Exciting Conclusion of Jonathan Leeman on CrossPolitic

Alright, well let's jump right back into this. I don't know if people want to see this. I want to do it, so I'm going to do it. But if you remember where we left off, Chocolate Knox was just asking Jonathan Lehman, what would the biblical fine be for someone who didn't have the proper fence around their roof or something like that?

What would the fine be? So nothing happened, no one was hurt on the roof, they just didn't have the fence, and Jonathan Lehman is saying, well the Bible says we should probably send a building inspector around, you know, it's an application of the law of God, I guess.

And so Chocolate Knox, sensing an opportunity, asked him, what would the biblical fine be? Because like, you know, if you said, okay, the fine for not having a fence around your roof is $100 million per incident, Jonathan Lehman would probably say, well hold on, that's not wise.

But if you said the fine is two pennies every incident, Jonathan Lehman would probably say, well hold on, that's not wise. And so Chocolate Knox is looking for something in the Bible that would tell you how much the fine should be.

This is a great question because it's an unanswerable question. The Bible doesn't say anything about this. So Jonathan Lehman is just making this all up. Now, let's jump into this. I'm going to be nicer.

I was told that I was a little harsh with Jonathan Lehman, I was told that I was a little mean to him, and I wasn't being charitable and overzealous and slandering and that kind of stuff. So I'm going to be nicer today.

I'm going to be nicer. Let's jump right in.

The Limits of Biblical Penalties and Restitution

Jonathan, what biblical fine would you hold that person to who doesn't have a fence?

I would say that the instance of a person being incautious and failing to show due regard to one's neighbor in those ways potentially requires that the government has grounds to provide some kind of punitive action.

Now, does the Bible outline how much or what? No, it doesn't.

Because there's no crime, there's no victim.

That's a small statement. Knox just said a small statement there, but this is critical because the Bible, when it comes to penalties for crimes, when it comes to what does justice look like, it's about restitution.

Restitution. So you've taken something, and so now something needs to be given back. But you see, the thing is, it's a small comment, but this is crucial what Chocolate Knox is saying here because there is no victim, therefore there is nothing to restore.

Nothing bad happened, therefore there is no restitution. How could you restore something that wasn't taken? How could you restore something that wasn't injured in some way? And so it's a small statement, but that is critical.

If there's no victim, there can be no restitution because there's nothing to restitute. Restitute? Restore? I think I had it right. Restore. So don't miss that because what Jonathan Lehman is advocating here is super scary.

It's grounds for tyranny of every sort. Can you imagine the imaginations that could be employed onto things that are meant for your protection, theoretically, and they'll fine you for it, but this just goes beyond the pale, right?

And that's why God's law is so important. That's why the book is so important. We're people of the book. The book gives us guardrails. The book tells us what God requires. It tells us what's too much.

It tells us what's too little and all of that. The book is great, guys. It's so much more important than a guy like Jonathan Lehman wants to make it seem. It's just way better than you've been told by Big Eva.

I had somebody tell me in the comments, actually sent me an email, and I spoke to my brother about this, and my question was, is Jonathan Lehman pretending like he doesn't understand? And my brother, who I respect his opinion very greatly, and this person in the email said, I don't think he's pretending.

I think he's never been taught this. Because I was never taught this. I was never told this stuff. He just doesn't understand this because he was never taught this stuff, yet he's written two books about politics and Christians, which I find unbelievable, but it's not an act, is what they were saying.

And I think there's some plausibility there. It might not be an act. Guys, let me look into the camera. If you never hear anything else I say, hear this, please. The Bible is so much better than you've been told by Big Eva.

There's so much more there. Let's explore it, guys.

Principles in biblical law is that there's restitution.

Hold on, hold on. And again, Gabe is hitting on this point as well. There's restitution. There has to be some injury, something to restore in order for restitution to be applicable. And that's it. That's a small statement, but it's a huge point.

Just to complete my answer. Go for it. Where I'm departing from you is where you guys are insisting on staying with retribution or punitive action alone. I am not. Right. But why? But why?

There's no room for this in the life of a Christian. Jonathan is trying to get you to think that there's room for this. There's no room for this. Don't you think God would have understood that preventative laws were so great where you can go around and measure the fence and make sure and find people if they don't have the fence?

Don't you think God would have understood that back in Israel's time as well? Was that too complicated for him back then? He didn't get it. He couldn't see into the future. Think about what you need to believe about God's word in order to buy this stuff.

