Available for a suggested donation of $7.00.
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Ratification
In order to overturn Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895),1 “whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be [a direct tax and therefore] unconstitutional … which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population….”,2 Congress needed an amendment to the Constitution:
Dissenting justice John Harlan [in Pollock] said that there would have to be a constitutional amendment for the existence of a federal income tax….3
As early as 1896, such an amendment was already a plank in the Democratic Party’s platform. “Democratic Representative Cordell Hull of Tennessee introduced income tax legislation in 1907, and the Democratic Party called for an income tax amendment in its 1908 platform”:
[W]e favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the federal government.4
Republican Presidents Roosevelt and Taft were also in favor of an income tax:
Support for an income tax had been building among Republicans as well. In 1906 Theodore Roosevelt stated that a “graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare constitutional.” …William Howard Taft, also appeared to accept the constitutionality and desirability, at least in emergencies, of an income tax. In accepting the Republican nomination in 1908, Taft said, “I believe that income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal revenue tax shall not furnish enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, will conform to the Constitution.”5
That some states were enacting income tax laws also contributed to amending the federal Constitution:
…states, like New York, were enacting their own income tax laws. Some states found that they needed more revenue, other than from property taxes, to support public services like education. …Wisconsin was the first to adopt a permanent income tax in 1911, a 1% rate to incomes more than $800 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples.6
Not everyone, of course, supported a federal income tax. In 1910, Senator Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, made a prophetic indictment regarding the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment:
[The Sixteenth Amendment] means that the state actually invited the Federal government to invade its territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights of the Commonwealth. This amendment will do what even the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not do – it will extend the federal power so as to reach the citizens in the ordinary business of life. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of a Federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house.
The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer.
An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits….
When the Federal government gets a stranglehold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the map. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commercial lives of the states….7
The Sixteenth Amendment was nevertheless ratified on February 3, 1913:
To raise revenue to fund the Civil War, the income tax was introduced in the United States with the Revenue Act of 1861. It was a flat tax of 3% on annual income above $800. The following year, this was replaced with a graduated tax of 3-5% on income above $600 in the Revenue Act of 1862, which specified a termination of income taxation in 1866….
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., all income taxes had been considered to be indirect taxes, required to be imposed with geographical uniformity, rather than direct taxes, required to be apportioned among the states according to population.8
The Sixteenth Amendment … to the United States Constitution allows the congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895)….8
Soon after the amendment was ratified, Congress established a new personal income tax with rates ranging from 1-7 percent on income in excess of $3,000 for a single individual.9
In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., (1916), the court ruled that “the Sixteen Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.”10:
Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the “source” of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point in Brushaber [v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916)] and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, the United States Tax Court said: “In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation … and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.”11
In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926), Justice Pierce Butler defined income:
After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.12
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955) explained what is encompassed in the term “gross income”:
…the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes “gross income: to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”13 Under this definition, any increase in wealth – whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards for punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions – are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption, as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party, gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances, and certain scholarships.14
One of the reasons the income tax was proposed was to replace sales tax, which was inequitable to the poor. Under Constitutional government today, United States citizens pay both income and sales taxes, in addition to other sundry taxes. So much for concern for the poor, or anyone else for that matter.
Beginning in 1943, the federal government required employers to withhold their employees’ income taxes. Every employer has hence become a government tax collector, party to the government’s unbiblical encroachment.
The Tax Protest Movement
With such an all-encompassing tax, is it any wonder that the tax protest movement is so large? Nearly everyone opposes the Sixteenth Amendment’s income tax to one degree or another. However, with few exceptions, most people object on invalid grounds. The vast majority of grumblers’ and dissenters’ opposition to income taxes is predicated upon the simple fact that they do not like parting with their hard-earned money – which, in some instances, amounts to nothing more than covetousness or greed. This remonstrance has no basis in law, constitutional or biblical, for the simple reason that the “money” the government demands from us is not and never was ours to begin with – it belongs to the government.
For those of us who serve Yahweh15 as God, the increase tithe (a 10% flat tax) does not belong to us either. In fact, neither does what remains after the tithe. Because “the earth … and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1)16 belong to Yahweh, His servants are merely stewards of everything He provides us (Deuteronomy 18:17-18, Proverbs 10:22). Yahweh has pre-assigned the first 10% of our increase to go directly to His kingdom work. What remains is ours to utilize and invest for ourselves and our families as we best see fit (within moral and kingdom limits) on His behalf.
