This evening's talk will be given by Peter Allison. Peter is a former submarine officer, naval nuclear engineer, headmaster, college instructor, and diamond grower. There's a story there, because he has lots of stories. He graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis and completed postgraduate studies in electrical engineering at the University of Texas in Austin, also known as TU. Following a teaching assignment on the engineering faculty at the U.S. Naval Academy, Peter resigned his commission in 1994 to avoid participation in the unconstitutional acts of aggression planned for the U.S. Armed Forces. That lets you know what you're in store for. He holds five engineering patents and is the author of a book, Dollar Nonsense, which is fantastic, by the way, explaining why the Federal Reserve represents to our economy what Planned Parenthood represents to an unborn baby and what the Bible has to say about economic disaster. Peter also serves as pastor of Crown and Covenant Reform Presbyterian Church. He is my pastor, my mentor, and most of all, my friend. So please join me in welcoming Peter Allison. Well, good evening. Our question for tonight is Should the civil magistrate be responsible for enforcing both tables of the Ten Commandments, both tables of the law? What a topic for the same week that ISIS has beheaded another journalist. The answer to that question is yes. Yes, but why? We're going to be using the word law a lot tonight. And the Bible uses the word law a lot tonight, so let me first give you some definitions of how the Bible uses that word, law. The Bible talks about law as a principle, a system. In Romans 3, where is boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, by the law of faith. So it's using the word law there to refer to a system of truth, of doctrine, of principle. Secondly, the Bible uses the word law to refer to the ceremonies associated with the worship of the Old Covenant in the tabernacle. Paul writes in Hebrews, for the law having a shadow of good things to come, that those laws pointed forward to Christ. He goes on to talk about how those laws have been fulfilled in Christ. But the Bible also, thirdly, uses the word law to talk about the moral law, the moral law, what we think of as the Ten Commandments. But really, that's just a summary of the moral law. The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments. And so that's another way that the Bible speaks of the law. Jesus said, have you not read in the law? how that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath. He's talking about have you not read in the Ten Commandments that say remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy and the priests profane that law when they work, but they're blameless. The fourth way the Bible uses that word law is it speaks of the Pentateuch. the Pentateuch, those first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And Jesus said in Luke 24, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me. You notice there are the three major divisions of the Old Testament Scripture, the law, the writings, and the prophets. So he's using the word law there to refer to the Pentateuch. And fifthly, the law is used to refer to the scriptures as a whole. Jesus told the Jews in John 10, He said, is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods. Now, he was quoting from Psalm 82, quoting verbatim from Psalm 82. But he said, don't you know that it's written in your law? So Jesus is using the word law there to refer to all of the scriptures. Paul said, I delight in the law of God after the inward man. Jesus said to the Pharisees, you remember, in this long series of woes that he prescribed to them, he said, you tithe in all these little things, you know, the little spices, the mint, the cumin, you tithe in that. You're very scrupulous about keeping that. But you have forgotten the weightier matters of the law. And what's he going to suggest? Murder, adultery? No, the weightier matters of the law are mercy and faith and judgment. These, he says, you ought to have done and not left the others undone. So he's obviously using, when he says you have omitted the weightier matters of the law, he's saying you've omitted the weightier matters of the scriptures in your straining at these little laws. So there are five senses then, at least as I've broken out, in which the Bible uses the word law. And there are there are many passages where the New Testament uses the word law to refer to Old Testament commands. And there are places where the law is used to refer broadly without explicit reference to Old Testament commands. But nowhere, nowhere is the law ever used just to refer to New Testament commands, whatever those might be. Nowhere does the Bible ever limit law to just what's in the New Testament. So tonight, when I use the word law, you can think of it as the scriptures. You can think of it particularly as the moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. There are other summaries of the law. Jesus gave one to somebody who wanted to know what the greatest commandment in the law was. He said, The law was, you shall love your Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strengthens your neighbor as yourself. And these two commandments hang all the law in the Prophets. So there's an even shorter summary. Ten commandments are a lengthier summary. If we read all of the scriptures, we have the full law of God. And so that's the sense then in which I'm using this word tonight. And so we want to ask the question, is the law valid today? Are those commands in the Pentateuch valid for us today? Should we be reading them and studying them and seeking to understand them and obey them and apply them in our life? If you have your Bibles, you can turn with me to Matthew 5 in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and He answers this question very simply and very directly. He says in verse 17 of Matthew 5, that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Christ came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He says, do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. Either one. I didn't come to destroy the Law. I didn't come to destroy the Prophets. I certainly didn't come to destroy the both of them. So what does this word fulfill mean? Well, you can look the Greek word there up in a dictionary. The meaning is really not all that hard to grasp. The word simply means to bring to a desired end, to carry into effect a promise, a purpose, a desire, a hope, a duty, a prophecy, a request, and so on. That's all it means. It means to carry into effect, to fulfill the law then means to obey the law. In regards to prophecy, it means to do or to bring to pass what was prophesied. So with respect to the law, Jesus is saying that He came to obey the law. He came to keep the law. With respect to the prophets, Jesus is saying He came to do all. that was prophesied of him. Now this word fulfill, it's translated fulfill in your Bible, if you have a King James or New King James, that's used about 17 other times in Matthew. Matthew uses this word more than any other book in the New Testament, although it's used a number of other places, probably close to a hundred. But in Matthew, because that's the context of our passage, in Matthew, in all but two of those cases, that is what this word means. So even though if you look in the dictionary, the definition I read for you is like the third or fourth definition, yet when you look at the context of the book of Matthew, that's the overwhelming application and the way this word is used. Every time it says Jesus did something or said something that it might come to pass, or that it might be fulfilled, which was written. It's using the same word. So Jesus is saying He came to fulfill the law. He came so that the law would be obeyed. But He goes on to state the conclusion of this doctrine in verse 19. And this leaves us no doubt. This immediate context leaves us no doubt in what sense He meant the word fulfill. because he's on to say, whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever teaches and does them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. You see, Jesus goes on to give an explanation that is very consistent with a meaning of this word, fulfill, meaning to obey, to bring to fruition, to carry into effect. to perform or to execute the law. Jesus goes on to say, therefore, because I have come to keep the law, and I didn't come to destroy it, whoever teaches people to disregard these laws will be leased. But whoever does these laws and obeys them will be great in the kingdom. But it's interesting here that Jesus does not stop with the statement that He came to fulfill the law. Jesus goes on to say something more. Something actually quite astounding. It says in verse 18, Assuredly, assuredly, verily, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. He's saying here that not only should the law be obeyed, he's saying that the law would be obeyed. Did you catch that? I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Now, that word is a different word than what was what Matthew used in verse 17. This is a word that's used even more often in the Bible, and it means come to pass, come to pass. Jesus is saying heaven and earth can't pass away until all the law comes to pass. Again, Matthew and Luke account for over one third of the uses of this word, the word that's translated fulfill here. They account for about one third of the uses in the New Testament. Luke is by far and away the most. Well over a hundred times he uses this word that's translated fulfill here. And it's talking about all the things that Jesus did or a narrative when something came to pass, something happened, something came to pass. But when it's an event, a historical event has come to pass. And so it's used a lot in describing a narrative. But when it's used of commands as it's being used here, it means for that command to be performed or fulfilled. When Jesus prayed in the garden, you remember, as He's groaning, as He's in agony, and He prays, Father, not My will, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me, but not My will, but Your will be done. That's the word He uses right here. Your will be done. Let Your will come to pass. Let Your law, what You have willed, let that come to pass. A little later in this same sermon, when he's teaching the disciples how to pray, one of the petitions that he taught us to pray was your will be done. Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done. And that's the same word there. Thy will be done. What are we praying for when we pray? Your will be done. We're praying that the law of God would be obeyed. We're praying that his kingdom would advance in this world, and we're praying that his law would be obeyed where? In heaven? No. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, as it is already being done in heaven. God's will is perfectly obeyed in heaven. but we're to pray that His will might be obeyed on earth as well. And so when Jesus says that not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled, Jesus is promising to answer our prayers. Do you ever look for an answer for your prayer? Do you expect Jesus to answer your prayer? Do you pray the Lord's Prayer? I'm sure you all do. Do you expect God to answer it? The answer, the prayer was that God's will would be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Do you expect God to answer that? We should. And not only because God promised to answer our prayers, but he gives us here a very specific promise to that prayer. He says that the condition for heaven and earth passing away. In other words, the condition for my second coming, my return is that the law will be fulfilled. that my will will be done here on earth as it is done in heaven. So what do you think? Do you think we need to obey the law of God today? I think Jesus would say, yes, you've got the right idea there. But we have a number of other examples in the New Testament as well. We should expect