You know what I mean? Again, I'm not going to say he's lying to you. Maybe he just doesn't understand. That's fine. Maybe he just doesn't understand. But, like, think about what you'd have to believe about God.

He wrote this book that was wholly inadequate for us. We need to start extrapolating and letting our imaginations run wild about protections. I mean, why couldn't we say, well, a vaccine is necessary?

I'm taking the same principles, preventative justice, and if you don't get the vaccine, I'm going to fine you and maybe I'll even put you in jail. Maybe I'll even put you in jail if you don't get the vaccine.

It's for your own good. It's for human flourishing. It's for building up society. Like, he would say, well, that's not wise, probably. But why? So I guess it's just up to the opinions of people whether or not it's wise enough.

Like, this is huge, guys. This is huge. Again, the Bible is so much better than you've been sold.

29 .4, and that's what we see in the example of Solomon. Solomon is taxing people and he's building up the land in a way that's conducive to human flourishing. And so if we place Genesis 9, 5, and 6 in its context of Genesis 9, 1, and 2, and 7, and the repeat of the dominion mandate, what's the purpose of Genesis 9, 5, and 6 in this retributive principle?

The purpose is to facilitate 1 and 2 and 7, which are sandwiching 5 and 6. 5 and 6 is a justice mechanism which serve the purposes of 1 and 2 and 7. And in that light, I understand that there is a little bit more expansive room for government to do things that, as it were, build up the land.

Jonathan understands that there's more to be done there that God never mentioned or never said anything about and God himself didn't think about. I mean he gave Israel this big law, hundreds of verses, you know what I mean?

But he just—I mean he just—I guess he didn't think about it. Think about what you need to believe about God in order to believe this. This is really something.

Expansiveness, perfectionist government, I don't want to do that either. I am going to offer a little bit of room to do that, and I think the example of Solomon gives us exactly just such a thing.

But the concern—so the concern that I have, at least, I think we have, we would share, is that where's the—. Where's the limits? Where's the breaks, though? So you say this is for building up. I mean the Green New Deal is for building up.

Amen, that's exactly right. The democratic platform claims to be all about human flourishing. That's right. So, you know, you—I believe that if you depart from a biblical standard of justice, meaning you have a standard and the Bible says this is what needs to be— you know, this has gone wrong, this you put back.

If you depart from that, then what you've left it up to is the imaginations of men. I mean we have to make something up. And when you do that, you've opened the door—. Then it's dead. —to tyranny. There's no breaks there.

It's autonomous. You can't say make it up for five minutes, but you can't make it up for an hour. Yeah, sure.

I mean where's the breaks? It's by definition tyranny. It's not like it opens the door for tyranny. It's by definition tyranny, because what you're saying is that the government actually has these abilities to just invent justice, invent things that are just, invent penalties, invent all this stuff.

And what it's doing is it's putting the government in the place of God, because God is the lawgiver. God is the lawgiver. He doesn't outsource law-giving to his people. It's all delegated authority, like Jonathan Lehman said.

And again, so if all authority comes from God and the government does something that you can't show me how it came from God, that authority, from the Scripture, from the good and necessary consequence of the law or specific law and all of that kind of stuff, then you're putting the government in the place of God.

So Knox's question was crucial. What is a just penalty for failing to put a fence around your roof? What is the just penalty? And so now Jonathan Lehman's in a position where he's giving the government authority that was clearly not given to it by God.

And so by doing that, he puts the government in the place of God in those instances. You'd have to stretch the good and necessary consequences to a limit that would make it essentially meaningless. The good and necessary consequence can mean anything if you take it to the limits that he's trying to take it to.

It's really insidious. And the thing is, this is something that I've noticed in my comment section too, because I'm not saying you have to become a theonomist here. Because many, many non-theonomists, people that would be against theonomy proper, are noticing that this is unhinged from the Bible completely.

It's not like you're not drawing anything from the Old Testament law. And even non-theonomists would say, no, no, we have to draw something from the Old Testament law when it comes to the limits of government and stuff like that.

And so it's like people have noticed, I'm not a theonomist, but what this guy is, he's talking about unhinging from the Old Testament. The way Andy Stanley was, except in a much more low-key, he's more intelligent than Andy Stanley, so he's not going to go all the way.

But this is a real problem, guys. This is a real problem. I would disagree with Toby here. It doesn't open the door for tyranny. It is tyranny by definition to give the government authorities that it was not given from God.

We know that all authority comes from God. Do not put the government of anything—the church government, the family government, the civil government—in the place of God in any capacity. We need to make sure to respect the boundaries that God has set up.

