Available for a suggested donation of $7.00.
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
James Madison argued for these delegated and reserved powers in the Federalist Papers:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.1
States’ Rights
Amendment 10 is to states’ rights advocates what Amendment 1 is to freedom of religion advocates. However, their promotion of the Tenth Amendment has provided little of the power they covet. And even if their efforts are rewarded, their quest for power is the wrong objective. Instead, they should be asking such fundamental questions as “What powers?” and “From where did these alleged powers originate?,” particularly in light of Yeshua’s2 (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) claim to omnipotence:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power [Grk. exousia, authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)3
Yeshua’s all-inclusive claim to authority is an affirmation of His omnipotence. It was not something He was yet to receive, but something He possessed as God incarnate. His authority and power were inherent in the fulfillment of Balaam’s, Isaiah’s, and Daniel’s prophecies regarding His first advent and the establishment of His dominion, kingdom, and government:
…there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel…. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion…. (Numbers 24:17-19)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of YHWH4 of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
And in the days of these kings [of the Roman Empire] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume [outlast] all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came [ascended] to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)5
What powers does this leave the Constitution to claim for the federal government (as in Article 1) or to reserve for the states and the people? What made the framers think they had authority to delegate or reserve what was not theirs in the first place? They probably looked to the Declaration of Independence for at least some of that authority. Although he was not one the Constitutional framers, Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, part of which declares that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If ever there were a humanistic concept, Jefferson’s statement is it. It is also a Talmudic model: “No legislation should be imposed on the public unless the majority can conform to it” (Avoda Zara 36a), which inevitably leads to following a multitude in doing evil (Proverbs 23:2).
Just powers are not derived from the consent of the governed, but from Yahweh (Romans 13:1-4). How are the framers and Jefferson any different from today’s “legislators” (and most states’ rights activists) who also fail to recognize Yahweh’s6 sovereignty and omnipotence?
Essentially, the constitutional framers were not all that different from today’s self-serving, power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats:
politician … 4. a person who seeks advancement or power within an organization by dubious means. (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language)7
bureaucrat … 2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment. (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language)8
That the constitutional framers’ means was, at best, dubious should be apparent to anyone who has read the previous chapters. When it came to instating Yahweh’s laws, the framers did not use intelligent judgment and were as biblically rebellious as their political progeny – and, as such, they were usurpers of powers that did not belong to them.
What the framers did was not so much a usurpation of power as it was a counterfeiting of power, not all that different from what was done by those in the Old Testament who attributed power to idols of their own making. (See Chapter 3, “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH.”)
Romans 13
In answer to the question, “From where did these alleged constitutional powers originate?”, someone is sure to point to Romans 13:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [Grk. exousia, authorities]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (Romans 13:1-2)
The Greek word exousia is best translated “authority.” Although it is true that Yahweh sets up and removes even the worst of rulers (Daniel 2:21, 4:17), this does not mean that such powers are one and the same as the authorities Christians are obligated to obey.
Godly society is based on authority. Ungodly society is based on power. In a Christian ecclesia, brethren deal with each other by authority – not power.9
These two verses allegedly answer the former question, and thereby ostensibly sanction the powers claimed, delegated, and reserved by the framers. However, this interpretation is defensible only if these verses are expunged from their immediate context:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)
There is only one standard – Yahweh’s morality as found in His laws – for determining what constitutes good and evil. Any surrogate standard inevitably causes those who subscribe to it to call “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). This is because “they have cast away the law of YHWH of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 5:24).
It comes as no surprise that those who attempt to teach that verses 1 and 2 apply to any and all governments ignore verses 3 and 4. This is because these verses, in stipulating the type of government to which Christians are to submit, do not even come close to describing all governments. In 1743, Colonial preacher Jonathan Mayhew expounded upon the Apostle Paul’s intent in Romans 13:1-4:
It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil rulers whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are, in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society. Such they are described to be throughout this passage. Thus, it is said that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; that they are God‘s ministers for good; revengers to execute wrath upon him that does evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing.10
Not all rulers terrorize the wicked, nor do they praise the doers of good. In order to be the type of authority or government described by Paul, they must do both. Early constitutional government generally qualified in the latter sense, but because, in Amendment 8, they rejected Yahweh’s cruel and unusual punishments by which evildoers are best terrified, they were (among other reasons) disqualified as the type of government to which Romans 13:1-2 can be applied – except in areas where they agree. How much more so today? More often than not, today’s government (made possible and empowered by the Constitution) is the antithesis of that described by Paul. Because today’s government often praises and rewards the workers of iniquity while punishing the righteous, it is condemned by Yahweh:
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to YHWH. (Proverbs 17:15)
Would Yahweh have Christians submit to an abomination? Pastor Mayhew eloquently answers this question:
Here the apostle argues, more explicitly than he had before done, for revering and submitting to magistracy, from this consideration, that such as really performed the duty of magistrates would be enemies only to the evil actions of men, and would befriend and encourage the good, and so be a common blessing to society. But how is this an argument that we must honor and submit to such magistrates as are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good, and such as are not a common blessing, but a common curse to society?11
Modern preachers are obliged to answer Mayhew’s challenge.