that. If we have the right understanding of this passage, we should expect that it will be consistent with the rest of the New Testament. So we don't see anything, any hint in Jesus' teaching that the law is somehow less binding today than it used to be or than it was on Old Testament Christians. And we see the apostles following the exact same example. They argue from Old Testament laws to exhort us to duty in the New Testament age. The apostles argue from Old Testament ceremonial laws to exhort us to our duty in the New Testament today. Old Testament ceremonial laws that have been fulfilled and we don't keep them in there in the form of bringing bulls and goats and slitting their throats and sprinkling their blood upon the altar because Christ has shed his blood and he has entered the heavenly holy of holies and he sprinkles his blood on that furniture to cleanse it. But nevertheless, Paul argues, for example, in 2 Corinthians 8.15, he's talking about the need for those who have much to help those who don't have very much. Paul cites the principle of equity that's taught in the Old Testament in Exodus 16. Exodus 16 said that he who gathered little manna should have no lack, and he who gathered much should have no excess. And the context of that law was Moses saying, gather in accordance with the number of mouths that you have to feed. If you have only a couple people, gather just enough for a couple people. If you have a lot, God would supply enough for your great need. And so nobody would have a lack. And Paul goes right to that law, which is clearly passed. That law was done, fulfilled when Israel entered the promised land. That law was fulfilled years before Christ came and passed away in one sense. And yet Paul goes back and argues from the equity of that law, from the principle that's contained there, to teach us about how we ought to be able to minister to one another, to make up the lack that some have if the Lord has given us a lot more, such that there should be no lack. Paul does the same thing again in 1 Corinthians 9 and in 1 Timothy 5.17. He's talking about the need to pay pastors, that a labor is worthy of his hire. And if you have a pastor who's laboring in the Word and sacrament, then he deserves to earn his living through that labor. Now, what does he quote? He quotes an Old Testament ceremonial or judicial law, I should say, a judicial law that said you shall not muzzle an ox as it treads out the grain in Deuteronomy 25. And he argues from that principle that the ox was worthy to eat of the grain that it was threshing, to say that a pastor today is worthy to receive wages for his work. He uses, you see what he did, he uses an Old Testament ceremonial law to exhort the Corinthians to a New Testament duty, paying a New Testament elder. So what do you think Paul thinks about the law of God? Well, he thinks it's binding. He even quotes from the laws that have passed away to apply the principle to us today. But maybe you're not convinced yet. Maybe you're not convinced. Let me try this approach. Do you still sin? I won't ask you to raise your hand, I'd have to raise mine too. But if you agree that you still sin, then you agree that the law is still binding. Because what is sin? Sin is a transgression of the law, of God's law. Whoever commits sin, John wrote, transgresses also the law, for sin is a transgression of the law, 1 John 3.4. So if sin is a transgression of the law and you acknowledge that you still sin, then you are acknowledging that you have a duty to obey the law of God, which you haven't been doing. See, if there was no obligation for us to obey the law of God today, then it would be impossible for us to sin. There would be no law to be disobeyed. Sin is only possible where there is a law. Paul says that too. Paul tells us in Romans 5.13 that sin is not imputed where there is no law. All right, who's left? Who haven't I convinced yet? Well, maybe there are some of you here that don't think you sin. I actually know people like that. I even debated a gentleman like that, believed that, of that persuasion. And to be fair, his wife agreed with him. She said in the preface to one of his books that she had not seen him sin in 10 years. And that was 20 years ago. Well, maybe you're one of those. And you say, all we need is love. Love, love. All we need is love. in the New Testament today? Well, the New Testament doesn't let you escape the need to obey the law because we are commanded in numerous places to love God and to love one another, aren't we? Anybody disagree with that? Doesn't the New Testament command us in many places and the Old Testament to love God and to love one another? Well, Jesus said that to love Him means that we keep His commandments. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments, Jesus said in John 14. Paul says the same thing in Romans 13 in his exposition on the civil magistrate. He actually says, love is the fulfilling of the law. So if all you think you need is love, you'll get quite far. It's reported that the Apostle John used to say to his church, love one another. And if they ever asked him again, whenever they asked him what he had to say, he would say, love one another. And they said, well, why do you keep saying that, John? And he said, well, if you do that, I won't have to tell you anything else. Love is the fulfilling of the law. O no man anything but to love one another, for he that loves another has fulfilled the law." So if you're going to love one another, you're going to keep the law. Apostle John says, by this we know that we love the children of God when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. So if you're going to love God, you're going to have to keep His commandments. You're going to have to recognize that His law brings obligations upon your life. This is the love of God that we keep His commandments and His commandments aren't grievous. And this is love that we walk according to His commandments, 2 John 1, 6. The command of love isn't a new command, it's an old