By the way, that's another biblical principle.

Wisdom, Justice, and the Role of Kings

Yeah, actually, I think you're missing a crucial piece. I would suggest you might be missing a crucial piece of how kings reign. I'm thinking of Proverbs 8, verses 15 and 16. This is Lady Wisdom speaking, and she says, I possess good advice and sound wisdom.

I have understanding and strength. It is by me that kings reign, and rulers enact just law. By me princes lead, as do nobles and all righteous judges. Well, let's go back to Solomon again. Let's go to 1 Kings 3 .28.

You have the episode in chapter 3 of the two prostitutes crying before Solomon. Bye baby, no bye baby. There's no verse for this. What do I do here, right? I know, give me a sword. Cut the baby in half.

Real mama says, no, no, no, it's hers. Everybody knows who's a real mama. How does the narrator sum up this whole episode? Verse 28. Here's the political philosophy of the Bible in a single verse. And the people were amazed—I'm doing this by memory so I might get it wrong— and the people were amazed that God had given wisdom to Solomon, the wisdom of God, to do justice.

What do we need to reign?

What do we need to rule? We need wisdom. Okay, so a lot of people were impressed by this answer, and I just don't understand why. Like, we have to keep our categories separate here. We have to make sure to understand because— and this is why I call Leman a snake.

I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that, but this is slippery what he's done here because he's taken the conversation out of justice, and now he's talking about methods. So basically what he's talking about is, well, the Bible doesn't tell you exactly which questions to use when you're cross-examining a witness, and therefore we need to understand that wisdom is how people rule, and therefore we can fine people for not having a fence around their roof.

And it's like these are separate issues. Like Solomon wasn't defining what justice was there. He was cross-examining the witness in a very intelligent, kind of shrewd way. So these are two separate categories, like the process, the exact questions to ask when you're cross-examining a witness versus what is justice.

These are separate issues, guys. And so this is why I call him a snake because what he just did was very slippery. He avoided the question by taking it out of the context and actually replacing it in a very sneaky kind of way with a completely different category.

So granted, I understand that the Bible doesn't give you a list of questions on how to cross-examine a witness in every possible situation. In fact, I would also grant that the Bible doesn't give you every possible law that could possibly be needed eventually in time, okay?

But what it does do is it gives you the Ten Commandments. That's the foundation here. Really, there's two commandments out of the foundation, but we got the ten. And then it gives you hundreds of case laws.

How do you apply the Fifth Commandment in this case? How do you apply the Sixth Commandment in this case? And it gives you a lot of case laws. And so we can look at the case laws that the Bible does give us in certain situations, and we can draw principles from those case laws.

That's the point. You look to the case laws, and you draw principles from it, right? And so the fence-around-the-roof kind of thing, we can draw the principle and say we should require a fence around a pool, for example.

You live in a neighborhood. You have a pool. There's kids in the pool. We don't want anyone to die in that pool. You should have a fence around the pool. But what we can't then go and do then is add things on top of that that God never commanded, for example, fines for not having a fence around the pool.

However, if a kid drowns in your pool and dies, and you didn't have a fence, well, now you're liable for that. And there's case laws that we can look at for liability in deaths like that. And we can apply those case laws as well.

So you see, God's law—listen, guys. God's law is so much better than you've been sold by people like this. Don't be dazzled by this slippery snake tactic where he says, well, because the Bible doesn't give you every single question on how to cross-examine a witness in the criminal case, then we can also grant to the government the ability to make up laws that God never commanded.

Do you see how sneaky it is when you break it apart, when I actually break down what he's just done here? This is why I'm calling him a snake, guys. It's not because I just decided to wake up one day and I don't like Jonathan Lehman.

I'm like, I'm going to spend the next hour talking about how I don't like Jonathan Lehman. Guys, that's not how it is, guys. This is a slippery snake tactic, what he just did. He completely divorced—he disengaged from the actual question and answered a different question.

This is what you see politicians do constantly. They don't like the question, they answer a different question. Jonathan Lehman did this in a very skillful way because you might not have noticed that he took it out of the context of defining what justice is and into the context of, well, God doesn't give you every single question to ask a witness.

These have nothing to do with one another, and somehow he's trying to make it answer a question that he just don't want to answer. That's a snake tactic, guys. I'm not trying to be mean to him, but I'm just identifying this for what it is.

All right, let's jump right back in.