The government described by Paul (led by ministers, or servants, of Yahweh) to which we are obligated to submit is a Christian government based upon the authority of Yeshua the Christ and Yahweh’s perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). Consequently, rather than sanctioning constitutional powers, Romans 13:1-2 eliminates any constitution or government that fails to acknowledge Yahweh’s sovereignty and power, and to instate His laws. Not only did the Constitution fail miserably on this count, it failed to mention Yahweh period.
Yahweh or Caesar?
In Mark 12:17, we find Yeshua’s oft-misused statement: “Render to Caesar the that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Many people have interpreted this statement to mean that Yahweh and Caesar have separate jurisdictions, powers, and possessions. Is this true or is there another explanation for Yeshua’s statement?
The term “Caesar” is used today to represent government in general. However, at the time Yeshua made this statement, Julius Caesar was a real life and blood Roman dictator. Just what was it then that Yeshua was saying should be rendered to Caesar? Did the bodies, souls, and spirits of man belong to Caesar? Did reverence and obedience belong to Caesar? Did the people’s land and other possessions belong to Caesar? What about taxes? Romans 13:7 tells us to “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In Verse 6, Paul indicated that all of these things are due to God’s ministers or servants. Did Caesar qualify as one of the ministers of God described by Paul? No he did not, not according to Paul’s description of such ministers in Verses 3 and 4:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)
Jason and local brethren certainly did not believe that Caesar was due unqualified submission:
…they [“lewd fellows of the baser sort”] drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also… and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)
It would seem unfathomable that Jason and the others turned around and financed that which they so strongly objected to.
But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own?12
Only Yahweh determines what is good and what is evil. Consequently, the government described by Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is clearly a Christian government, based upon the moral laws of Yahweh.13 Therefore, the taxes Paul described as due to God’s ministers are biblical taxes. Are we then to believe that Yeshua was suggesting that biblical taxes (the tithes) be paid to Caesar? The answer is “yes, He was,” provided Caesar was one of His ministers, one of His representatives.
This brings us back to Yeshua’s answer to the Pharisees and Herodians, “Render to Caesar the that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This statement begs answers to the following two questions: What belongs to Yahweh and what belongs to Caesar? The answer to the first question answers the second question. Yahweh reigns over and owns everything:
The earth is YHWH’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. (Psalm 24:1)
What does this leave for Caesar?
Yeshua’s answer was merely another instance of Yeshua trapping the Pharisees with their own words – in this instance, forcing them to choose their god, Yahweh or Caesar?
Christian14 Constitutionalists should take heed. Because no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), the Pharisees eventually made their choice clear:
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar. (John 19:12-15)
The schizophrenic, two-master ideology of the Christian Constitutionalists is evidenced in the following declaration by H.B. Clark:
In America also God has been recognized as the source of government, though it is commonly thought that in a republican or democratic government all power is inherent in the people.15
What power did Caesar possess? When interpreted correctly, Romans 13:1-4 proves that, except in areas where his laws agreed with Yahweh’s laws, Caesar had no legitimate power or authority – except over those, like the Pharisees and Herodians, who had chosen him above Yahweh. In other words, Mark 12:17 was never meant to be general instructions to everyone, but only to those who forsake Yahweh’s authority for someone else’s.
The same is true with the Constitution and the United States Constitutional Republic. Ultimately, the only power non-biblical constitutional government has is that attributed to it by the faith of the people who believe in it – as it is with all idols and the governments fashioned in their likeness.
Click Here to Read Chapter 20
Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:
- The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
- The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)
End Notes
1. James Madison, Federalist No. 45, Federalist Papers, http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed45.html.
2. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the of Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
3. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If you have questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
4. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty of correcting this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
5. For a more thorough explanation concerning the timing and location of the Kingdom, see Chapter 2 “The Kingdom: Yesterday, Today, and Forever.”
6. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
7. “politician,” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1968/69) p. 1027.
8. “bureaucrat,” ibid., p. 180.
9. “Romans 13 (Part 2),” The Voice of the Promised, April 2010, Special Edition, p. 2.
10. Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” quoted in John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) pp. 69-70.
11. Ibid., pp. 75-76.
12. Jeffrey F. Barr, “Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage,” LewRockwell.com, <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html>.
13. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government, an expository explanation of Romans 13:1-7, may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*
14. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
15. H.B. Clark, Clark’s Biblical Law, Second Edition (Portland, OR: Binfords & Mort, 1943) pp. 51-52.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.
Click Here to Read Chapter 20
|
Most Recent Article
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Most Recent Message
The Uncircumcised
Important Books
Visit us on:
|
Printable version.