Clean Transcript

The Bible And Law Enforcement - Part 2 of 3

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

• Chapter 22, we're going to be dealing with the second part of the Bible and law enforcement. I'm going to read the passage that I read last week and we'll review some of the principles and then add to them. So 1 Samuel chapter 22, beginning there with verse 6. When Saul heard that David was discovered and that the men that were with him—now Saul abode in Gibeah under a tree in Ramah, having his spear in his hand and all of his servants were standing around about him—then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, "Hear now, you

  #1 | 0:03 to 0:47 | cleaned

• Benjamites, will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards and make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, that all of you have conspired against me? And that there is none that showeth me that my son hath made a league or a covenant with the son of Jesse. And there is none of you that is sorry for me or showeth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me to lie in wait as at this day." Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over the servants of Saul, and said, "I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub.

  #2 | 0:47 to 1:23 | cleaned

• And he inquired of the Lord for him and gave him victuals and gave him the sword of Goliath, the Philistine." Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub.

  #3 | 1:23 to 1:33 | cleaned

• Now all his father's house, the priests were in Nob, and they came all of them to the king. And Saul said, "Hear now, thou son of Ahitub." And he answered, "Here am I, my lord." And Saul said unto him, "Why have you conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread and a sword, and has inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me to lie in wait at this day?" Then Ahimelech answered the king and said, "And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, who is the king's son-in-law, and goeth at thy bidding and is honorable in all thine house? Did I then begin to inquire of God for him?

  #4 | 1:34 to 2:16 | cleaned

• Be it far from me. Let not the king impute anything unto his servant nor to all the house of my father, for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more." And the king said, "Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou and all thy father's house." And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him, "Turn and slay the priests of the Lord, because their hand is also with David, and because they knew when he fled and did not show it me." But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the Lord. And the king said to Doeg, "Turn thou and fall upon the priests."

  #5 | 2:17 to 2:54 | cleaned

• And Doeg the Edomite turned and he fell upon the priests and slew that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children, sucklings, and oxen, asses, and sheep with the edge of the sword. And one of the sons of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.

  #6 | 2:55 to 3:19 | cleaned

• Now, in the first message last week, I emphasized a number of truths that I'll just touch on lightly today in way of review. But first of all, when we speak of law enforcement, the very first question that should come to your mind is whose law are we referring to? Whose law should be enforced? However, when we normally think of the subject of law enforcement, we normally think of man's law. And we think of man's law primarily because each one of us have received parking tickets, speeding tickets, and all other kind of tickets as well. But there is a huge difference between what you would call law and regulations, just like there is a huge difference between law and commerce.

  #7 | 3:20 to 4:09 | cleaned

• And many of you have heard of and possibly have even seen Sir William Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England. I also hope that you all know that those commentaries had a great effect upon American jurisprudence as well. We have basically forgotten the term common law, and may I point out that it is normally referred to as common law because it was based upon biblical law, it was based upon common sense and natural rights. So usually when you think about the common law, you have to also associate it with biblical law as well, because it is neither biblical right nor in the area of common sense to deprive a man of his life, liberty, and property for violating a regulation that is really not law and certainly does not have the force of law as well. True law enforcement deals with law. It does not deal in regulations that are not law.

  #8 | 4:09 to 5:22 | cleaned

• Most regulatory edicts and most regulatory statutes are nothing more than revenue enhancement schemes. And the simple truth is today that most law enforcement agencies have become nothing more than revenue enhancement officers and schemes to enrich the cities and the counties as well. They have strayed far from what you and I would call peacekeeping and for protection. I pointed out in times past, and I'm going to point it out again today, that there is a difference between the two Latin terms, which are also legal terms, mala in se, mala prohibita. When you talk about mala in se laws, mala in se refers to that which is evil in and of itself. Mala, of course, refers to that which is evil, in se, in and of itself. So when you're talking about mala in se laws, you're talking about murder and theft and rape and robbery, adultery, anything that's evil in and of itself. When you talk about mala prohibita laws, you're talking about laws that are evil only because they have been regulated as prohibited actions by man.

  #9 | 5:23 to 6:43 | cleaned

• For instance, do not walk on the grass. Do not drive over 55. Do not park here. You know, those are mala prohibita laws.