Gary North explains that the tithe is essentially a rental fee to Yahweh and an acknowledgment of His sovereignty:
God delegates ownership to mankind in terms of a leasehold contract. Men owe Him a tithe as His legitimate return…. Paying a tithe to God is public admission that they are not the sovereign owners, not the autonomous creators.17
There is no vacuum when it comes to whom we serve and obey, and whom we serve and obey ultimately demonstrates whom or what our god is. Just as the tithe belongs to Yahweh, so does whatever tax any other god demands from its subjects. It is not a question of whether we must pay, but how much and to whom. The average citizen of the United States Constitutional Republic is taxed much more than 10% of his increase via graduated income tax, property tax, Social Security, capital gains, unemployment tax, corporate, and sundry other taxes, both obvious and hidden. According to the Tax Foundation, the average American will pay 26.89% in combined federal, state, and local taxes in 2010:
Tax Freedom Day will arrive on April 9 this year, the 99th day of 2010, according to our annual calculation using the latest government data on income and taxes. Americans will work well over three months of the year – from January 1 to April 9 – before they have earned enough money to pay this year’s tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels.
…Americans will pay more taxes in 2010 than they will spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.18
In principle, taxpayers are bond slaves to the government for more than a quarter of the year. Because a percentage of each month’s paycheck goes toward the year’s aggregate taxes, in practice, tax payers are government slaves all twelve months of every year:
Democratic theorists [and congressmen] … pass laws that make people slaves to the State. They do not reject the hierarchical structure of slavery; they merely substitute the State for the private slave-owner, and then they rename this relationship with a term more acceptable politically, such as “public welfare” which is to be paid for by “progressive taxation.” They raise taxes above 40 percent of a family’s income, and they call this “paying your fair share.” Ancient Egypt, which under Joseph suffered from a 20 percent income tax rate, is called “oriental despotism.” Contemporary taxation at twice or three times this level is called progressive democratic fiscal policy.19
After calculating the hidden taxes, some organizations estimate the average citizen is taxed somewhere between 50 and 70%.
Here’s the point: If you are a constitutionalist (a person who in any sense recognizes the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” as per Article 6), you have forsaken Yahweh as your principal God and substituted Him for the deity known as WE THE PEOPLE. (See Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH” for evidence that WE THE PEOPLE is indeed a god.) Income, property, inheritance, sales, and all other taxes demanded by WE THE PEOPLE belong to WE THE PEOPLE and its government. Consequently, because Constitutionalists have no right to protest such taxes, all of their grumbling and complaining does little to decrease the taxes WE THE PEOPLE demand. The only permanent solution is to exchange WE THE PEOPLE for another god who does not require as much in taxes.
Let me illustrate this from the life of Joseph. Many people have difficulty with what Joseph did during the seven years of famine in Egypt. In addition to taxing the Egyptians 1/5 rather than 1/10 of their increase, he eventually procured all of the crops, the land, the livestock, and even the Egyptians themselves as slaves for Pharaoh. How could Joseph be a righteous man and tax the Egyptians twice what was biblically permissible? The answer is found in the position in which Yahweh had placed Joseph. Although ultimately it was done by and for Yahweh’s sovereign plan, Joseph’s immediate position represented Egypt and the god Pharaoh, not Israel and the God Yahweh.
There is no record that Joseph taxed his father and brothers after they had set up residence in Egypt. Why not? Because at that time his family were guests in Egypt and were servants of Yahweh, instead of Pharaoh. In other words, they were exempt from Pharaoh’s taxes. Because Yahweh was their God, they were required to render unto Yahweh the things that belonged to Yahweh. Had Pharaoh been their god, they would have been required to render to Pharaoh the things that belonged to Pharaoh. Consequently, as guests, had the Hebrews been required to pay the Pharaoh god’s taxes, they would have had cause to grumble, resist, and even revolt.
Essentially, this was the same argument the 18th-century Americans made to the Crown of England, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Two of the more prominent rallying cries of the Americans were “No taxation without representation!” and “No king but Jesus!” In other words, because the King of England was not representing them, he was not due their taxes. These early colonialists had chosen Jesus as their King rather than King George.
R.J. Rushdoony pointed out that “taxation is an exercise of sovereignty and an attribute and power of God. The right to exact whatsoever He will from all He creates, and to do as He wills, is an aspect of sovereignty.”20
Any discussion of taxation must involve the discussion of sovereignty because they are indivisible. The power to tax is the claim of ownership and control over man and his possessions, and this claim of ownership is the claim of sovereignty. This can be understood by examining the state’s claim to the power to tax. Every tax by the state on both man and his property is, in essence, the claim of sovereignty…. If a man refuses to pay the tax required by the state, the state can deny that individual the use of his property and, at times, his life and liberty. The use of a man’s life, liberty, and property are contingent upon his paying his taxes. The fact that the state claims the right to deny man his life, liberty, and property if he refuses to pay his taxes is simply the claim by the state that it is the ultimate owner of man and his material goods…. Taxation is always a claim of ownership.21
…taxation is the means by which sovereignty and ownership are impressed upon man.22
In other words, the authority to tax is an attribute of Yahweh. Anyone (not a representative of Yahweh) who claims the authority to tax is ultimately claiming divinity. “Taxation is a prerogative of sovereignty. Modern man has a sovereign, and it is the state.”23 Anyone who chooses a surrogate in place of Yahweh is liable for that god’s taxes. Consequently, Constitutionalists (a designation which includes nearly all Americans, non-Christians and Christians24 alike) whose primary god is WE THE PEOPLE have no legal grounds to grumble or rebel against whatever taxes their god demands. Because they have chosen WE THE PEOPLE as their god, they are required to pay whatever tribute WE THE PEOPLE stipulates.
