keep getting more thorns. It's just the way harvest works. By voting for them, you are planting thorns. Don't expect God-honoring results. Now, of course, when he speaks about human hands, it implies that humans are involved in either rejecting or choosing of a civil magistrate. And God wants our judgment of evil men to be the same as His judgment of them. It says, but the man who touches them must be armed with iron and the shaft of a spear, and they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place. In other words, once kings turn into rebels, it's very rare that they turn out good. Only interposition removes them. States have a responsibility to interpose against higher tyranny, even to secede if needed. And if states won't interpose, sheriffs have a duty to protect their citizens from tyrants. They don't tend to step down on their own, and when citizens are unwilling to get rid of their treasonous kings through lawful means, and I emphasize lawful means because I'm not advocating revolution here. The Bible does not advocate revolution. But through lawful means, God has to resort to providential judgments, and He often uses humanistic man to destroy humanistic man, and it's awful. He used Babylon to judge Judah. He used Persia to judge Babylon. He used Greece to judge Persia, and it wasn't pretty. I'll hasten to remind you that judgment by the sword is not a foregone conclusion. Remember David's statement, although my house is not so with God, yet he has made with me an everlasting covenant. King Josiah, Hezekiah, and others turned from the paganism, the rank, child-sacrificing, homosexual paganism of their parents and returned to the Davidic covenant spoken of in verse 5. Prior to their turning, it seemed more hopeless for their nation than our current situation here in America is. No one expected things to get better. But God turned the hearts of politicians, brought the nation back to God quite a few times in the book of Judges and quite a few times in Kings through Chronicles. Nebuchadnezzar is another example of a tyrant being brought to salvation, being used to restore liberty. The Davidic covenant gives a basis for mercy in the face of political rebellion. Now, we may grow hopelessly depressed as we look at the state of affairs in America, but remember, politics is not your savior. God is. And there have been several times in past history when things have looked as bad or worse and God turned them around. And people say, really? It's been worse than what we're going through right now. Yeah, it's been a lot worse. Just read history, really. People forget history. I've started reading a book which documents these cycles even in America. Even in America. It's The Fourth Political Theory and Biblical Perspective by J. Rogers. I haven't finished it yet, so maybe I shouldn't have even brought it up. I don't know if I can fully endorse it. But things were really worse in England prior to the time that God raised up Wesley and Whitefield. Right? Two powerful preachers. And many historians have said that the revival brought by those two men was the only thing that averted a bloody revolution like happened in France from happening in England. Could have easily happened there, apart from the First Great Awakening. The efforts of those two evangelists transformed men, and through those men transformed society in England and in America. That is why 2 Chronicles 7 says, it is the church which is key to averting God's judgment upon a civil government. That's why I'm preaching to the church, right? It's the church that's key. We've seen from the Bible and from history, it's the church which is key to averting God's judgment upon a civil government. who are called by my name." That's the church, right? If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. But if the church compromises in voting for thorns for politicians who are ungodly, why should God bless us? We're not living by faith, we're living by fear, and fear and faith are incompatible. We're in a time of crisis, and the only hope for our nation, I think, is another reformation of the church of Jesus Christ. And we don't need a majority for that. It's always been minorities who are on fire for God that have made a difference. There is hope if we will repent like David repented and pray like David prayed and return to the Scriptures as the foundation for politics, as David returned to the Scriptures, and if we will insist on only choosing rulers that meet the essentials laid out in the Scripture. You might not have any candidates to vote for when you do that. You can write in, by the way, I'm not qualified, so don't write my name in as president. I'm a dual citizen. You can't be a dual citizen, so don't even get that bright idea. I want to be a pastor. But you can write in a candidate. Don't feel like you can't do anything. The duty is ours, the outcome is God's, but let's seek to do what we can. Amen. Father, I thank you that even in the midst of difficulty and darkness and storms that swirl around us, that we can have an anchor in Jesus and that our soul does not need to be tossed to and fro like so many Christians are and not knowing what to do. Thank you for the guidance of your Word, and I pray that you would help us to live by it. In Jesus' name, amen.