  #10 | 6:44 to 6:54 | cleaned

• Now, just to show you the common sense approach: It doesn't really matter what the posted speed limit is. You should also drive, always drive safely. I told people when you drive around Atlanta on 285, in one section, the posted speed limit is 55. I'm normally doing 70. You say, why are you speeding? Because if I did 55, I would get run over. I mean, literally. You just have to stay up with the traffic or you get run over. You say, well, you'll get a speeding ticket. Well, to be absolutely honest, I'd rather have a speeding ticket than be crushed to death by another automobile. It's just that simple. And in fact, around Atlanta on 285, they do not need radar. All they've got to do is pull people over because everybody is speeding. And if I'm doing 70 miles an hour, Alice can vouch for this. People are passing me like I'm sitting still. So I'm just simply saying, no, I'm not trying to necessarily speed, but I am trying to save my neck, and I'm trying to drive safely at the same time.

  #11 | 6:55 to 8:06 | cleaned

• But the truth of the matter is, you know, if I got pulled over for that, it would be simply mala prohibita. So if the law says I'm to drive 55, which I normally drive the speed limit, but if I drive 57, that does not mean that somehow I am inherently evil in and of myself, no. It's just, it's not a mala in se law, it is a mala prohibita law.

  #12 | 8:07 to 8:29 | cleaned

• Now, let me try to give you an illustration. See, most of your mala prohibita laws would really fall under the term of regulation, and they are more than anything else, nothing more than revenue enhancement schemes. Listen to this. A good illustration comes from Morrison, Colorado. Police Chief George Mumma, Jr. was forced to retire this past month after a meeting with town manager Kara Winters, who according to Mumma complained that his officers were not aggressive enough in writing traffic tickets. Now the chief refused to violate the rights of the citizens by preying upon them with writing tickets based upon face masks, traffic speed, and vehicle noise. And so since he refused to do that, they axed him.

  #13 | 8:29 to 9:29 | cleaned

• The chief was actually spending his time solving crimes and enforcing the law rather than regulations that enhanced the coffers of the city. And consequently, they fired him. So here is part of the article that I read. Listen. Mumma is the cop that most towns want as their chief. However, because government is dependent upon the extortion of citizens for survival, his role is seen as undesirable by city officials.

  #14 | 9:30 to 10:03 | cleaned

• Therein lies the source of predatory policing. Mandating that officers issue citations and make arrests is nothing more or nothing close to protecting and serving. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Requiring a minimum number of citations forces conflict and potentially hostile interactions in situations where there would normally be no conflict whatsoever. It truly forces police officers to create criminals out of innocent people in order to generate revenue or they face losing their jobs.

  #15 | 10:04 to 10:44 | cleaned

• Now, you have to understand that oftentimes enforcing regulations could indeed turn very violent. Here's a question. If you were a police officer, a deputy, and you saw someone with a broken taillight, how would you handle the situation? I have a good friend who lives in another state who is a reserve deputy. He's not a real deputy, but since he's a reserve deputy, he often rides with real deputies. And the deputy he was riding with pulled someone over for a taillight that was not working. And while the deputy was getting ready to write a ticket, my friend walked to the rear of the car and just looking at the taillight, just took his hand and bumped it and the taillight came on.

  #16 | 10:45 to 11:38 | cleaned

• So it was either a loose bulb or a loose wire or something. And he called the deputy back there and said, "Look, it's working. You can't write the ticket now." And he looked at his partner. He said, "This is the part that's called serving." And so they got away without writing a ticket there. But I am asking that to give you an illustration. I want you to listen to this.

  #17 | 11:39 to 12:01 | cleaned

• How would you handle someone with a broken tail light? By the way, many states only require one light, not two. But anyhow, during the month of August 2020, a Georgia state trooper followed a vehicle and did a pit maneuver on a 60-year-old man for a failure to stop because of a broken taillight. So, the 60-year-old man was afraid. He was afraid to stop. And so, the state trooper did a pit maneuver on him, caused him to spin out, and he went into the ditch. Now listen. The trooper ended up shooting the unarmed man in the head, killing him instantly, because he said that he feared for his life when he heard the engine of the vehicle revved up and thought the man would try to harm him. The vehicle was in the ditch at the time of the shooting. The trooper is now in jail and denied bond. Now, anyone with one eye and common sense would think this, if that vehicle was in the ditch, and the engine is being revved, one of two things could have happened.