Sure, sure. But the problem is wisdom comes from the Word of God. Wisdom comes from the revealed standards, and so I agree with you that there was no script.

I would say that's true, but I would also say the entire domain of common grace, the entire domain of learning and creation, wisdom literature, is creation literature. So when you study mathematics, when you study science, when you study engineering, you are growing in, as I understand it from the wisdom, you are growing in wisdom.

Now, mathematics is not in the Bible. Nonetheless, I am saying because God created the world with mathematical rigor and precision, to grow in an understanding of mathematics is to grow in at least one category of wisdom, and what princes need, what governors need, is wisdom, which is to say, Toby, that not all of our political solutions and punishments are going to be scripted.

So you can say, hey, you're just appealing to imagination. Well, I would say actually no. I think you might be trying to over-legislate what is inherently in the domain of wisdom.

Again, this is a—it's slippery because what he's saying is, well, because everything's not there, then we need to make room for much more. But the thing is, like, that might be fine if it was something he didn't address, but this is something that God chose to address, the idea of what does liability look like in the case of an accidental death, and the fence-around-the-roof law, and he specifically omitted a punishment, a restitution -based punishment for not having a fence around your roof.

He specifically omitted that. So you would have to make this argument where God forgot to add the punishment there or something like that in order to say, well, the case laws would say that wisdom allows us to do this X, Y, and Z.

And that's just a really weird way to look at it. It's a very weird way to look at it, and it's very slippery the way he answered that question. And the boys weren't having it.

The Breaks on Government Power and the Question of Justice

What's the breaks? The question I had was, so where are the breaks? Can I give an example of that?

Good wisdom versus bad wisdom. So, okay, let's just say that the government decided to actually lock up John MacArthur, take him and arrest him, put him in jail, and say, you have 30 years in prison for breaking our law.

You endangered thousands of people's lives.

All the lives we calculated, you put at risk and potentially death. Millions of lives. You're in jail now for 30 days. How about 30 years?

30 years. Let's give him 30 years. It doesn't matter what the punishment is. Like, give him anything. So was it 35 years? Was it 30 days? Was it a million-dollar fine? Was it a $10 fine? Like, you could put anything in there, right, any kind of punishment in there, and it's the same question essentially.

So let's just see how Jonathan Lehman answers this one.

I mean, is that wisdom? I would say that was probably profoundly unwise and unjust. How do you know that? See, here's the temptation. The temptation is like, okay, I need a Bible verse to script every decision I'm ever going to make.

I just don't think that's reality. I think instead what the Lord has done is he's made us innocent. Guys, this is unreal. He's called us to walk in wisdom, relying on him, recognizing that a lot—. I mean, brothers, Toby, I know you're a pastor.

Knox and Gabe, I don't know if you guys are, but you understand that in a lot of these tough pastoral situations, it's just not scripted, right, in this sin issue, in this marriage issue. I can't believe you just said that.

I don't know if you heard Chocolate Knox saying, I can't believe you just said that. Yeah, I mean, guys, like, please hear me. I know this has been the theme of this video, and it will continue to be the theme of this video.

Like, the Bible is way better than you've been told it is by people like Jonathan Lehman. It's way better. If you're a pastor and you're trying to apply wisdom, and by doing that, you're enforcing all kinds of, like, dress codes, and, like, you have to wear pants or a dress and stuff like that, and you can't play role-playing games because they're unwise, and you can't—you know, whatever it is, right?

And it's not scripted, but you just think it's unwise, right? Like, you need to stay in your lane. Stay in your lane. If the Bible doesn't address it, and you can't apply good and necessary consequence, and you can't apply general equity and stuff like that, then just stay out of it.

Butt out of it. It's not your lane. You know what I mean? Like, I just don't even understand, like, why is this an issue? Like, I understand where Chocolate Knox is coming from. It's just like I'm almost speechless.

And, again, this is not like just some random person. Look, if you've never heard of general equity, if you've never heard of this kind of thing about the biblical case laws and stuff like that, I don't have any beef with you.

I have none. But this is a man who's written authoritative books on this issue, on this exact issue. And so, you know, it's very upsetting that he's this clueless. And it's either he's lying or he's clueless.

And, you know, I'm open to either opinion on that one, but both are morally—he's culpable for that. You don't go writing a book on the Christian and politics and be clueless about what the general equity of the law is.

I mean, that just strikes me as something that maybe you shouldn't write that particular book. Maybe you've got some insights on ecclesiology that are out of this world. I'm sure you do. You know what I mean?