one. Beloved, I am writing to you no new commandment, but an old commandment. So love is defined as obedience to the law of God. If you have a duty to love, then you have a duty, the Bible says, to obey the law of God. Hopefully you're persuaded. I think that's a pretty strong and conclusive case that the law of God is obligatory for us today. It defines our life as Christians. It's the pattern of our sanctification. But somebody might say, yeah, OK, those exhortations, they're good for the church. And yes, we need to keep these commandments. But what about the unbelievers? Can we really expect unbelievers to obey the law? I mean, are these laws really binding on them too? Well, God thinks they are. You remember in Judges when the Philistines captured the ark in battle, and they were so proud to have that ark. They took it home, and they set it up in their Dagon's temple. And then what happened? Well, they came in the next day, and they found that Dagon had fallen over. And then they tried again, and then they found that Dagon was missing a few pieces. And then they found that they were starting to get sick and they were having all kinds of problems. Why? Because the ark was there and they weren't following God's commands and caring for it. And God brought all sorts of judgments upon them. So they cried out, what do we do? And they were given some directions how to make some images of gold and and so on and how to deliver the ark back to Israel. And they followed them to the letter and they they followed that ark to left their country. God brought sanctions upon those pagan people who had no training, no understanding of all of the laws that God gave to Moses regarding the care and how that tabernacle and ark was to be cared for. God expected them to obey his commandments. God was holy. In fact, he killed thousands of Israelites when that ark came back because they looked inside of it, something they weren't allowed to do. You remember in 2 Kings, after the king of Assyria had conquered the northern kingdom, and he carted all the people off to other lands, that was what the Assyrians did in those days, and he brought in other people. He brought in people from Babylon and Cuthah and Abba and Hamath and so forth, all sorts of people that were pagan. They had no idea about the law of God. And they settled in Samaria, but they didn't know how to fear the Lord. They didn't know how to walk in his ways. And God sent lions among them that killed some of them. They didn't even have the law of God. They never had somebody that went up to a mountain and got the law. They had no instruction. And yet God expected them to obey his commandments. And so they cried out to the king and the king sent one of the priests back to the people to teach them how to obey the law of God so that they could live in the land. Proverbs 14, 34 says righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to people who go to church. Oh, no, I'm sorry, it's the people who have been baptized, made a profession of faith. No. Sin is a reproach to any people. Remember what sin is. Transgression of the law of God. Sin is a reproach to any people. Righteousness exalts a nation. What is righteousness? Obedience to the law of God. Sin is a reproach, not just to Israel, any nation. All men, everywhere, are obligated to obey the law of God. All kings receive their authority from God. Jesus stood in front of Pilate, a pagan king, and said, you would have no authority except what's been given to you by God. Paul said that the civil magistrate, the king, is God's minister to execute God's vengeance on those who do evil. God's vengeance comes on those who break the law of God. That means the civil magistrate. If he is God's minister to bring God's vengeance on those who do evil, then the civil magistrate must enforce the law of God. He's not a law to himself. His punishments are not his own. His authority to bring wrath upon people. To bring the wheel over evildoers comes from God Himself. And He must then, therefore, bring God's punishment upon the violation of God's law. Now, do you see anywhere where any time did Jesus, the apostles, the prophets, the psalmists, David, anybody, did they ever say, law part two but not part one? No, the law of God is one. It's a unified whole. James says just the opposite. He says you can't break one commandment without breaking them all. So we cannot divide the law of God arbitrarily down the middle. We have absolutely no justification to do so in scripture. But I would like to now move on and show you that this is not a recent innovation of a few crazy right-wing radical theologians of the 20th century. I brought a few copies of things, a few documents. I have a copy of what John Fisk called one of the first constitutions of the West, certainly the first constitution of Connecticut. These were people who settled in what would be the middle of Connecticut today in the cities that eventually became Windsor, Wethersfield, and Hartford, Connecticut. I don't have an exact count, but I have a list here of some 55 people who were registered in just one of the 55 families registered in Windsor in 1640. And that's just one of the cities. We know there was about 16,000 acres was deeded over to 92 families around one of the cities. And there was 132 people in another one of the cities. And those were done in the early 1630s. My point here is there were several hundred people being represented here, maybe even a thousand or two people being represented here. They gathered together on January 24, 1639. They wanted to organize themselves as a civil government. Civil government, not a church. This is a civil matter. And here's how their constitution opens. For as much as it has pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of His divine providence, so to order and dispose of things that we, inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersford, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands thereto adjoining. We've been gathered here And we know that