  #18 | 12:02 to 13:22 | cleaned

• The man could have been knocked out, his foot still on the accelerator. He could have been unconscious.

  #19 | 13:22 to 13:27 | cleaned

• Secondly, he could have been just trying to get out of the ditch. Thirdly, if someone is in the ditch and their tires are spinning and I'm beside the road, I do believe I could get out of the way of an automobile before he could get out of the ditch. But instead of doing that, the state trooper shot and killed an unarmed man. So it does not to me appear reasonable and it's certainly not biblical and it's certainly not common sense to take a man's life over a broken taillight.

  #20 | 13:27 to 14:03 | cleaned

• Especially when no one is being harmed and there's no harm being done to property as well. So the Constitution of the United States is after the law of God. And as I pointed out last week, Article 6, Section 2 says the Constitution of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. So we have to ask this question then. Why do cities, counties, municipalities, and states not conform their regulations to the Constitution?

  #21 | 14:04 to 14:38 | cleaned

• And the answer is very simple. And that is because it is not profitable for those entities to allow the people to have their liberties and their livelihoods without interference because the governing authorities want all of that extra income from the revenue enhancement. And that's simply it.

  #22 | 14:39 to 14:58 | cleaned

• Now, the primary law, of course, is God's law. It is the basis of American jurisprudence. You've heard the old adage that ignorance is no excuse of the law. Well, that was certainly true when the Bible was our law book. Because everyone had a Bible, and you could read the Bible, and therefore everyone knew the law. Moreover, if you remember, when you go to court, when the judge starts to walk in, the bailiff says, "All rise," and everybody stands up, and then when the judge sits down, then you sit down as well. Do you understand that the way that happened in the old days, the judge would walk into the courtroom with an open Bible in his hand and men stood out of reverence for the Word of God. Now they've kicked out the Bible and they want you to stand in reverence for a man.

  #23 | 14:59 to 15:53 | cleaned

• I'm just simply pointing out, usually in the founding of this country, many colonies and many states said, even Massachusetts, "The laws of this colony shall be the laws of God as given through Moses." So it was basically biblical law is what it amounted to.

  #24 | 15:53 to 16:12 | cleaned

• Now, the truth of the matter is when you talk about man's law today, ignorance is an excuse of the law in one sense of the word, because there are so many laws on the book. It is absolutely impossible to know them. You can't read them. You can't hear them. You couldn't remember them if you heard them there. Man-made laws are just so multitudinous. In fact, there is a book that has been written and the title is "Three Felonies a Day." It was written by Boston civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who says that everyone in the United States commits a felony every day. And if the government takes dislike to you for any reason, it will dig in and find a felony of which you are guilty.

  #25 | 16:12 to 17:05 | cleaned

• In other words, it is selective prosecution. So then, if you try to oppose or expose or reveal the corruption and the dishonesty, you will probably find yourself on the end of selective prosecution because they can come down and find anything on anybody according to the civil rights attorney. He is saying that most people commit three felonies a day. Well, I pointed out in the first message that it is impossible to have a society without law. You have to be governed by law. So the question is not whether or not you will have law, but whose law will you have? And I also pointed out how man's law always deteriorates either into anarchy or to tyranny. So we have to come to the question then, where in the world do we begin in the Bible when it comes to law enforcement? Well, let me show you.

  #26 | 17:05 to 18:05 | cleaned

• Let's turn in our Bibles to the book of Genesis, chapter 9, and I want you to look, please, at verses 5 and 6. Genesis, chapter 9, verses 5 and 6. Note, if you would, what God says. Genesis 9, verses 5 and 6. He says, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require. At the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man, and at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man."

  #27 | 18:05 to 18:49 | cleaned

• Now, the Hebrew word for man in both instances is the word Adam, where we get the word Adam, who was the name of the first man, which represents mankind. So the principle is very clear that whosoever willfully murders and sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. In other words, God is demanding the death penalty for murder. Now He gives you also the clear reason as to why He demands the death penalty for murder. You'll look in verse 6. He says, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man." So, if I were to get so angry with Gary, I mean just, I'm so upset with him and so angry at him, I pull out my pistol and I shoot him and kill him. I murdered him. The attack was directed at Gary, but indirectly it was directed at God because Gary bears the image of God. And here's what murder actually says. I just killed Gary. And if I could, I'd kill God too, because Gary is carrying the image of God.