But maybe you should sit out the politics discussion if you just don't have any clue what you're talking about when it comes to the general principles here.

We'll let him finish here. Here's the thing, though. Let me finish. Let me finish. What you need is to lean into the Lord and say, Lord, I don't know which way to walk here. Give me wisdom. So you're saying, what are the breaks?

Well, the breaks are wisdom. The breaks are good sense versus bad sense. I just can't script everything.

Good sense versus bad sense divorced from the Bible. Divorced from the Bible. Because at this point, he's promoting things that he's saying are not in the Bible. They're not in the scripture. Penalties for offenses around your roof.

How many years should John MacArthur get for having church on Sunday? Again, it doesn't matter if it's 35 years or 30 seconds in jail. We have a word from God about this. You know what I mean? We have a word from God about this.

Wisdom doesn't equal or justice doesn't equal whatever you say is wisdom, what the most wise opinion is. Don't you see how this puts you in the place of God? It makes you the lawgiver. So if you're trying to decide what a just penalty is for John MacArthur having church on Sunday, it doesn't matter if you give him 30 seconds in prison or 30 years in prison.

You have taken the seat of God at that point. You're deciding. And that's a big problem. That's a big problem for a guy like me. He's actually going to say in just a second here, we'll listen to it, that something is unwise and therefore it is unjust.

Guys, I'm sure he's going to say he misspoke or I'm sure he misspoke, whatever. I'm sure people are going to say, well, you should believe all things. No, no. Because he's making the case here that we decide what is just by what we agree is wise.

And so it's possible to do that divorce from the scripture because he's saying it's unscripted, but it still could be wise. That's a big problem, guys. That's a big problem. This is literally what the Pharisees were ripped into shreds for.

They were making up laws based on human tradition, based on what they felt was wise. And God says you have a very nice way of overturning the law of God. See, that's what would be happening here. If you say, okay, let's fine whatever the fine is, 10 bucks, 10 ,000 bucks, for not having a fence around your roof, you are actually overturning the law of God.

That's not loving your neighbor. That's not loving your neighbor. That's overturning what restitution is, the foundation of all biblical punishments, restitution. That's overturning the law of God. Guys, this is not a small thing here.

I hope you see this.

The way you're asking me to script it. No, and I'm not asking you to script it. Bad wisdom would lead to the sort of situation that you're describing, Knox. I would say that would be profoundly unwise and therefore unjust.

That would be profoundly unwise and therefore unjust. Guys, when we say that there is a false view of justice being promoted by Big Eva, we're not kidding. It's not rhetoric, or it's not just rhetoric, let's say.

It is rhetoric, but it's not just rhetoric. It's not just a slogan. He just defined an untenable, profoundly pagan view of justice. That's not Christian. That's not biblical in any way. That's not authority that comes from the mouth of God.

It just isn't. This is unhitched from the Old Testament. Unhitched.

Say that they don't have the authority. If you have no one sick inside, and we get this just from the Bible, how it talks about quarantines in Leviticus. The government doesn't have a right to quarantine the healthy.

Knox is laser focused on the Bible as he should be. These are the words of God. You want wisdom, you better read that word. You better read that scripture. We just did the 119th Psalm in the Christ Church Reading Challenge, Bible Reading Challenge.

Read the 119th Psalm and tell me if Jonathan Lehman is embodying anything in that psalm. It's a beautiful psalm. All about how amazing the law of God is. My friends, the law of God is even more amazing than you've ever been told.

We have it in the Word. What to do with the sick. What to do in times of pandemic. What to do in these situations. It's all there. It's not word for word scripted, but it's there. We can draw the principles from it.

We can draw general equity from it. And people that have big platforms and a track record of ministry and very winsome and they speak very authoritatively have a nice way of overturning that. Somehow wisdom becomes the opposite of what God says.

God says when there's people that are sick, you quarantine the sick. And you make sure that they're clean before they come back in. Otherwise, everybody gets sick. That makes sense. It's in the law. It's scripted.

It's there. And then we've got people that will tell you actually know what you do is you quarantine the healthy. Somehow wisdom overturns what was written. See, that's the thing here. It's not just like, well, these things weren't even talked about.

No, these things often were talked about. And somehow Jonathan Lehman has worked it out in his mind where wisdom overturns what is written. Guys, this is the temptation. Always. This is always the temptation.

When you've got this, you want to keep it so squishy that the opposite can actually be the most wise thing. The opposite of what is written. You guys have to be like Knox here. Focus on what is written.

