Alright, good morning. Let's go ahead and pray and then we'll go ahead and start. Dear Lord, thank you so much for this morning and just the ability that you have granted us to come and listen and learn and have our minds hopefully further sanctified by the truth. That is You. Lord, we want to honor You and treasure You this morning, so please help us to do that with our minds. We pray that You would be with us. In Jesus' name, Amen. Alright, so let's go ahead and turn to Romans 13. We're going to look at Romans 13, verses 1 through 7 this morning. And so this morning, we are looking at the political thought of John of Salisbury. Not the heir to the stake community like Mr. Orr said, but he's a little bit older than that. So this is John of Salisbury, but let's go ahead and read what the scriptures say about, at least one section anyway, but what the scripture says about government. So here we are, Romans 13. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this, you also pay taxes for the authorities or ministers of God attending to this very thing. pay to all what is owed to them, taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, and honor to whom honor is owed. If you wanted to just jot down, the other passage for government in the scriptures is 2 Peter 2, 13 through 17. We won't go there now, but so John of Salisbury And if you can't tell by the name, this guy's an Englishman, and not much is actually known about his family background. His education included teachers who had some of the best minds in the 12th century. Of course, John Salisbury's dates are 1115 to 1180 AD. Now John sought a life of power but he was tethered by both theology and philosophy and because of that he gave his life over to that of a professional bureaucrat. Of course, that means a little slightly different now than it did then. He did not shy away from controversy. John of Salisbury was exiled from his homeland on more than one occasion because of his stance he took on the political flavor of the day. Now the text from which today's material comes from is this book right here called Politocraticus. The subtitle is Of the Frivolities of Courtiers and of the Footprints of Philosophers. And this book does not fail to give the one-two punch. If you're looking for a mixture of philosophy and politics, this I think is the go-to book. The editor in his introduction says this, quote, "...Politocraticus is far more than a theoretical treaty on politics. It was equally a work of moral theology, satire, specular philosophy, legal procedure, self-consolation..." Man, I cannot say that word. Self-consolation. That's what it is. I was practicing myself and I couldn't say this word. self-consolation, biblical commentary, and deeply personal meditation. In sum, Plutocraticus is the philosophical memoir of one of the most learned courtier bureaucrats of the 12th century Europe. And definitely, you know, the thing that's great about this book, you can pick it up and almost start anywhere because he writes like the old guys, he is an old guy, all of his chapters are like paragraph titles. And so you get like a, it's very Pearson-esque, you know, you get a very descriptive summary of what each chapter represents. So it's pretty helpful. So all that in mind, in today's class I hope to answer some of the following questions regarding politics. First of all, what is law? What is the difference between a good ruler and a tyrant? Is it ever right to rebel against a tyrant? If so, when and what would those circumstances look like? So we're going to break this up into three short sections today. Number one, we're going to look at the need for governance. For some, especially in our political culture, that might not be total apparent, especially with the rise of extreme libertarianism, hyper-libertarianism. Two, what is meant by law? We're going to just touch on that briefly. And then number three, the prince and the tyrant. And whenever I'm using the word prince or king today, just know you can switch it out synonymously with ruler or whatever, governing official or whatnot. So first of all, this idea of the need for governance. Now, like I said, John was a philosopher and a theologian before he was a politician. So, like the ancients, Plato and Aristotle, John saw a need for a unity for all the diversity. He saw this underlying, not just desire that he had, this personal desire, but this need for all diverse things to be unified. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, he saw the Word of God as that unity and he applied it ruthlessly to his political thoughts. His universal objective starting point was God, and it was here where he began his thesis on political thought. However, he did start through the backdoor of human virtue, and this is what he said. Let me put this here for a second. Quote, Indeed, all virtue, whether angelic or human, is a vestige. Now, a vestige is a distinguishing mark. Vestiges is so much more. It says, indeed all virtue, whether angelic or human, is a vestige of divinity impressed to a certain degree upon rational creatures. So if someone has virtue, it's because God has stamped it on that person. So this is ground zero for John. This is where he starts his book. So in discussing the need and appropriate virtue of human government, one needs to start with what human virtue is first. So what John does here is he starts out much like the Book of Romans. He points to natural revelation and special revelation as being the treasury of all human knowledge. He further states that God has given all men in his heart a book of knowledge so that all men are without excuse. So all men... John says, echoing