  #28 | 18:50 to 20:15 | cleaned

• And so God demands a death penalty because Gary is made in the image of God. And of course, it is not just simply an attack upon Gary, it's also an attack upon God himself. Now therefore God says that the judgment is delegated then to man: whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Now verse 5 tells you something else as well. Look what he says: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require. At the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man, and at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man." So when you look at this, God is talking about the punishment for murder, and that punishment could be either mediate or immediate.

  #29 | 20:15 to 21:05 | cleaned

• Those are theological terms, and when you use the word mediate theologically, it means through the use of means. When you use the word immediate theologically, it means without the use of means. So God delegates to man the authority to execute someone who is guilty of murder. If the judge fails to deliver the death penalty, that does not mean that the man has escaped. God himself can execute the man immediately. What did he say?

  #30 | 21:05 to 21:44 | cleaned

• He said, "At the hand of every beast shall I require it." God could send a lion. God could send a rattlesnake. God could send a mad bull. God could do anything to execute his judgment upon the murderer. And so if man fails, then obviously it goes to the hand of God. But there's an interesting part to verse five. And he says this, "At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man." Now what in the world do we mean and what does he mean when he talks about "at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man"? Well, if you will turn in your Bibles to the book of Numbers chapter 35 and look, if you would please, at verse 12. Numbers 35 verse 12, and here the Word of God makes this statement. Watch carefully. Numbers 35 and verse 12. God says, "Then shall you appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the slayer may—" that's verse 11— "that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person unawares.

  #31 | 21:44 to 23:09 | cleaned

• And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer die not until he stand before the congregation in judgment." Now note if you would, he says they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger.

  #32 | 23:10 to 23:25 | cleaned

• Now the word avenger happens to be the Hebrew word ga'al or go'el, which is rendered in our Bible as redeemer, kinsman, avenger. It is sometimes spelled G-A-A-L or sometimes G-A-W-A-L, but usually it is spelled G-O-E-L and pronounced as go'el. So you're going to find that the go'el was indeed an integral part of Old Testament justice and law enforcement. Every family had what is known as a kinsman redeemer avenger. So I want you to look in your Bibles to the book of Leviticus chapter 25. Leviticus 25, and I'm going to show you several things that the kinsman redeemer avenger could do. The very first thing that he could do is he could redeem land that had been sold from the family. So if you look in Leviticus 25 beginning there at verse 25, God says this: "If thy brother be waxen poor and sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother

  #33 | 23:26 to 24:48 | cleaned

• sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it, then let him count the years of the sale thereof and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it, that he may return into his possession." And then he goes on, he says, if not, he's going to come out at the year of Jubilee. So here's the thing.

  #34 | 24:48 to 25:08 | cleaned

• So Steve now has, say, 100 acres of land, and he falls into bad times, and he has to not really sell the land, because the land belonged to God. What they were selling was not the land, but the produce of the land for the next six years, because the seventh year, it had to go back anyhow. And if it didn't, it did go back in the year of Jubilee. So, if Steve then had to sell the produce of that land, in two years, let's say I found out about it, and I'm his brother, then according to Hebrew law, I'm the kinsman redeemer avenger, I could go buy that land back by giving the man the four years worth of productivity if he'd already reaped two years. Because the seventh year, it had to come back free. And if Steve came in with some money, he could redeem it himself. So the kinsman redeemer avenger could redeem land, but that's not all.

  #35 | 25:08 to 26:17 | cleaned

• Skip down to verse 48. He could also redeem individuals of his family that had been sold into slavery. The Bible says, "After he is sold, he may be redeemed again. This is a Hebrew man. One of his brethren may redeem him. Either his uncle or his uncle's son may redeem him. Or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him. Or if he be able, he may redeem himself." So likewise, Steve could sell himself for six years. And if he had worked for the man for two years, I could go and say, "Well, I want to redeem him. Pay him four years worth of productivity for Steve and I get Steve back." If Steve comes into money he could redeem himself. But it was up to the kinsman redeemer avenger to redeem the land and also to redeem family members. Now evidently there was an order in the right to be able to redeem.