Trying to resist the temptation to go beyond what is written. Trying to resist the temptation to not even do what is written. Like that's always the temptation, guys. This is, I called Lehman a snake.

Guys, I know I am going out on a limb here. I understand that because this is going to turn off some people. But guys, this has been the temptation since the snake in the garden. Did God really say? Altering what God really said and then saying, finally, that's actually not what God said.

You will not surely die. There's always a progression. Going beyond it, changing it, and then just flat out saying it isn't true. Guys, I'm not saying that Jonathan Lehman is an unbeliever. But on this topic, his tactic is indistinguishable from the snake's.

Indistinguishable. Because the snake thought that wisdom could somehow overturn what God said. And Lehman thinks the same thing. Somehow these exact issues that God specifically addressed. Yes, God doesn't address every issue.

But we're actually talking about one he did. You know what I mean? This is a perfect case study. God actually does address this issue. He does address it. He addresses the fence around the roof. And he addresses how to deal with epidemics, right?

With contagion. And here we've got the tactic that somehow wisdom overturns what is written. Because after all, not everything is written. This is why I call him a snake. I'm not kidding. I will not take it back.

And the reality is, unless he somehow explains himself here. In a way that actually addresses the issue. And in a way that doesn't try to sneak off into something else. I'm going to continue to say this.

I'm not sorry that I said it. And I'll say it again. This is a snake-like tactic. I know the boys are more winsome than me on Jonathan Lehman. And that's totally fine.

I have the right to say, oh, healthy people need to be quarantined. They are there to quarantine those that are sick. And if no one is sick there. And see what I did there? I used wisdom as related to the word of God.

And God's written word. And so I can say that based on the scripture that God has given us. And his case laws. And no one can refuse. Out there for things that we don't have. But it's pretty far-fetched to find situations that God's law has not spoken to us directly.

Or as in the Westminster Confession says, through good reason. Amen.

I'm going to stop it again there. Because what Knox said is simple and yet profound. This is like the third time he's done something like this in this. Knox was on fire in this one. As he normally is.

But that's profound, man. It's wisdom that comes from the scriptures. It's wisdom using the guardrails of scripture. And by the way, when people say the Bible doesn't address everything. It's very far-fetched, at least in my opinion as well as Knox's.

To find something that it doesn't address either specifically or with good reason. The good and necessary consequence. The general equity doesn't apply to it. Like, I can't think of something. Right? I can't think of something.

Sex robots? Yeah, that's addressed as well. You see what I'm saying? Like, I can't think. But that's okay. I'm not saying that it's impossible to think of something. But I'm saying I can't think of something.

Now, wisdom shuts the mouth of people who have an alternate wisdom. God's wisdom shuts the mouth of people who have an alternate wisdom. Because there are competing versions of what wisdom is. And if you stick with that word.

If you stick with the case laws. If you stick with the good and necessary consequences of God's law word. What he says. You will be in a safe spot. You will not be able to be refuted. You will shut the mouths of people that bring to you a version of wisdom.

That somehow overturns God's version of wisdom. Don't be fooled. No matter how nice they sound. No matter how much they smile on your face. Which Jonathan Liebman doesn't seem to be smiling too much in this episode.

No matter how nice they sound. It doesn't matter how smooth and buttery their words are. If they're giving you an alternate version of wisdom. That somehow overturns what God's law says. They are snakes.

I mean I have to keep using the same word. They might have words as smooth as butter. But they have war in their heart. This is the rebellion that God has put down. Don't join it again.

So I want to apply everything. And know all of God's word. And say oh here goes the law. The case law. I'm supposed to be nice today. I don't want to just say oh let's just have wisdom. No, no, no. Wisdom.

Even kings had to write the law. Amen. That's what made them a good king. Because they ruled according to God's law. That's right.

That's right. I guess maybe I don't know if we're talking past each other or not. But I mean part of my point is I agree of course with Proverbs. I agree with the need for wisdom of course. Solomon's facing a situation that there wasn't a specific Bible verse for.

But there were a bunch of Bible verses that sort of guarded his decision making. There were certain places he couldn't go. And gave the principles by which act.

Certainly. Right. And so let's see what Jonathan says. Because I want to talk about that too. Agreed.

What would you say? Principles. And gave him principles by which to act. Yeah. And make his judgment. But.

Yeah. Right. And again these are different categories. You're talking about cross-examining questions versus what justice is. But a good example would be let's just say Solomon said okay because we can't figure this out both of you are going to die and your families.