This is precisely what Yeshua25 (Jesus’ given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to Paul in Acts 26:14-15) declared in Matthew 22:21: “Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Having perceived the craftiness of the Pharisees and Herodians, Yeshua put the ball back in their court by informing them that if Yahweh is your God, render to Him His dues, but if Caesar (Baal, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, WE THE PEOPLE) is your god, render to him his dues.
God’s requirement of the tithe is simply the declaration that He is Lord and King over His covenant people. To deny the tithe is to deny God’s covenant and to deny that God is our Lord and King. It is simply another way of saying, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15), a cry not only of the chief priests who crucified our Lord, but of the antinomians who crucify Him afresh today.26
Although Rushdoony’s conclusion concerning Yeshua’s intent (that Christians are obligated to pay both Yahweh’s and Caesar’s taxes) is incorrect, some of his other thoughts regarding Matthew 22:21 are excellent and, in fact, disprove his own erroneous application:
The Greek text makes clear that the tax [the tribute money] was a “capitation tax,”…. Israel already had a poll tax … required by God’s law in Exodus 30:11-16. Its purpose was to provide for civil atonement…. There was thus a particular aggravation in the fact that Rome also required a poll or head tax. The Roman Empire and emperor were progressively assuming divine roles, requiring religious assent, and claiming priority over religion. The poll tax was thus a particularly offensive tax, in that it seemed to [did] require a polytheistic faith, the worship of a god other than the true God….
The right to issue coins had religious overtones for Israel as I Maccabees 15:6 implies…. “‘Coin’ and ‘power’ were regarded as synonyms, so that the coin was the symbol of the ruler’s dominance.”27 …To give tribute to Caesar thus meant to acknowledge Caesar’s power; to approve of giving tribute to Caesar was to acknowledge the legitimacy of Caesar’s power. The question implicit in the Herodian’s statement was whether any government other than God’s has any legitimacy. Christ’s assertion of His messiahship was seen by his accusers as a denial of Caesar’s right to tax (Luke 23:2), since the messiah as King had to have exclusive sovereignty…. For Jesus to have denied Caesar’s right to tax Israel was a mark of insurrection and would make Him liable to arrest. For Jesus to have affirmed Caesar’s right to tax would have been, in the eyes of the people, a denial of His messiahship.
…the coins of Tiberius … carried a “bust of Tiberius in Olympian nakedness, adorned with the laurel wreath, the sign of divinity.” The inscription read, “Emperor Tiberius August Son of the August God,” on the one side, and “Pontifex Maximus” or “High Priest” on the other…. The coins thus had a religious significance. Israel was in a certain sense serving other gods by being subject to Rome and to Roman currency. The point made by implication by His enemies, that tribute to Caesar had religious overtones, was … confirmed by Jesus, even as He proved their own submission to Caesar.
…[the] two poll taxes stood in opposition, one paid to the emperor, the other to God. The imperial tax provided “for the daily sacrifice for the welfare of the Roman emperor”;28 it maintained the empire as a religious entity. The other tax, called then the temple tax, was God’s tax for maintaining His holy order….
Israel’s departure from God’s rule and law had placed them under Roman rule and law; they owed to Rome the tribute due to Rome.29
In his article entitled “Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament passage,” Jeffrey F. Barr adds the following concerning the tribute coin:
In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and High Priest to Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace….
With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one’s faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar’s claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one’s faith is in Caesar, God’s claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image. Jesus’ counter-question simply invites His listeners to choose allegiances.30
This is the same principle Paul conveyed in Romans 13:7: Render – tribute, tax, custom, etc. – to whomever it is due. Tribute, tax, custom, etc. are due to your god.
Whatever the contemporary interpretation and application of Amendment 16, Constitutionalists need to render it (cheerfully) to their god WE THE PEOPLE. Constitutionalists do not even have the right to question the amount required by government, at any given time, anymore than Christians have the right to question Yahweh regarding what He has said is His due. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, subject of the King of kings, you should indeed be questioning Amendment 16 – as you should all of the Constitution – in the same way you would challenge any man-made law contrary or hostile to Yahweh’s law.