  #36 | 26:17 to 27:21 | cleaned

• If you would turn right on over to the book of Ruth which is right before 1 Samuel, look in Ruth chapter 4 if you would. Ruth chapter 4, because you remember how Boaz wanted to marry Ruth and he was going to do so by redeeming the land that Naomi owned. But there was someone in the family ahead of him. So in Ruth chapter 4 verse 3, "So he said unto the kinsman, Naomi that is come again out of the country of Moab selleth a parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech's. And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it. But if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know. For there is none to redeem it besides thee, and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar my own inheritance. Redeem thou my right to thyself, for I cannot redeem it."

  #37 | 27:21 to 28:47 | cleaned

• So Boaz wanted to redeem the land. He wanted to marry Ruth, but he said there's somebody ahead of me and so we had to go through that. So obviously now we see that there is indeed an order to the kinsman redeemer avenger. Now evidently the kinsman redeemer avenger would have been the next male kin. All right, now if you will turn in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 14. Here is a contrived instance in order to get David to bring Absalom back into the land. The whole incident is contrived.

  #38 | 28:47 to 29:34 | cleaned

• However, the fact and the point of the family wanting to kill the murderer is real and true. So, here you go. 2 Samuel 14 verse 1, "Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king's heart was toward Absalom. And Joab sent to Tekoa and fetched thence a wise woman and said unto her, I pray thee, feign or pretend thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead. And come to the king and speak on this manner unto him." Now look, so Joab put the words in her mouth. And when the woman of Tekoa spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, did obeisance, and said, "Help, O king." And the king said unto her, "What aileth thee?" And she answered, "I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead.

  #39 | 29:37 to 30:34 | cleaned

• And thy handmaid had two sons, and they strove together in the field, and there was none to part them. But the one smote the other and slew him. And behold, the whole family is risen against thine handmaid. And they said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew. And we will destroy the heir also. So they will quench my coal which is left and shall not leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth." And the king said to the woman, "Go into thine house and I will give charge concerning thee." And the woman of Tekoa said unto the king, "My lord, O king, the iniquity be upon me and upon my father's house. And the king and his throne be guiltless." And the king said, "Whosoever saith unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee anymore." And then she goes on and he promises to her that a hair of his shall not fall to the earth. Now I want you to note the fact that this whole thing was a setup by Joab who wanted to bring Absalom back. Now you're going to

  #40 | 30:34 to 31:42 | cleaned

• ask why in the world would Joab care anything about Absalom? And the answer is because Absalom had murdered his own brother Amnon. You remember that? And he fled. Joab had also murdered. He murdered his own cousin, Abner. And so if Joab can get David to bring Absalom back and not execute him, then he knows David is not going to execute him because if he did he'd have to execute his own son. And so the whole thing is a setup. Now I will admit David was totally wrong when he said

  #41 | 31:42 to 32:29 | cleaned

• to the woman, "Not a hair of his head shall fall." He could not nullify the law of God because God said, "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And the very fact, if this woman was left without an heir, she was just left without an heir. It was just that simple. But the truth of the matter, although this whole scenario was a setup, the reality of the avenger is very clearly taught in this passage.

  #42 | 32:29 to 33:01 | cleaned

• And they would have been crying for the son's life, that is for sure. Now, you also find in the Bible the cities of refuge. And I'm going to show you those. But the cities of refuge were for men who had accidentally killed. In other words, there was no premeditation, there was no predetermination, there was no provocation. In other words, it was what you and I would just simply call an accident. So, when someone killed another individual accidentally, he had to flee to the city of refuge. When he got to the city of refuge, he had to declare his cause.

  #43 | 33:01 to 33:42 | cleaned

• And they would take him in, and usually there'd be a trial. If he was found innocent, then he had to stay in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. He could not go back home. If he left the city of refuge before the death of the high priest and the avenger of blood found him, he could legally kill him. And there'd be nothing said about it, nothing done.

  #44 | 33:43 to 34:16 | cleaned

• It would just been too bad for the man. He should have stayed in the city of refuge.

  #45 | 34:16 to 34:23 | cleaned

• Now you're going to say, why in the world is this? Well, I believe there's a principle here that God is teaching us at whatever we're doing. He's teaching us to be careful and considerate. One of the illustrations that I'm going to read just momentarily from the Bible: a man who kills accidentally is when men went into the woods to hew down trees, to cut up trees, to cut firewood or cut lumber, and the head slips from the helve or the handle of the axe and hits another man upside the head and kills him.

