Available for a suggested donation of $7.00.
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof, into, or exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2
The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Adopted & Repealed
Along with the Volstead Act (also known as the National Prohibition Act), Amendment 18 was adopted on January16, 1919, and went into effect on January 17, 1920, commencing what was otherwise known as Prohibition:
This Amendment was passed with the Volstead Act, which helped to define those beverages considered alcoholic. The Volstead Act defined “intoxicating liquor” as containing .5% of alcohol or more. Taken together, the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act ushered in the Prohibition Era in the United States.1
The Eighteenth Amendment not only failed to curb alcoholic consumption, it greatly facilitated the black market and organized crime:
The advocates of Prohibition had waged a 50-year campaign to ban alcohol and had high hopes for this “The Noble Experiment.” Supporters anticipated that alcohol’s banishment would lead to the eradication of poverty and vice while simultaneously ennobling the common man to achieve his highest goals. The reality of Prohibition was to prove quite different.
For the next fourteen years much time, money and manpower would be devoted to enforcement, however, the task was impossible. “Rum fleets” filled with liquor from Europe appeared off the Atlantic coast. As many as sixteen ships at a time would lie at anchor just outside U.S. territorial waters while smaller boats made the run to safe harbors. The Canadian border was a sieve through which liquor easily flowed. Clandestine distilleries grew like mushrooms in the city and countryside alike. Speakeasies flourished and the liquor flowed, even finding its way into the White House during Harding’s administration.
Alliances between politicians and gangsters assured the public would not want for alcohol. By 1926, it was apparent the Noble Experiment was not working.2
Prohibition was eventually deemed a failure, and, in 1933, Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21 – as it should have been. Not only was it a failure, it was unbiblical. Although the Bible condemns drunkenness (Deuteronomy 21:20; Isaiah 5:11; 28:1-3; Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-21, 29-35; Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7; and 1 Peter 4:1-3), it does not condemn alcoholic beverages. Consequently, it is unlawful to force abstinence upon others.
Rooftop Negligence
The temperance movement was at the forefront in pressuring Congress to ban the manufacture, transportation, importation, and exportation of intoxicating liquors. It was mostly made up of women claiming to be Christians.3 However, rather than taking a biblical stand on alcoholic consumption, they took a non-biblical stand (one still found in many churches today) and helped frame an unlawful amendment.
1 John 3:4 tells us that “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”4 Because most pastors have rejected Yahweh’s5 law (which defines sin) as applicable for today,6 and because preachers must have sin to preach against to justify their position as “sin killers,” they have come up with their own unbiblical laws – such as condemning all alcoholic consumption.
Yahweh’s law does not condemn alcoholic consumption, nor does it provide a civil sanction against drunkenness:
Many actions that are specified in the Bible as sins are not to be tried and judged by the civil magistrate, but this is not evidence of neglect by God; it is instead a restraint on the growth of messianic civil government.7
What can be done about drunkenness and drug abuse in view of the fact that Amendment 18 and church decrees have deterred neither? Although drunkenness is a sin against Yahweh (what in many instances amounts to idolatry), it is the crimes committed by intoxicated people, not the drunkenness itself, that need to be prosecuted to the full extent of Yahweh’s laws:
When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement [railing] for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. (Deuteronomy 22:8)
In ancient Israel, when flat roofs served as terraces where the homeowner dried and stored crops and entertained guests, homeowners were required to build protective railings around the perimeters of their rooftops. This statute makes homeowners responsible, within reason, for the safety of visitors. If a person is injured or killed because of a homeowner’s negligence, the homeowner is held liable according to lex talionis:
…if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach [fracture for fracture NASB], eye for eye, tooth for tooth [or life for life – Deuteronomy 19:21]: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. (Leviticus 24:19-20)
The Bible does provide an exception to lex talionis when the crime is not premeditated:
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit [shall go unpunished, NASB]. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past [previously in the habit of goring, NASB], and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus 21:28-32)
The ransom in this passage is the only exception for someone guilty of the death of another person. The reason for the exception is not, as R.J. Rushdoony declared “because the ox is the primary murderer.”8 The ransom exception is because the murder was the result of negligence, not premeditation or malice. This would be the case law judgment for all such cases.
When a slave is killed because of an ox owner’s negligence, the slave price of 30 shekels can be paid instead, if the slave owner agrees to the ransom. If a freeman is killed, there is no price ceiling. Whatever the victim’s next of kin requires – whether the life of the guilty party or whatever amount he asks in lieu of the killer’s life – that judgment must be satisfied. If the offending party does not have the required amount, he is to work as an indentured servant until such debt is paid (Exodus 22:3). The idea is not vengeance, but rather the promotion of individual responsibility and liability.
The same would hold true if the damage were an eye or a limb. The damaged party would set the price, and the guilty party would choose whether to pay the price or, for example, forfeit his eye. It seems reasonable that the offending party would make a counter offer, but the damaged party would not be obligated to accept it. (See Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, & Cruel and Unusual Punishments” for a more thorough discussion regarding lex talionis.)