where a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people, there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God. We're not talking about them setting up a church. They're talking about setting up a civil government. Where a people are gathered together, The Word of God requires that we establish a decent and ordered government in order to dispose and order the affairs of the people at all seasons as the occasions require. Now, here is what they're going to purpose themselves to do. Remember, they're speaking as a civil body. This is what they say is the purpose of their civil government. Listen closely. We associate and conjoin ourselves to be one public state or commonwealth first to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which we now profess. Did you get that? They said that their first purpose as a commonwealth, not a church, as a commonwealth was to preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we now profess. The second reason, as also the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced among us. Our second purpose, in other words, is to preserve peace for the liberty of the church so that the church is able to accomplish its mission of gathering the elect and teaching them, making disciples of them. And then thirdly, the purpose of their civil government is that as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such laws, rules, orders, and decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as follows. And then they go on to talk about the very mundane and pedestrian matters of how we elect representatives and how we try cases in courts and so on. after saying that the purpose of all this is first and foremost to preserve the liberty of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which we now believe. January 24, 1639, the very first constitution in the Western world. Six months later, their neighbors to the south said, hey, that's a good idea. They organized the government. They elect their own leaders. They make their own laws. They're self-governing. We need to do the same thing. June 4, 1639. down in New Haven. New Haven is just off the coast there in the south of Connecticut. The fourth day of June, called June 1639, all the free planters, these are farmers, folks, these are farmers, the free planters assembled together in a general meeting. Now let's see how much these farmers know about establishing civil government. John Davenport, he was one of the people invited to the Westminster Assembly but declined because his two other compatriots over here also declined, was one who was present down here and probably had a hand, some hand in guiding these affairs. And he pronounced a couple queries to the people. He's going to have the people vote on some resolutions. And this is what he says, I'm going to propose some questions to you and I want you to consider seriously. in the presence and fear of God, the weight of the business that we are about to do. And don't be rash and don't give your vote to things just because everybody else is raising their hand. That's not a good reason to vote. Instead, you are to digest fully and thoroughly what will be propounded to you. And without respect of men, in other words, don't look at what your neighbor is doing. I want you to prayerfully before the Lord weigh these matters. And then vote your conscience as a farmer. Give your answer in such a way as you would be willing to stand upon the record for posterity. Don't take this lightly. There's a few people in a church in Houston, 400 years from now, they're going to be reading what you decided. First question. whether the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of men in all duties, which they are to perform to God and men in families and commonwealth as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church. In other words, is the Bible the guide for what we do in our commonwealth like it is the guide for what we do in the church? The question he asked. This was assented unto all, no man dissenting, as was expressed by holding up of hands. That was unanimous, folks. The people of New Haven unanimously said that the Bible is to be the law of our commonwealth as much as it is to be the law of our church. Now, just to make sure, they took a second vote. Afterwards, it was read over to them that they might see in what words their vote was expressed, and they again expressed their consent by holding up their hands. No man dissenting. Unanimous. Query two. whereas there was a covenant solemnly made by the whole assembly of free planters of this plantation, that we would all of us be ordered by those rules which Scripture holds forth to us. This covenant was called a plantation covenant to distinguish it from a church covenant, which could not at that time be made, a church not yet being gathered." They're making it very clear. They didn't even have a church organized yet. They're organizing a civil government and they're saying that the Scriptures bind them. It was demanded whether all the free planters do hold themselves bound by that covenant in all business transactions of that nature which are expressed in the covenant to submit themselves to be ordered by the rules held forth in the Scripture. In other words, when you do business, when you plant your wheat, when you sell it at the market, are you agreeing that you need to be bound by the Scriptures? They said yes. Then Mr. Davenport, and there were a few more queries which I'm not going to go through, but then Mr. Davenport declared to them by the scripture what kind of persons must best be trusted with matters of government and by sundry arguments from scripture prove that such were men as were described in Exodus 18.2. And what's in Exodus 18.2? Those are the qualifications that the Bible gives for civil office. Original charter of the colony of New Haven. June 4, 1639. The Bible, all the Bible, is the law for our commonwealth. All right, let's get better. Massachusetts Body of Liberty, 1641, a document that was probably