Income vs. Increase
A graduated (also known as a progressive) income tax is defined in the following ways:
A tax that imposes a greater burden on the wealthy than on those with low incomes because the tax rate percentage increases as one’s income or assets increase. Income taxes and estate taxes are progressive taxes.31
A tax with a rate that increases as the amount to be taxed increases. For example, a taxing authority might levy a tax of 10% on the first $10,000 of income and increase the rate by 5% per each $10,000 increment up to a maximum of 50% on all income over $80,000…. The federal income tax, many state income taxes, and the unified gift-estate tax are progressive taxes.32
In a progressive, or graduated, income tax system, taxpayers with higher incomes are taxed at higher rates than those with lower incomes. Those in favor of this approach say that the greatest tax burden falls on those who can afford to carry it. Opponents argue that it imposes an unfair burden on the people whose ingenuity and hard work make the economy strong.33
There is nothing new about encumbering the rich with disproportionate taxes:
And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem [seventeenth king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, who did evil in the sight of Yahweh] gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. (2 Kings 15:19-20)
And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim … [eighteenth king of the Southern Kingdom Judah, who did evil in the sight of Yahweh] in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim…. And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh-nechoh. (2 Kings 23:34-35)
Nowhere does Yahweh’s law provide for a graduated income tax, such as provided for in Amendment 16. The Sixteenth Amendment is but another instance in a very long list of man’s attempt to improve upon Yahweh’s perfect laws:
Very early in U.S. history, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” [McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)] This is not a power which God in His law confers upon the state…. Moreover, by means of the tithe and by offerings over the tithe, God places in man’s power the ability to reconstruct society in terms of the word of God.34
In 1816 in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, former President Thomas Jefferson had prophetic insight while discussing government from the perspective of debt and taxes:
If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labours and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do … [having] no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but … glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow-sufferers…. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and, in its train, wretchedness and oppression.35
Jefferson was wrong about only one thing: what he termed the tendency is, in fact, the destiny of all human governments, including the one he helped form:
The graduated income tax in the United States started small. In 1913, the income tax was levied on couples who earned more than $4,000, the equivalent of more than $80,000 today, and the rate was only 7 percent. The maximum tax rate peaked at 100 percent very briefly when President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order that all income over $25,000 be taxed at a rate of 100 percent. This was quickly overturned by Congress but the tax rate did reach 94 percent at the end of World War II.
Though rates have decreased significantly since World War II, the United States still uses a graduated income tax. The 2009 federal income tax is broken up into six brackets: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent.36
On the other hand, Yahweh’s law not only halts but prevents the inevitable fate spoken of by Jefferson.
Much has been and could be said concerning the dubious legality of the Constitutional Republic’s income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, but our focus as Christians should instead be on the lawfulness of this tax. This comparison can only be made by juxtaposing the Sixteenth Amendment’s income tax with the laws of Yahweh. Yahweh does not require a tax on any part of man’s capital but instead on only the increase from his capital and/or labor:
Thou shalt truly tithe [10% of] all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. (Deuteronomy 14:22)
Part of the reason tithing is debated today is that many contemporary Christians have not been taught that Yahweh expects His government, and therefore His laws, to be implemented and enforced here on earth via the kind of administration described in Romans 13:1-7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-5, and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. Such a government, like any government, must be funded, and it is Yahweh’s tithe system that principally provides such funding.
Even Christians who debate the New Covenant validity of the tithe should recognize the importance and applicability of the Bible’s first-fruit principle. First fruits demonstrate who or what is our god. Consequently, if your “first fruits” (the tithe) is not furthering Yahweh’s kingdom, it is furthering some other kingdom – and you are serving and financing some other god than Yahweh. This god may even be yourself, if you are keeping your first fruits to yourself.
Under Yahweh’s government, only increase is taxed and at a fixed or flat rate. In other words, only those who can afford taxes are required to pay taxes:
When Scripture speaks of the tithe it does so in the context of tithing on an increase that came as a result of some productive effort or service. The tithe is not levied against increase per se [such as inheritance and gifts], but only on those increases that are returns on labor, service, and capital.37
Even more significant, no one is ever dispossessed of his property because he is unable to pay the increase tax:
In Biblical law, there is no land tax or property tax. Such a tax destroys the independence of every sphere of life and government – the family, school, church, vocation, and all else – and makes every sphere dependent on and subordinate to the state, or civil government.
Since Scripture declares repeatedly that “the earth is the LORD’s [YHWH’s], and the fullness thereof” (Ex. 9:29; Deut. 10:14; Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26, etc.), a land tax is not lawful. A tax on the land is a tax against God and against His law-order.38
When a person’s entire income and/or property is taxed, the man, who for whatever reason, has no increase with which to pay the tax is forced into the ironic position of having to sell his property. Thereby his and his posterity’s inheritance is stolen from him by what is allegedly a magnanimous government. Yahweh does not tax a man’s entire wage, capital, and property. To do so would impede his ability to produce and increase his holdings, that is, to take dominion.
It was impossible to dispossess men of their inheritance under the law of the Lord as no taxes were levied against land. Regardless of a man’s personal commitments he could not disinherit his family by being dispossessed of his land forever.39
Because the land is not the property of the state, nor is land a part of the state’s jurisdiction, the state therefore has no right under God to levy taxes against God’s earth. Moreover, for the state to claim as much as God, i.e., a tenth of a man’s income, is a sign of apostasy and tyranny, according to I Samuel 8:4-19. The modern state, of course, claims several tithes in taxes.40
Yahweh actually requires three tithes. The first is what is usually identified as the Lord’s tithe (Numbers 18:21-24), the second as the festival or rejoicing tithe (which is to be principally spent upon the tither himself and his immediate and extended family – Deuteronomy 14:22-27), and the third as the poor tithe (which is an every third year tithe in a seven year cycle to be used for deserving poor, widows, orphans, and sojourning strangers – Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Tithing is not required in the seventh, or sabbatical year, which is designated as a year of rest from sowing, pruning, reaping, gathering, and other gainful labor.