We find an added stipulation for the care of a person who is injured as the result of someone’s negligence:
…if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist [or is injured because of reckless negligence], and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him [or who is responsible for his injury] shall go unpunished [shall not be put to death]; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. (Exodus 21:18-19, NASB)
Deuteronomy 22:8 may seem like an antiquated law, but it is case law that extends far beyond terraces:
It has been quite rightly seen that we have here a case law with respect to liability and responsibility…. The general principle was that no dangerous condition which could be a hazard to life and health should be allowed to remain around the premises. The same prohibition extended to animals, such as a goring ox (Ex. 21-28-32), or an uncovered pit (Ex. 21:33-34). If an ox gored a person, it had to be killed; if the ox had been guilty of such behavior in the past and had not been killed, and it now killed someone, then both the ox and its owner had to die. However, if the owner kept a dangerous ox [which had never previously gored anyone] penned up, then the person who became gored in an instance of trespass was himself the guilty party. An excavation should be covered or fenced to eliminate liability. Trespass thereafter was the fault of the victim. Thus, there was a duty to protect friends and neighbors who came to one’s home or land, but the liability did not include trespassers or guests who entered a fenced pasture with a dangerous bull therein.9
Deuteronomy 22:8 is not so much about rooftops as it is criminal negligence. It applies to all hazards a person might incur as the result of someone’s negligence. In addition to home safety, this statute applies to the workplace and construction zones, as well as machinery such as farm equipment, automobiles, etc. For example, if demonstrable negligence is established against a tire company for accidents caused by tread separation, those responsible should be liable according to lex talionis and compelled to pay lost wages to those injured or disabled.
These judgments would go much further in curbing companies from taking cost-saving but potentially dangerous shortcuts than would bureaucracies (such as OSHA, the FAA, or the FDA) lording it over industry.
In similar fashion, lex talionis should be applied to the abusive use of alcohol and drugs by which others are injured or killed:
An individual who deliberately distorts his own perceptions is implicitly attacking God and his God-created environment…. He then makes decisions under the influence of alcohol or drugs that can physically damage others because of his self-induced distorted perceptions. Drunk drivers are therefore to be prosecuted as criminally negligent, should their acts cause damage. They have “torn off the pit cover” [Exodus 21:33-34] with impunity. Their injury-inflicting acts are not to be considered as accidents…. Their injury-inflicting actions are rather the product of an act of moral rebellion: the implicit denial of their own personal responsibility for their actions….
Here is a person who has the equivalent of a notorious ox: the lawless “beast” is inside him. Worse: he is responsible in a way that a beast is not. He has moral insights concerning the consequences of his acts that a beast does not possess.10
Because Scripture does not altogether prohibit the use of alcohol or drugs, making them illegal as per Amendment 18 (and church edict) is not the answer. Just as the Eighteenth Amendment was inept at controlling alcoholic consumption so are the current drug regulations.
Instead, responsible use should be promoted by punishing only those who have caused harm to another person or someone’s property. For example, instead of attempting to curb drunk driving by prohibiting excessive alcohol consumption, any drunk driver convicted of causing or contributing to the death of an innocent person should be put to death or forced to pay whatever the next of kin requires as ransom for his life. If the injured party does not die, the convicted felon (not an insurance company) should be compelled to pay for medical expenses and financial compensation during convalescence. This compensation should be in addition to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or the required ransom. If he cannot pay the required compensation, he is to serve until his debt is paid. (See Chapter 22 “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery” for a more thorough discussion regarding what the Bible has to say about indentured servitude.) Lex talionis not only promotes personal responsibility, it makes the insurance industry obsolete.
Man’s efforts – including Amendment 18 and church decrees – to control drunk drivers and drug abusers have been wholly ineffective. Conversely, when Yahweh’s laws are enforced and convicted murderers are put to death, society never suffers from repeat offenders when someone is killed as a result of drunken carelessness. If someone is injured, disabled, or dies as a consequence of another person’s irresponsible use of drugs, the punishment should correspond to the death, injury, or damage to property. On the other hand, today’s ineffective drug and alcohol laws have, in many instances, made criminals out of people who have hurt only themselves. This has forced innocent taxpayers to pay for the housing, feeding, and entertainment of people who should never have been imprisoned. (See Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, & Cruel and Unusual Punishments” for a more thorough discussion regarding the Constitutional Republic’s unlawful prison system.11)
Yahweh’s laws make people personally responsible for their actions. His judgments substantially reduce both premeditated crime and careless disregard for the lives and property of others. A downsized and smaller government is an additional benefit derived when “rooftop legislation” is enforced by lex talionis. Federal agencies such as OSHA and the FDA would be superfluous under biblical law. Oversight of a speedy trial and administration of the proper judgment would be the only government intervention required.
The Eighteenth Amendment proved to be a failure and was repealed fourteen years after its adoption (the only Amendment to be repealed in its entirety). It is unfortunate that the entire Constitution has yet to follow suit.
Click Here to Read Chapter 28
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. Tricia Ellis-Christensen, “What is the 18th Amendment?,” wiseGEEK, <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-18th-amendment.htm>.
2. “Prohibition,” EyeWitness to History (2000), <http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com>.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.*
6. See Chapter 1 “The Perfect Law of Yahweh” for a more thorough explanation regarding Yahweh’s law as it applies today.
7. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 532.
8. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 230.
9. Ibid., p. 350.
10. North, p. 491.
11. For an even more thorough discussion of the United States unbiblical penal system, the book Prisons: Shut Them All Down! may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a $3 suggested donation.*
*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 28
|
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.