written by Nathaniel Ward, a nonconformist minister, educated at Cambridge Emanuel College. immigrated over to America. This document, this Massachusetts Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 was the law of the land until it was revoked by King Charles II in 1684. It was adopted by the General Court of Massachusetts as the law. It's an incredible document, just astounding for its foresight, its wisdom, the liberties that it gives to people. But I want to draw your attention to something way in the back. Before I get there, let me just give you the introduction. It opens with the words, the free fruition of such liberties, immunities, and privileges as humanity, civilities, and Christianity calls for, as do every man in his place in proportion, that tends to the stability and tranquility of the church and the commonwealth. And that if we don't have these liberties, then neither will prosper. We do therefore this day religiously and unanimously decree and confirm these following rights, liberties, and privileges concerning our churches and civil state to be respectively, impartially, and inviolately enjoyed and observed. And then it goes on to talk about all sorts of things that you would expect in a civil constitution. You know, how people can be arrested, imprisoned, tried, convicted, all those sorts of things. What rights people have. You know, what if a guy dies and disinherits his wife, doesn't give her enough to live on? Well, then she has the freedom to come to the court and sue the court, and the court should grant her a competent portion of her husband's estate. And so on. It's an amazing document. I want to go back to paragraph 94 in this document. Paragraph 94. Herein are given the capital laws of this country, Connecticut, which were in effect in this land for 40 years. Number one. We're in Section Article 94, Massachusetts Body of Liberty, Capital Laws. The first thing it says is Deuteronomy 13, 6, verse 6 and 10. Deuteronomy 17, verse 2 and 6. Exodus 22, verse 20. If any man, after legal conviction, shall have or worship any other God but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Two. Exodus 22, verse 18. Leviticus 20, verse 27. Deuteronomy 18, verse 10. If any man or woman be a witch that is half or consults with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Three Leviticus 24, 15 and 16. This is in the civil law. This is the civil code here. I'm reading just so you're clear. If any person shall blaspheme the name of God, the father, the son or the Holy Ghost with direct express presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse God in a like manner, he shall be put to death. Exodus 21, 12, Numbers 35, 13, 14, 30, and 31. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred or cruelty, not in a man's necessary and just defense, nor by a mere casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Goes on to list several more laws. Leviticus then comes down to number seven, Leviticus 20, verse 15 and 16. If any man or woman shall lie with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation, they shall be put to death and the beast shall be slain and buried and not eaten. Eight, Leviticus 20, verse 13. If any man lies with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed abomination. They both shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20.19 and 18 and 20. Deuteronomy 22, verse 23 and 24. If any man commits adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death. 10. Exodus 21.16. If any man steals a man or mankind, he shall surely be put to death. 11. Deuteronomy 19, verse 16, 18, and 19. If any man rise up by false witness wittingly and of purpose to take away man's life, he shall be put to death. And that was the civil law of the land for 40 years. until a wicked king, wanting to impose his own laws, overturned it. Also have another document. This is from July 1, 1646. Now this is not a civil document. This is a church synod held in Cambridge, New England, before it was called Massachusetts. And it's titled, The Duty of the Civil Magistrate to Enforce the First Table of the Law. It opens on July 1, 1646, a synod met at Cambridge, Massachusetts to discuss the following question. Does the civil magistrate have power to command or forbid things respecting outward man in matters of religion or the first table, which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word? And two, number two, and to inflict suitable punishments according to the nature of the transgression against the same. And all this with reference to godly peace. In other words, this is not dealing with the church's authority to deal with adult idolaters, blasphemers and so forth. This is dealing. This is the church as ministers gathering together in a synod to decide whether this what the scriptures say about the civil magistrate having jurisdiction in the outward form of these commandments, the outward form. And their answer is a resounding yes, he does. Now they go on for a lengthy document here to discuss objections and things, and I'll just touch momentarily on a couple of them. So they make it very clear, they emphasize to remove all ambiguity, they are including under the authority of the civil magistrate purely evangelical matters only to the extent that these matters are expressed outwardly by the outward man. In other words, we're not talking about the inward sin. We're talking about the outward expression of idolatry, the outward, public, provoked expression of blasphemy. They also make clear that they mean the whole word, both in the Old and the New Testament. So when they talk about the first table, they're understanding that's simply a summary of the whole law of God. But they make clear that we're accepting those things that were ceremonial or peculiar to the Jewish civic state and clearly to be abolished in the New Testament. They also make clear that the civil magistrate has no authority to force persons into church, that's membership. or to force them to participation in the seals, the