  #46 | 34:23 to 35:00 | cleaned

• That was certainly not premeditation. It was what you and I would call an accident. Then that man would have to flee to the city of refuge.

  #47 | 35:01 to 35:09 | cleaned

• Now, the point being, if I'm going to cut with my axe next to James, I need to make sure the head is tight on that handle, and it's not going to slip off. In other words, so, God is teaching us to be very careful at whatever we do.

  #48 | 35:09 to 35:27 | cleaned

• Now, remember if you would please, Numbers 35 verse 31, here's what God says, "Moreover, you shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death. He shall surely be put to death." God says no satisfaction. He can't buy his way out of it. He can't be pardoned. He must be put to death. Now, I want you to turn to the book of Deuteronomy chapter 19. Deuteronomy 19, and let's begin looking at the city of refuge, what those cities were for. Deuteronomy chapter 19, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. I want you to look what God says, watch carefully. "When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them and dwellest in their cities and in their houses, thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.

  #49 | 35:27 to 36:45 | cleaned

• And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past. As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor that he die, he shall flee into one of these cities and live. Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him, whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.

  #50 | 36:46 to 37:30 | cleaned

• Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers, if thou shalt keep all the commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways, then shalt thou add three cities more for thee besides these three, that innocent blood be not shed in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth unto one of these cities, then the elders of this city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

  #51 | 37:31 to 38:36 | cleaned

• So the cities of refuge then were merely for innocent individuals, men and women who did not kill intentionally. There were usually three cities on the western side, three cities on the eastern side, and they were divided equally in the land. And so God says there has to be an easy access to these cities of refuge, lest while the man is running to get into one of these cities, he tires out and the avenger of blood catches him and kills him. And God says when he did not really deserve to die. So I'm just simply pointing out now that each family had a kinsman redeemer avenger. It was the part of the kinsman redeemer avenger to make sure that justice was executed if someone murdered one of the family members. Now look in the book of Joshua chapter 20, Joshua chapter 20. And let's begin reading there with verse 1, Joshua 20 and verse 1. "The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses.

  #52 | 38:36 to 39:58 | cleaned

• That the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither, and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he that doth flee into one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them and give him a place that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand, because he smote his neighbor unwittingly and hated him not beforetime. And he shall dwell in that city until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then shall the slayer return and come into his own city and to his own house, unto the city from whence he fled." Now, skip down to verse 9, after naming some of the cities of refuge, he says, "Now, in the Old Testament, every family had a kinsman redeemer avenger.

  #53 | 39:59 to 41:28 | cleaned

• We do not have such a person in our families today like the families in the Old Testament. However, I will explain more about this next week, but however, we do today have what is known as the citizen's arrest power. And I cannot even mention the citizen's arrest power without thinking of Mayberry and Andy and Barney and Goober especially, or Goober wasn't one of them, it was Goober I think, where Barney gave him a ticket for making a U-turn. As Goober was complaining and Barney was explaining to him about citizen's arrest and then Barney got in the patrol car and made the same U-turn and Goober started to holler, "Citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest." But there is such a thing as citizen's arrest. Now, one author tried to say that the power of citizen's arrest went back to England as far as the 13th century before there was such a thing known as cops or police as we would think of them today. However, the truth of the matter is, the power to arrest or the power to stop crimes has always been a biblical power.

  #54 | 41:32 to 43:06 | cleaned

• It is based upon the Word of God. So, if you will look in your Bibles, first of all, to Psalm 50. Psalm 50, and let's begin reading there with verse 16. Psalm 50 and verse 16. Look what God says. Psalm 50 verse 16. "But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind thee?" Towards the wicked is not going to listen. Now look what he says. "When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers." Now, how did they see a thief and consent with him? And how did they become partakers with adulterers? By not saying anything. By not doing anything. They sinned by silence. Silence is consent. He goes on to say in verse 19, "Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son."

  #55 | 43:07 to 44:23 | cleaned

• The Lord's, you're not going to fulfill my law, but you're going to avenge yourself. You're going to defend yourself. You're going to take up for yourself, but you're not going to take up for me or do what's right. Then he said, "These things hast thou done, and I kept silence. Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself, but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes."