Under Yahweh’s law, the priesthood (spiritual leadership) is to receive only 10% of the Lord’s tithe:
And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for YHWH, even a tenth part of the tithe. And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fulness of the winepress. Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto YHWH of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof YHWH’s heave offering to Aaron the priest. Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of YHWH, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it. (Numbers 18:25-29)
That only 10% of the Lord’s tithe went toward strictly spiritual needs dictates that the remaining 90% of the Lord’s tithe was utilized for kingdom maintenance and social needs:
…the tithe made possible the development of religious orders and foundations which undertook to provide hospitals and medical care, education, welfare, patronage to religious art and music, and a variety of other services.41
God’s requirements through the tithes and duties has as its purpose the government and extension of the Kingdom of God. These taxes provide for what we now call health, education, and welfare, as well as for worship, the ministry of grace, for missions, and the ministry of justice, the state. The Kingdom of God requires the taxes ordained by God. If we are citizens of that Kingdom, we pay its taxes. If we are outlaws, we do not pay. If Caesar is our King, then we are content to let Caesar provide his kingdom. If Christ is our King … we first of all give to our Lord all that He requires, so that His Kingdom may prevail.42
The tithe is for advancing Yahweh’s kingdom. Consequently, antinomian, non-kingdom-on-earth promoting churches and ministries do not deserve even the tithe of the Lord’s tithe.
Under Yahweh’s system, a man’s increase is the only thing taxed, and the first and third tithes combined never exceed 13.3% of a persons’ gross annual increase – an amount any man with an increase can afford:
Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of YHWH thy God which he hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 16:17)
For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. (2 Corinthians 8:12)
This, of course, is in contrast with the United States government’s ever-increasing income and property taxes, which one day only the super rich will be able to afford:
Property taxes especially decapitalize the elderly, and poorer members of society, because their incomes seldom keep up with the rising tax burden. Sales taxes decapitalize the middle and lower income members of society since they must spend a larger portion of their incomes than the upper income groups.43
The second tithe, which amounts to a tithe to yourself, fosters both frugality and productivity and discourages debt. Implied in the second tithe is that only those with an increase should reward themselves with amenities, such as vacations, new cars, etc. This would all but eliminate most personal debt because such things are obviously not to be purchased on time. Witnessing others with an increase reward themselves would motivate less productive people to greater thrift, diligence, and productivity.
Also implied in the second tithe is that the person with an increase is to spend only 10% of his increase on extravagances. After this and the other two tithes, the person with an increase would then have 76.7% of his increase to reinvest in his business or increase his capital, which would ultimately strengthen the economy.
Yahweh’s law also provides for an annual fixed poll tax of 1/2 shekel. This was to be given to the Levites for the service and needs of the tabernacle of the congregation:
And YHWH44 spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto YHWH, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them…. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel.… Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto YHWH. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel…. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before YHWH, to make an atonement for your souls. (Exodus 30:11-16)
Yahweh’s tabernacle, and later the Temple, was the seat of Yahweh’s government, and the Levites were civil servants. In other words, the poll tax was used to help satisfy government expenses.
Rushdoony points out “this head tax is specified as equal for all” and that “by means of this … equality of taxation, the law was kept from being unjust. It had to be small, since a large amount would be oppressive for the poor, and it had to be the same for all, to avoid the oppression of the rich. Thus discriminatory [progressive interest rate] taxation was specifically forbidden.”45
Only men twenty years and older were responsible for this tax; women and children were exempt. The reason for this exception is that a poll tax is the same as a head tax, and each family can only have one head. A two-headed family is a monstrosity that causes discord and ultimately the destruction of the family unit. Under Yahweh’s patriarchal system, females and males under twenty years of age are meant to be covered or under the headship of an adult male twenty years or older who provides for and protects them:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Upon being married, men leave their parents and become heads of their own households:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
When a woman becomes a man’s wife, she becomes one with her husband. Any children they bear are, necessarily, members of that family unit. The head of each household represents everyone whom He covers; therefore, only the head of each household is liable for the head tax, which should be used for the support of Yahweh’s kingdom ministers and other kingdom expenses.
Conversely, the Unites States Constitutional Republic requires that every person (regardless of sex and sometimes even age) with any kind of income is to be taxed, which subtly undermines a man’s position as head of his wife and children.
Amendment 16’s income tax is just one more means whereby the United States Constitutional Republic impoverishes its citizens, thereby deterring them from “calling their mismanagers to account.”