Romans, have a type of knowledge that leaves them without excuse before their maker. Romans 1.20 says, for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made, so they are without excuse. And of course, leading up to this verse, we can see why God is angry. Verse 18 says that the wrath of God is revealed in heaven against men. Why? Because men suppress that truth, the truth about God, in unrighteousness. So, what follows from those verses in Romans 1 is that a whole barrage of vices come. Homosexuality, greed, envy, murder, deceit, gossiping, hating God, arrogance, boasting, disobedience to parents, unloving and unmerciful people. And truth suppression is what brings those things. Truth suppression is why we need human government. In other words, Romans 13 is necessary in part because of Romans 1. So we need governance because of depravity. So John says this, Therefore, the acknowledgement of truth and the cultivation of public virtue is the general safeguard of each and every person of rational nature. In other words, knowing and adhering to the truth and the active promotion of righteousness is what protects individuals and nothing else. This is the reason that government exists, to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do right. That's an echo from 1 Peter 2.14. I said 2 Peter, I think it's 1 Peter actually. So 1 Peter 2.13-17 is the other passage on government. Alright, so secondly, what is meant by law? So John agrees with Papinian and Demonsthenes who say that all law is a sort of discovery and gift from God. Of course, by that he means all good law. He doesn't mean all bad law. If you guys remember, Aristotle said famously that all law rests upon the necessary foundation of morality. If a law is not moral, it's not a law, but tyranny. So, in the summer semester of the Temperance College, Matt will be exploring all the nooks and crannies of law and freedom, so be sure to come to that. Here, I just want to stress that only laws that come into conformity with true justice and equity are good. If a law does not conform to justice and equity, all other considerations aside, you can be sure that it is bad. Alright, so John goes on to say this about equity. We use that word and here he's going to explain it. Equity is a matter of what is appropriate. according to which reason equalizes the whole and seeks just equality in matters of inequality. What is equitable to all is what grants to each person that which is his own. Its interpreter is law, inasmuch as law makes known the will of equity and justice." So I'm going to read this one more time. He's saying a lot here. Equity is a matter of what is appropriate, according to which reason equalizes the whole, and seeks just equality in matters of inequality. What is equitable to all is what grants to each person that which is his own. Its interpreter is law, inasmuch as law makes known the will of equity and justice." So basically, he's saying the exact same thing that Aristotle was saying at this point. First of all, equity is what is appropriate. Those two terms are almost synonymous here, the way that he's using it. Secondly, to be equitable is to reasonably apply this appropriateness to all, and especially where inappropriateness reigns. Thirdly, if equity reigns, then all receive that which is their own, for righteousness grants to each person his just desserts. And then fourthly, the outward manifestation of this equity is called loss. So back to our lines here, the invisible line. Above the line, you know, is the form or the idea, and below the line is the appearance. So above the line, John is basically saying, let's use a different marker, equity. This is the invisible stamp of God's righteousness, or this is God's righteousness. Below the line is the manifestation of this invisible equity, which is law, or laws. So that's what he's saying by equity. Law is the interpreter of equity here. So if a law doesn't reflect equity above the line, then it's reflecting tyranny. If the law is not reflecting something about God's righteousness, it's created for a different reason. The motivation that informs any other law that doesn't reflect that righteousness is not for the public good at all, but rather for the private good of some. So you can be sure that that type of law is immoral and tyrannical. Now, it is for this reason that we need to investigate all issues, if possible, when considering any candidate. All issues of law are moral issues because they either reflect equity or iniquity. So, you guys have probably heard this before, the person that says to you, well the government shouldn't legislate morality. All you need to do is give them one question, well then on what basis should the government legislate? Because any other reason that they come up with is going to lead to tyranny. Obviously, that type of reasoning is only generally used in abortion stuff, or now more popularly, homosexuality and stuff like that. But any law that you can think of that isn't based on morality is a law of tyranny. Alright, so John Ferger says here that law is for teaching of the wise, the corrective to excesses of the will, laws for the harmony of the city, the banishment of all crime. It is a gift of God, the image of the divine will, the custodian of security, the excluder and exterminator of vices and the punishment of violence and all injuries. So the law is for everyone, including those who are in authority. It has a teaching function, that is to say that by its regulations it informs the citizens of their duties and what they are to abstain from. It has a corrective function, that is to say that certain acts will be penalized. It promotes harmony because that system of praise and punishment reaps a harvest of peace. Again, Romans 13, 3-4. Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. Lastly, the law and its administrator being government, was designed to banish crime." Verse 4 in Romans 13 continues, "...but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." So, John does something interesting here. He points out to some research that the Stoics did. This phrase, public executioner, comes from the Latin Move over a little bit. Legus Icter. Is that right? Legus Icter. Yeah. Which means stick of the law. That's what public executioner means. Stick of the law. And John says, because... It is the aim of the duties to strike down whoever the law adjudges must be struck down. He goes on to say, for this reason, those officials of antiquity by whose hand the judge punished the guilty would be told this, comply with the will of the law or satisfy the law. That's what the law was intended to do. Either you conform to the law or the law will be satisfied with your head. So in summary, on this section, law is the outward manifestation of equity. It reflects true justice, which is the righteousness of God himself. All good law rightly reflects it, and all bad law is its antithesis. All right, so this last section this morning, we're going to go into the longest section, but this is the prince and the tyrant. So, first of all, we're just going to look at the prince. Remember, it's synonymous with king or ruler or any governing official. So, when John describes the prince in Plutocraticus, he's describing what the prince ought to be, just like when Plato's describing the Republic, what the Republic ought to be. So, he's giving all the characteristics, the profile, if you will, of how a prince should rule and how a prince's character should look like. Now the consequence, he's not shy to use the scriptures as his template to describe the profile. So he defines the prince as such. The public power and a certain image on earth of the divine majesty. He is obedient to law and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service. and administers rewards and burdens within the Republic under the guidance of law in a way favorable to the vindication of his imminent post, so that he proceeds before others to the extent that while individuals merely look after individual affairs, princes are concerned with the burdens of the entire community. So, this is not different in an analogous way to how Paul describes the aughtness of a husband or the aughtness of a wife in Ephesians 5. The wife represents the church, the husband represents Christ, and they are to act in a certain way. Likewise, the prince slash ruler represents God's rule, and he is supposed to act worthy of his office. He is always to be the servant of the people. That's why the office was created. So, the ruler is supposed to rule by affection and love rather than by fear to those who do right. Obviously, there's a place for fear to those who do wrong. So, John quotes Julius Caesar here, a very helpful quote. It says this, and I'll explain afterwards because the last part's a little tricky. The commander who does not labor in order that he may be loved by his soldiers does not know the weapons with which to arm them and does not know that those opposed to the humanity of a commander towards his corpse are the real enemy. In other words, love is the currency that purchases self-sacrificing loyalty from your subordinates, or from one subordinates. Yet, its opposite is the very fuel to purchase a bullet in the back. So Julius Caesar understood this at least with his men. So the prince above all must seek the needs of others above his own private will. That's why he exists. Any office of government exists to serve, not to be served. And this is why governing officials are to be honored. Not primarily because they're lords over us, but rather because they have committed their lives to service. And that deserves honor. So, John does get more specific than that. Like I said, he was a bit of a theologian. He takes 30 pages to develop the passage from Deuteronomy 17, and he applies it to rulers. So, Deuteronomy 17 is where Moses tells the people of Israel, you're going to come into the land, and when you come into the land at some point, you're going to ask for a king over you. And when you ask for a king over you, this is what that king is supposed to look like. So, that's what Moses says, but John takes all of those commands and applies it to all kings everywhere. Which is interesting, because there's some interesting phrases in there. So, first of all, verse 16 in Deuteronomy 17 forbids the king to multiply horses. So John interprets that to mean for present rulers that the king is not to collect more than necessity requires, whether by reason of vainglory or because of another error. Verse 16 goes on to say that the king is not to cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses. You know, he might be a little bit of allegorical here in his interpretation, much like we saw Gregory the Great last week. But basically, his application, I think, stands. He says here that the king's bad example can lead the people into a place of darkness and confusion. Because remember, Egypt is typified as the world in the scriptures. So, don't cause the people to return to Egypt and multiply horses. Verse 17, the king is required to not multiply silver or gold. That is to say, of course this is not a restriction, John points out that this is not a restriction against wealth, but one against greed. And he points to Solomon, the Old Testament example of this, who made gold