sacraments. That belongs exclusively to the church. And they make clear that he's only allowed to pass things that are commanded, explicitly commanded, or forbidden in the scriptures. They talk about the need to proceed slowly, that you don't just drop a new law that people aren't used to keeping. There needs to be a process of teaching the people. They talk about that. And then they deal with some objections, some objections. So obviously this was something debated even in their day. The third objection they list is that, well, if you allow the civil magistrate to make laws about the First Commandment, idolatry and blasphemy, then you're going to let the king be a tyrant. He's going to have tyrannical power over people. and he's going to infringe true liberty of conscience. However, their answer is, but the law of God is binding on all people. He can only command or forbid what the scriptures command or forbid. Truest liberty, so he's not binding their conscience except where the word of God does. Truest liberty of conscience is found in faithfully submitting to what God has commanded. the conscience being never in a truer or better state of liberty here on earth than when most engaged to walk according to God's commandments." Now, they also have another interesting objection. They say, well, it's going to be horrifically complicated for the civil magistrate to try and sort out all these intricate perplexities and hazards of conscience. It's going to be tough to get this law right, basically going to be a judge in matters of religion. You know what their answer is? He's got the same problem with the second table. He's got the same problem when he tries to enforce laws against lying, laws against theft, and so forth. And if you don't believe him, just look at our courts today as they wrap themselves up in all sorts of complexities trying to enforce the laws that they do enforce. And they're tyrants at it as well. So limiting them from enforcing the first table hasn't kept them from being tyrants in the least. And they go on to make very clear they're talking about the outward man. And they deal with a lot of the intricacies because there are a lot of intricacies here. But they deal with them. They discuss them. But that doesn't all, the difficulty that we have in carrying out these duties as a civil magistrate should not mean that we are therefore excused from carrying these duties out. Well, maybe you're asking now, well, wow, why would anyone vote to pass such draconian laws on themselves? Well, why would anyone pass a law allowing the federal government to take 90% of what you earn? Why would anyone allow, pass a law making it illegal to have a weapon for self-defense in your own house? Why would anybody be so stupid as to pass a law like that? Why would anybody make it illegal in their land to drill a well on their property. Or, horrors, collect rainwater. It's illegal in some places. We're really a lot worse. Now, I should point out here that we are not talking about suspending the rule of law here and somehow simply imposing by some clerics with funny hats and black robes some series of laws. That would be an ecclesiocracy. That's not what we want. We're not looking for the church to implement the rules. We are not looking to suspend the rule of law. We are talking about here, what laws should you and I be working to pass in our country? Should we advocate a law that forbids anyone from worshiping God from building a mosque and bowing down to Allah in our land? Some people are having a problem with that, but they got a problem, don't they? If they if they say the civil magistrate can't enforce the first table, if you believe the civil magistrate should enforce the first table, you have no trouble saying, well, it should be against the law in our land to worship anyone other than Jehovah. But we're not talking about imposing these laws willy-nilly. We're talking about what laws should we work to make law in accordance with the law of our land, in accordance with the process by which laws become laws. And how does that process begin? Well, look at slavery. There was a time when it was pretty well universally concluded that anybody could own anybody if you had the money to buy them or capture them. And there were even Christians that participated in buying people that had been stolen from other countries. But but that law began to change as people began to proclaim the gospel and the word of God and said that's wrong to buy and sell people that people and people that have been stolen. First, you see, the church is beginning to preach the law of God. That's the first step. Is your church preaching the law of God today? That it is a capital crime to worship anyone other than Jehovah? That's the first step. Because it's through the preaching of the Word that hearts are changed. It's through the preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit that minds are changed about what is good. And so what happened? Christians began to stop buying stolen people. Christians began to free their slaves. And they taught others to do the same. As the church was faithful, as salt and light in proclaiming the gospel, social values began to turn against slavery. And about this time, a man by the name of Wilbur Wilberforce came along in England who worked tirelessly from within and without to change the laws of England to forbid buying and selling of slaves. And shortly after he died, that's what happened. Did anybody come along with a whip and threatened to hurt somebody if they didn't change the law? No. The people of England changed the law of their own accord. That's how the Lord's Spirit works. The people of England, using their process of passing laws, passed a law to end slavery. It took a while. It took a long time. It took 1,800 years. after the coming of Christ. But you know, it's outlawed in most countries of the world today. And that's what we're talking about. But it all has to start with the church. Those ministers that are called by God and sent