It should be noted that the increase tithe is due only to the type of kingdom rulers described by Paul in Romans 13:
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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:3-7)46
Graduated Taxes
The income tax is despised, not only for itself, but because it is graduated. Those with higher income bases are taxed at higher rates. What is not often realized is that an increase in taxation, commensurate to the taxable base, is biblical. Yahweh’s increase tax requires more from those who make more. If a person has an increase of only $100, his basic 10% tax would be $10. If another person has an increase of $1,000, he would pay $100, and if someone else’s increase is $10,000, he would be liable for $1,000.
Although this does represent a progressive tax, the difference between this and the Constitutional Republic’s progressive tax is that, under Yahweh’s system, everyone pays the same equitable percentage, whereas under the United States’ system, the more a person earns, the higher percentage he pays. For example, if the three tax payers above were paying a graduated percentage in taxes at brackets of 10%, 20%, and 30%, the first taxpayer would still pay $10. However, the second taxpayer would, instead of $100, pay $200, and the third tax payer, instead of $1,000, would pay $3,000.
By means of proportionate giving [the same percentage under Yahweh’s law], no undue burden was placed on anyone: the rich were not expected to do all the giving, nor was the burden left to [merely] the willing.47
In A Handbook of Biblical Law, Dennis Woods points out another repercussion of the graduated income tax:
…the people of the state of Oregon had consistently turned down initiatives to raise taxes for many years. However, socialist pollsters finally figured out that the electorate would say yes to a tax if it was focused on “the rich” and their businesses.
The tax was passed by the legislature, then confirmed in an envy-based initiative vote of the people in early 2010. Neighboring states began to recruit Oregon business, and as they moved out, the unemployment rate in Oregon shot up to lead the nation. The Scripture was confirmed, “He that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him.”48
Ultimately, the Sixteenth Amendment’s graduated income tax is a form of socialism, which attempts to put everyone on equal financial footing:
Graduated taxes are supported by those who believe that people with higher incomes should pay a larger proportion in taxes than those with smaller incomes. Proponents claim that a graduated tax is fair because those with larger incomes have a larger amount of discretionary spending than poorer individuals. For example, if it takes $20,000 to have a basic standard of living, a person who makes $21,000 only has $1,000 for discretionary spending while a person who makes $50,000 has $30,000 of discretionary spending.49
In other words, to the carnal, unregenerate man’s way of thinking, no one should be allowed to excel more than others. Therefore, human governments inequitably increase the percentage the industrious man is taxed. This is essentially the antithesis to Yeshua’s statement in Matthew 25:29 that “unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance.”
Those who argue against graduated taxes claim that it unfairly penalizes those who earn more. Opponents claim that it decreases productivity because as a person’s income rise, the percentage of their income that they get to take home decreases because the marginal tax rate increases. They also argue that it is unfair for the majority of low-income earners to pass taxes that only affect the rich.50
…the graduated (“progressive”) income tax … assumes that all high-income earners have been rewarded disproportionately to their productivity, and all low-income people therefore deserve a share in the high income people’s gains. The economically successful must subsidize the unsuccessful.51
Such penalizing inhibits ambition, dampens initiative, deters enterprise, and is ultimately the economic ruin of society. Under such a system, the only way to pay a smaller percentage in taxes is to be less productive. Someone compared the Constitutional Republic’s tax system to golfing: You drive hard to get to the green, only to wind up in the hole.
Amendment 16’s graduated income tax is a cunning way by which a person’s profits, and at least a portion of his children’s inheritance, is confiscated. Under Yahweh’s economic system, every man twenty years and older pays the exact same percentage on his increase and the exact same amount for the head tax. That is equity!
Even more insidious is the fact that ungodly organizations such as Planned Parenthood are funded in part by the Constitutional Republic’s taxes, which makes tax-paying Christians an indirect party to infanticide and other abominations. This is but one of the numerous consequences of the Sixteenth Amendment. Curtis Claire Ewing and R.J. Rushdoony explained the dominion aspect of tithing and, as a result, who should ultimately control taxation:
The decline of tithing in the 19th and 20th centuries led to … a shift of power to the [secular] state, and also the growth of [unbiblical] taxation to remedy the lack of social financing. Without the restoration of the tithe, there can be no restoration of Christian social order, nor can power be restored to the Christian man under God.52
…without the tithe, a totalitarian [secular] state progressively develops to play god over society. With the tithe, the rule of society is restored to God through His ordained tax. A variety of agencies are created by the tithe to minister to the needs of godly society and to provide the needed social financing. The tithe belongs to neither church nor state: it belongs to God and is to be given by God’s people to those who will administer it under God.53
The modern social order robs God by stripping virtually every area from His jurisdiction, for His ordained government and care. Within a generation after the abolition of the legally required tithe in the United States, the state supported and controlled schools came into existence. Because revivalism and antinomianism led to the decline of the tithe … by the beginning of the 20th century welfare came to be a statist function. A new social order came with the abandonment of the tithe, and the rapid increase of taxes ensued, or statist double and triple tithes and more, to further that new order…. If the church collects the tax, the church rules society; if the state collects the tax, the state rules society. If, however, the people of God administer the tithe to godly agencies, then God’s rule prevails in that social order.54
Actually, church and state should be two components of the same entity (the ecclesia), and the state should be ruled by biblically qualified men, as per Romans 13:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:1-5, etc. (See “Article 2: Executive Usurpation,” Chapter 5 for a list of biblical leadership qualifications.)