  #56 | 44:23 to 44:43 | cleaned

• Now God said, "Just because I did not smite you immediately, you thought I was like you. Oh no," said God, "I'm not like you. I'm going to set your sins in order before your eyes, and I'm going to nail you to the wall. That's all there is to it." To sin by silence is indeed to sin as well. And to sin by silence is not only sinning, but it is also encouraging the wicked to commit more wickedness.

  #57 | 44:43 to 45:09 | cleaned

• Now, just to show you that we do have a duty and an obligation to intervene, I want you to turn in your Bibles to the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 22. Everyone can understand this simple passage. Look in Deuteronomy chapter 22 and let's begin reading there with verse 22. Watch carefully. Deuteronomy 22 verse 22. "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband—" now watch, we're talking about adultery. "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband—"

  #58 | 45:09 to 45:50 | cleaned

• "Then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman, so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel, that is a virgin, be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then you shall bring them both out of the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones, that they die. The damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man, because he humbled his neighbor's wife, so shalt thou put evil away from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing. There is in the damsel no sin worthy of death. For as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter." Now, interestingly, in the city, if a man and the woman were caught, both were taken out and stoned. In the field, if a young woman was attacked, only the man was slain, not the woman. Why? I want you to note if you would please verse 24, "Then you shall bring both out of the

  #59 | 45:52 to 47:21 | cleaned

• gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones, that they die." The damsel, look, "because she cried not." In other words, if she did not scream and cry out, that means she was consenting to the sin and to the crime. If she had cried out, since she was in the city, anyone who heard her would have had an opportunity, a duty, and an obligation to intervene and save her. How? By citizen's arrest?

  #60 | 47:21 to 47:58 | cleaned

• By knocking the man out? By stabbing the man? Whatever was needed and whatever was necessary. That's what God is saying. In the field, the woman could cry and no one could hear her. So God is saying that we do have a duty and a responsibility to intervene and to save life.

  #61 | 47:59 to 48:20 | cleaned

• Now, I did not check Florida, but Georgia law does allow for citizen's arrest. All you have to do is go to the internet and type in "citizen's arrest power" in Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, whatever state you're in, and usually you're going to come up with several legal opinions, and then you're going to come up with your state statutes. Ours happens to be the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and here it is, 17-4-60, grounds for arrest. I want you to listen, because probably Florida is very close. Here's what the Official Code of Georgia says: "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." Now listen carefully. "A private individual who makes a citizen's arrest is instructed without any unnecessary delay to take the person arrested before a judicial officer or deliver the person and all effects removed from him to a peace officer of this state."

  #62 | 48:20 to 49:46 | cleaned

• Now, so all that means is this: if I see Steve attacking Gary and I arrest Steve and I confiscate his weapon, I confiscate his money, I take everything from him and I just take him to the house and lock him in a room and say, "Now I want you to just sit in there and think about this for three or four days before I take you to the sheriff." No, no, no, no, no. If I arrest him immediately without any delay, I am to take him to a judge or to a sheriff or someone who could arrest him further and do so with proper charging of him and indicting him.

  #63 | 49:47 to 50:32 | cleaned

• Now, while most states allow for citizen's arrest, every state has laws differing when it comes to the arrest of individuals by private citizens. Most states allow you to arrest someone if you see a felony being committed in your presence. Also, in some states, you may arrest someone as a private individual if you did not see the felony being committed but you have a reasonable suspicion and probable ground and cause to determine that that individual was indeed involved in a felonious action.

  #64 | 50:32 to 51:23 | cleaned

• Now the only problem with that is this, if you're mistaken, you're going to end up on the huge end of a civil lawsuit. You see what I'm saying? So, the safest thing is if you see him do something, that is one thing. If you think he did something, that may be quite different.

  #65 | 51:25 to 51:46 | cleaned

• Now, the commission of a felony is required in most states in order for a citizen to make a citizen's arrest. And felonies are very easily comprehended. We're talking about murder, rape, armed robbery, life-threatening situations, grand theft auto would probably be one, a carjacking would probably be one, and usually arson in the first degree when someone is trying to destroy huge amounts of private property. All those things would be felonies. So, if you see something like that, yes, we still do have the citizen's power of arrest.