to proclaim his word, they have to begin proclaiming his word. Now I want to make a comment here about the Westminster Confession, which teaches that judicial laws have ceased. Maybe you're wondering, well, do I believe that? Yes, I do. I think we make things, sometimes we make things far too complicated. Very simply, civil law ceases with the cessation of the civil order that enacted it. When you die, your marriage disappears. It doesn't exist anymore. And all the laws of your home would go with it. When a civil government ceases to exist, the laws that it enacted cease to exist. And so the civil laws of Israel ceased when Israel ceased to be a civil order. But those laws, Paul says, were written for our example, 1 Corinthians 10. They're written for our example, and Paul taught us, and we looked at that earlier, how he uses those laws as examples to us, to teach us and instruct us our duty. Because you see, in those civil laws of Israel, we have God applying his moral law to specific situations in their country. And what God does is always very instructive to us. We learn from it. God is telling us in his word how to deal with that particular situation. And if that particular situation applies in our land, then that solution would apply as well that God gives in his word. That will be the right application and the right understanding of God's moral law. But if that situation doesn't exist in our land, then that law doesn't have any application. directly. For example, everyone that's been around the block once or twice has heard this probably many times, but maybe you're new here tonight. There was a law that required building a fence, a parapet, around your house in Israel. Why? Because that's where people entertained. That's, remember, where Rahab took the spies. That's where she was threshing grain on the roof. And there's a danger With a good belly laugh, you might fall over the edge, unless there's a fence there to protect you. So what is that law? That law, that civil law, is the application of the Sixth Commandment about how to regard the life of our neighbor. How do we apply that today? Do I have a fence around my roof? No, I don't. Do I think I should? No. I don't do anything up there except re-roof once every, hopefully, 15 years. Maybe take a few twigs off. But what if you have a hole in the ground or in the road or a pool? Maybe a fence around that would be a good idea. And don't a lot of our civil laws today have such requirements? They do because of the Christian heritage of our country. You see, we apply those civil laws as they apply to our civil order. Where our situation differs, we may apply the law differently. But that's and I don't want to underestimate that is not a trivial task. We might disagree here tonight about how a particular law would apply to us. But what I hope we don't disagree on is that the law of God does apply to us. You know, this is the same way we treat the New Testament, the letter of Corinthians was written to who? Us? No. The letter of Corinthians was written to the Corinthians. The commands in the letter to the Corinthians were commands to the Corinthian church. But when Paul said, don't sue each other, we say to ourselves, we shouldn't sue each other. Because we stand in the same relation to one another and to Christ as the Corinthian church stood in relation to themselves and to Christ. And so Paul's command is as applicable to us as it was to them. And we apply it to us without even thinking about it. We don't think twice about, well, that law doesn't apply to me. That was written to the Corinthians. Well, that's the same way we should look at all of the law of God. Yes, those civil laws were written to Israel, but where they apply, they apply to us. God's law is one law. God is one. Where does God ever draw a line between the fourth and the fifth commandments and say, part one, part two? Nowhere that I can find. If you think that someone who killed another person deserves to die, But someone who blasphemes God does not. What do you really think of yourself in comparison to God? Isn't that saying that man is somehow more important than God? What do we call that? For man is preeminent. Humanism. That's humanism. Touch my child and I'll beat you to a bloody pulp. But you can blaspheme God all you want. Your child is more important to you than the living God who made you and made everything around us. Maybe you're saying, isn't that a theocracy? Wouldn't that be a theocracy if our civil law was like this Massachusetts body of liberties? Yes, it would be. But every government is a theocracy. Every culture has a God. The God of the culture is what that culture recognizes as the source of law and the source of life. That's the God of the culture. You want to identify the God of a culture? Look at what they identify as the source of life. And what do they look to for the source of truth and the standard of righteousness? Well, look at our culture. Not the Massachusetts Body of Liberty culture, but the culture after the Constitution. today. What is eternal? What has always existed? Matter. Where did all the knowledge come from to make everything that we see? According to them. Matter. It all came from matter. So the wisdom to make you and I, the wisdom to make the trees and make the sun go round, it all came from matter. That's all there was. That's all they believed there was. So matter is eternal. Matter is all wise. Where does right and wrong come from? It comes from the law of the jungle. It comes from atoms banging around in your brain. Matter. So matter is the source of law, ultimately, as interpreted by man. Matter really is our God. When you get tired, of worshiping matter, when you get weary of submitting to its tyranny, then Jesus has these words for you. Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and lowly, and you will find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy. My burden is light. God's law is the perfect law of liberty. If you don't want that, then you get what we have today.