and silver common, and yet Solomon wasn't guilty of this because he wasn't greedily filling his stomach with it. Verse 18 records that the king is to write down a copy of the law, and verse 19 says that he is to read it always so that he will fear the Lord his God. So, John takes this to mean that if a king is going to make law, which is what the role of government is, kind of, to reflect right law anyway, then he must have in mind the divine law. If the king does not have this in mind, which is created in the mind by the Word of God itself, and he cannot rightly do this down here. So John says this, quote, all censures of law are void if they do not bear the image of the divine law, and the ordinances of the prince is useless if it does not conform to ecclesiastical discipline. So this, of course, is similar to what we've already looked at, and above the line and below the line. So lastly, in verses 20 and 21, the king is not to have his heart lifted above his countrymen, nor is he to turn aside to the right or to the left. So this is kind of a horizontal command here. It's to say that the king is to stay on the straight path, because turning to the left, John says, would mean that he is excessively inclined towards punishing the faults of the subjects, Or, if he turns to the right, he is excessively indulgent out of mercifulness towards evildoers. So, staying on that straight path prevents excesses in either being too harsh or being too lenient. So, what about the sword? What about the sword and the prince? Can the benevolent prince kill as well as heal? John says here that there is a way in which a ruler sheds blood and does this completely innocently. He says that one may frequently kill and still not be a man of blood, nor incur the accusation of murder or crime. If one may believe the great Augustine, David is called a man of blood, not as a result of war, but as a result of Uriah. And Samuel is nowhere indicted as a man of blood or murderer, although he killed Agag, the obese king of Amalek. So when blood is improperly shed, it's because the prince is seeking selfish gain. So, however, blood can be shed in a way where law is being satisfied and the prince's hands stay clean. So, closing this section, John echoes the words of Proverbs, which says this. This is Proverbs 28, 12. When the righteous triumph, there is great glory. John saw a symbiotic relationship between the people and her prince. One does indeed affect the other. When a good government reigns, it sows the seeds of a rejoicing people. Alright, so this last section now on the tyrant. So piggybacking off that last proverb, Proverbs 28.12, Solomon finishes it by saying this, When the wicked rise, people hide themselves. Now these wicked who rise to power are tyrants. Now John has a lot to say about them in all three categories, so he gives three of them. Public, private, and priestly tyrants. And we're gonna focus mostly here on this last section on the public. So already he said that the prince bears the image of divinity. Here he says that the tyrant bears the image of depravity. That is, the tyrant reflects the first usurper. And Satan was the original tyrant seeking to steal God's throne, and his defiled progeny follow in his fallen footsteps. So please turn with me to Isaiah 14. We're going to be looking at verses 12 through 15. So keep tyrant and usurper in mind as we're reading this. Here Isaiah says this, how you are fallen from heaven, O day star, sun of dawn. How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low. You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven above the stars of God. I will set my throne on high. I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will make myself like the Most High. But you are brought low down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. So there, I don't know if it's controversy, but there's speculation here as to who Isaiah is talking about exactly. It could be Satan, or it could be the king of Babylon, but for our purposes here, it doesn't really matter, because either one of those possibilities were usurping tyrants, and thus this is the theme song of all tyrants. I will set my throne on high. I will make myself like the most high. So even if this song is not explicitly sung by the tyrant, It matters little. Remember Herod's fate in Acts 12. He came before the people of Tyre and he spoke eloquently to them. And then they responded by saying this, this is the voice of a God and not a man. And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down because he did not give God the glory and he was eaten by worms and he breathed his last. So Herod was a usurping tyrant, but in this case only by simple omission. Now certainly his whole life was marked by tyranny, but here he was struck down because he didn't give glory to God as being the only true king. Fast forward 12 centuries later, and we see John here closing in on the definition of what a tyrant is according to him. So he says this, a tyrant is one whom rashly usurps that which is not his. who oppresses the people by violent domination, who is involved in vile affairs, and who, by the judgment of the just God, becomes more vile yet, and who aspires to glitter in the preference of popular opinion rather than to glare in the blaze of his charitable works. Tyranny, in its essence, is the opposite of the righteousness of God. It disguises itself as a law, down here below the line, but really it's pointing to something different, which isn't even above the line, because evil is a corruption, of course. So it's an imposter. Tyranny is an imposter to the throne. There's no congruency between the rule of a