  #66 | 51:46 to 52:29 | cleaned

• Now, I want you to look in your Bibles to the book of Proverbs 24. Proverbs 24, and look beginning there with verse 10. Proverbs 24 and verse 10. Note carefully what God says. Proverbs 24, beginning there with verse 10. "If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain, if you do not deliver them, if thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not, pretending ignorance, doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth he not know it?

  #67 | 52:29 to 53:29 | cleaned

• And shall not he render to every man according to his works?" God says we have a duty, we have an obligation to intervene and to enforce His law because we are responsible to preserve life and there are no excuses acceptable.

  #68 | 53:30 to 53:53 | cleaned

• Now let me make a couple of applications. The first one is this. It is lawful to defend life. It is lawful to defend your life and the life of your family members or the lives of your family members. There have been many individuals who sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of others. It should never be our intention to needlessly and recklessly endanger our lives, but there are times when it is necessary to endanger our lives to save other lives as well. And our Lord said it like this in John 15 and verse 13. He says, "Greater love hath no man than this, than a man lay down his life for his friends." And there have been many husbands that have sacrificed their lives for their wives and wives sacrifice their lives for their husbands and parents for their children.

  #69 | 53:53 to 54:57 | cleaned

• I just read recently where I think it was an automobile that veered over a bridge into a swollen river and the parents had a handicapped child and both parents drowned but they drowned holding their handicapped child above water so that child could live. So yes, there are times that we give our lives for others. The second application is this. Law enforcement should be the goal of every pastor and every Christian. And I mean by that, that we need to obey, honor, promote, and apply the law of God to every situation, every circumstance, and every area of life. We were either going to apply God's law or we're going to apply man's law. We cannot live apart from law. Every individual, every society must have a law structure.

  #70 | 54:58 to 56:05 | cleaned

• And may I remind you once again of the quote that I gave you last week by Robert Winthrop, where he said that every man must be ruled either by a power within or by a power without, either by the Bible or by the bayonet. And so the more we have of God's law, the less we'll always need of man's law. Here's the third one. If you wish to know what society will deteriorate into without and apart from God's law, all you have to do is look around.

  #71 | 56:06 to 56:39 | cleaned

• Take note of the looting, the rioting, the arson, the theft, the murder, the destruction of private property. Look at that. You compare where we are today with how we lived 50 years ago. There's no comparison in one sense of the word. No comparison. I want to give you a quote. This is from Olmstead versus the United States. Here's a legal statement. "In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.

  #72 | 56:40 to 57:35 | cleaned

• For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself and it invites anarchy." Well, that is exactly where we are today. We have a lawless government. We have a government that does not care one whit about the Constitution of the United States. It usually does not even care one whit about the law that it enacts. It acts as if it is above the law. And you look around and you see most people that have absolute contempt for the law because that is exactly the attitude that the government is conveying. You look at the politicians and you examine all the bribery, all the kickbacks, all the corruption, all the compromise, all the tyranny, and I'm afraid we're going to see a whole lot more of that just shortly. One of my favorite quotes was by President Theodore Roosevelt. So you have to consider corruption in government has been in existence a very, very long time.

  #73 | 57:36 to 58:57 | cleaned

• But President Theodore Roosevelt said this, "When they call the roll in the Senate, the senators do not know whether to answer 'present' or 'not guilty.'" That's the truth. But that's also the House of Representatives as well. And of course, I've quoted him before, but your own Florida congressional Democratic representative, Alcee Hastings, spoke the truth when he said concerning Congress, "There are no rules here. We make them up as we go along."

  #74 | 58:58 to 59:38 | cleaned

• And that is exactly where we are today. What you may be thinking is this, "Wow, what we need is someone like they had in the Old Testament. If we only had a kinsman redeemer avenger, things would work out." Well, if you're thinking in that way, you be here next Sunday, same time, same channel, and you will find out we do have a kinsman redeemer avenger. Father, thank you for your word. Thank you for your truth. Thank you for the grace of God that's given unto us.

  #75 | 59:41 to 1:00:28 | cleaned

• And help us to understand, Lord, that we are to be law enforcers. We are to enforce thy law. We are to preserve life. We are to protect property. We're to do that which you have commanded us. Give us, Lord, a true understanding of the Bible and law enforcement. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask and pray. Amen.

  #76 | 1:00:28 to 1:00:51 | cleaned

• so

  #77 | 1:01:21 to 1:01:21 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-05T23:51:17Z