It is significant that in the Soviet Union, any charitable activity is strictly forbidden to religious groups. If a church group were to collect funds or goods to administer relief to sick and needy members of the congregation or community, it would immediately create a power independent of the state as the remedy for social problems. It would moreover create a power which would reach people more directly, efficiently, and powerfully. The consequence would be a direct affront to the preeminence of the state.55
Yahweh’s laws, including His taxing system, are perfect. Rejection of His taxing system is but another renunciation of His divine authority over every area of life. Both Article 1 and Amendment 16 are formal repudiations of Yahweh.
Lawful taxation can only spring from lawful authority, and all lawful authority can only originate from God. When taxes are levied by the state in violation of the Word of God, they are illegitimate and illegal [unlawful]…. All such taxation, because it takes property, liberty, and life in violence to Scripture, is an attack upon God. It is an attack upon God because all humanist taxation is the attempted robbery of God. It is the attempt on the part of man to strip God of His ownership and control of that which He has created and which He upholds.56
The Sixteenth Amendment’s graduated income tax has been the means for funding an oppressive totalitarian government. In his book, with the oxymoronic title of Limitations of the Taxing Power including Limitations Upon Public Indebtedness, James M. Gray elaborated upon the Constitutional Republic’s absolute and, therefore, messianic taxing power:
The power of the state, acting through its governmental agencies, to tax its citizens, is absolute and unlimited as to persons and property. Every person within the jurisdiction of the state, whether citizen or not, is subject to this power, every form of property, tangible or intangible, stationary or transitory, every privilege, right or income which exists within the jurisdiction, may be reached and taken for the support of the state.
This doctrine is involved in the general theory of the state. The state exists for the purposes of law, order, and justice; the institution of property, the preservation and security of life, liberty, and property depend upon the existence of the state. Inasmuch as all private ownership of property is postulated on the existence of the state, the state may properly exhaust all the resources of private property in the support and preservation of that existence; inasmuch as all privileges and liberties derive their value from the protection of the state, the state may take any share of the value of those privileges and franchises for its support, even to the extent of the whole value.57
This absolute and unlimited power to tax has only increased the average American’s financial burdens and has helped to further secularize America, putting America under Yahweh’s judgment:
The transition to a humanistic concept of the state was both gradual and steady. In the 20th century, taxation began to serve as an instrument of social and economic change. Thus, taxation no longer serves simply to support civil government but also to reorganize society in terms of leveling and equalitarian concepts.58
Government funding by means of “tithes” is one of the principal means for securing and maintaining dominion, regardless whether the government is man’s or Yahweh’s:
The tithe … is not only God’s tax, but His appointed means toward blessing and dominion (Mal. 3:8-12). Tithing is plainly set forth as a means of power, whereby the people of God can be assured the outpourings of God’s prospering hand. The tithe provides the means materially for godly reconstruction, and it makes possible the development and application of Biblical faith to the basic problems of life. To deny the tithe is to affirm slavery. It means choosing statism as against God’s order. It is basic to Christian faith, and essential to any Christian order. No man can honestly hunger and thirst for a righteous order and fail to tithe, for to fail to tithe is to ask for statist slave-masters to rule over us.59
In any advanced social order, social financing is a major public necessity. The social order cannot exist without a vast network of social institutions which require financing and support. If a Christian concept of social financing is lacking, then the state moves in quickly to supply the lack and gain the social control which results. Social financing means social power.60
The state has instituted a number of godless forms of taxation: the property tax, the inheritance tax, the income tax, and so on and on. Statist taxation is revolution against God: its purpose is to supplant God’s order with man’s order. The function of God’s tax, the tithe, and God’s ordained civil tax, the poll tax … is to establish God’s order.61
…the tithe [makes] a free society possible. If every true Christian tithed today … we could counteract socialism by Christian reconstruction, by creating Christian institutions and a growing area of Christian independence…. Socialism grows as Christian independence declines. …the tithe is thus the financial basis of reconstruction…. To pay the tithe is to deny the foundations of statism.62
We must begin now, not merely to tithe but to begin Christian reconstruction with our tithe, to re-establish the necessary social functions as Christian action…. Either we work to establish a godly order, or we go down into the hell of total statism.63
Some people have a difficult time believing that government can effectively operate on merely a 1/2 shekel head tax and a 13.3% direct tax (and from only citizens with an increase, at that). Today’s unbiblical, constitutional federal behemoth cannot be maintained on such taxes. This is reason enough to someday replace America’s constitutional government with Yahweh’s limited, unobtrusive, and non-invasive government that is easily maintained by this equitable tax system:
If we were living in a theocracy, with the Divine constitution, the tithe would cover everything, but at present we are living under man-made governments and man-made governments collect their own taxes. But the tithe still belongs to God. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Rom. 13:1-8). The extra tax exacted by governments of our day is the penalty we pay for not accepting God’s rule over us nationally.64
A flat increase tax and fixed poll tax is due the God Yahweh. A graduated income tax is due the god WE THE PEOPLE. Choose carefully your god and the laws by which you wish to live.