tyrant and the rule of God. So instead of being the ordained instrument of justice, the tyrant has perverted himself into an instrument of iniquity. The tyrant is one who seeks to dethrone God. John says the tyrant is one who usurps power, suppresses justice, and places the law beneath his will. Although there are many forms of high treason, none of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Now, one question that might be relevant to ask at this point is, why are there tyrants? If God ordains all government, which is exactly what Romans 13 says, why would he ordain a usurping God-hater? John answers this by saying this, by means of tyrants, the evil are punished and the good are corrected and trained. For both the sins of the people caused hypocrites to reign, and, as the history of Kings witnesses, the defects of priests introduced tyrants into the people of God. So tyrants are for judgment on the wicked and for training the righteous. That's the purpose that they serve. Now there are numerous examples of this in scripture. In the book of Isaiah, God calls Cyrus and Darius, who are wicked Gentile tyrants, to come and punish and purge his people Israel. In addition to that, the last part of what John said here is that there is a genetic connection between priestly tyrants and public tyrants, or government tyrants. The former allows the latter. Priestly tyrants, in one sense, kind of creates public tyrants. If leaven is allowed into the church leadership, it will ruin the whole lump of society, because it causes the people of God to think differently and wrongly. So, as to the removal of this lump, John is not shy, although he's careful to distinguish between those three, public, private, and priestly. So, the latter two, he says, are to be dealt with differently, but as far as the public tyrant, he's pretty vocal. By the way, did we look at Caligula at all? A little bit? Man, if you want an expose of Caligula and Nero, that is the book to read. He just lists all of their... atrocities and you're reading it and you're like, I cannot believe the crap that they pulled. So what John does here is he lists those secular tyrants and he also lists tyrants that are found in the scripture. And so he gives two points of view on how to deal with tyrants. So here's the first one. It is not only permitted, but it is equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword. It is also accepted that it is just for public tyrants to be killed and the people liberated for obedience to God. And one need not look any further, I think as a good example of this, than the last century in the man of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was executed in a concentration camp after he was discovered in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. In this conspiracy, by definition, Bonhoeffer engaged in deceit. But John has a medicine for this vice. He says this, that which maintains the faith and serves charity is not deceitful. So I agree with these comments in part because of the lesser to greater argument. So unless a person is a consistent pacifist all the way across the board, then the tyrant who is pillaging and raping on the streets should be stopped as well as the very public tyrant who is doing it on an exponentially bigger scale. Secondly, I see the justification for this in Romans 13 itself. Maybe we should turn back there real quick. Romans 13 3. Paul says this, for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. So I take it to mean that when rulers cease becoming a terror to the bad and take aim at the good, then they are trespassing. They are showing themselves that they are no longer an instrument of the law, but rather need to be subjugated to it themselves. And it's the duty of citizens and other politicians alike to repent, and to humble themselves, and then to eradicate this tyrant through the use of the sword that God ordained for those who break the law. Justice demands this. For the law was established to protect the very innocent who the tyrant seeks to devour. John's second point of view, in John's second point of view, he points to David. So here he takes a different approach. So David he points out, who aside from his own tyrannical abuse of Uriah, suffered at the hands of many tyrants, not the least of which being Saul. So David chose to deal with tyrants in a different way. Now, he did slay private tyrants for usurping their authority, but he chose to let God deal with the tyrant who abused him directly either by his natural death or by the hands of his enemies. John says here that, quote, this method of eradicating tyrants is the most useful and the safest. Those who are oppressed should humbly resort to the protection of God's clemency and raising up pure hands to the Lord in devoted prayer. The scourge with which they are afflicted will be removed. My point of view is that there's a place for both. Like Ecclesiastes says here, there's a time to kill and a time to heal. There's a time to love, a time to hate, a time for war, and a time for peace. It takes discernment to know which is the right course. And we can look back to the founders of this country, certainly, who weighed out these two options and toggled between the two of them until the former was the only choice left to choose. There was lots of people who did not want to fight King George based on these texts. But in the end, it was King George who was the tyrant causing this oppression, who was stepping outside of the bounds of law. So for more on this, stay tuned for the summer semester. But for now, we're going to close. So if you guys have any questions, we'll go ahead and open it up.