Click Here to Read Chapter 26
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. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
2. “U.S. Constitution, Sixteenth Amendment, Income Tax: History and Purpose of the Amendment,” Find Law for Legal Professionals, <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/01.html#1>.
3. William L. Wunder, “Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment: Factors that Led State Legislatures to Approve the Income Tax,” Suite101.com, Insightful Writers. Informed Readers, <http://www.suite101.com/content/ratification-of-the-sixteenth-amendment-a211731>.
4. 26 Cong. Rec. 6866 (27 June 1894), quoted in Erik M. Jensen, “The Taxing Power, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Meaning of ‘Incomes,’” 4 October, 2002, pp. 7-8, <http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/736db4705b4ee21d85256f2b00548fa3?OpenDocument>.
5. Ibid.
6. Wunder.
7. Senator Richard E. Byrd, quoted in Donald W. MacPherson, Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories (Phoenix AZ: MacPherson & Sons Publishers, Ltd., 1995) p. 113.
8. “Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
9. “Sixteenth Amendment,” The Free Dictionary,” <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixteenth+Amendment>.
10. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).
11. Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. l653 at 659 (1959), aff’d, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CDH) paragr. 9389 (3d Cir. 1960), quoted in “Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
12. Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926).
13. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
14. “Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
15. 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 (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “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.*
16. 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.
17. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 706.
18. “America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day,” Tax Foundation, <http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/>.
19. North, p. 370.
20. Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982) p. 383.
21. Edward A. Powell and Rousas John Rushdoony, Tithing and Dominion (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1979) p. 35.
22. Ibid., p. 38.
23. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 537.
24. 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 (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, 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.
25. 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 Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua, with which He introduced Himself to Paul in Acts 26:14-15. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “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.*
26. Powell, Rushdoony, pp. 16-17.
27. Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1055) p. 119, quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 719.
28. Stauffer, p. 131, quoted in Rushdoony, p. 721.
29. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 718-22.
30. Jeffrey F. Barr, “Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage,” LewRockwell.com, <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html>.
31. Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD., “Progressive Tax,” The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia (The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2007), quoted in The Free Dictionary, <http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Graduated+income+tax>.
32. David L. Scott, “Progressive Tax,” Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today’s Investor (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003), quoted in The Free Dictionary, <http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Graduated+income+tax>.
33. “Progressive Tax,” Dictionary of Financial Terms (Lightbulb Press, Inc., 2008), quoted in The Free Dictionary, <http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Graduated+income+tax>.
34. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 264.
35. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 vols. (London, UK: Shackell and Baylis, 1829) vol. 4, pp. 297-98.
36. Mark Kennan, “Definition of Graduated Income Tax,” 3 August 2009, eHow, <http://www.ehow.com/about_5257213_definition-graduated-income-tax.html>.
37. Powell, Rushdoony, p. 93.
38. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 283.
39. Howard B. Rand, Digest of the Divine Law (Merrimac, MA: Destiny Publishers, 1943/1959) p. 111.
40. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 57.
41. Ibid., p. 513.
42. Powell, Rushdoony, pp. 18-19.
43. Ibid., p. 57.
44. 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 (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “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.*
45. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 282.
46. For a more thorough explanation of Romans 13:3-4, 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.*
47. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 54.
48. Dennis Oliver Woods, A Handbook of Biblical Law (2010), p. 15.
49. Mark Kennan, “Definition of Graduated Income Tax,” 3 August 2009, eHow, <http://www.ehow.com/about_5257213_definition-graduated-income-tax.html>.
50. Ibid.
51. North, p. 359n.
52. Curtis Clair Ewing, The Law of Tithing in Scripture (Sierre Madre, CA, 1969) p. 9.
53. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 511-12.
54. Ibid., p. 514.
55. Ibid., p. 58.
56. Powell, Rushdoony, p. 39.
57. James M. Gray, Limitations of the Taxing Power including Limitations Upon Public Indebtedness (San Francisco, CA: Bancroft-Whitney, 1906) pp. 29-30, quoted in Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 98.
58. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 98.
59. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 206.
60. Powell, Rushdoony, p. 1.
61. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 219.
62. Powell, Rushdoony, pp. 4-5.
63. Ibid., p. 10.
64. Curtis Clair Ewing, The Law of Tithing in Scripture (Sierre Madre, CA, 1969) p. 9.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a 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 26
|
Most Recent Article
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Most Recent Message
Custodians of the Law
Important Books
Visit us on:
|
Printable version.