Click here to get this post in PDF

History as Your Context for Judging

In the case of the U.S., Secularism or Humanism or Progressivism or Liberalism – pick your term – is attempting to woo the Christian West, to reverse that order, and they do so by arguing a lie. First, they assert that the U.S. governmental structure and legal system are Humanist, that the Founders rejected all biblical law and influence when they founded this country. Second, they jettison the means of changing the law, which the Founders themselves established in the U.S. Constitution – by amendment, which requires the consent of the people. Third, they then say that once that change has occurred, it can never be reversed without violating “the law.”

In other words, unlike the Christians who altered the Roman Empire over time by being forthright and honest about their religious faith in Christ and not attempting to overthrow the Roman government by subterfuge, the Secularist lies about the Christian heritage of America, and instead of using lawful means to alter the Constitution by amending it, argues to a federal court not only that Christianity has no say in interpreting that document but also that the original meaning of that document and its historical context have no bearing on its interpretation.

Therefore, returning to the domestic metaphor above, the Secularist doesn’t prove that the husband (biblical heritage and meanings) is unfaithful to the wife (the people) and that a divorce has occurred; the Secularist is a seducer who says to the husband: “You were never married at all, and I don’t even need a divorce to take this woman as my own. In fact, I don’t even need her consent; a court of law will order her to be mine, that will be law, and you’ll be stuck with it!”

And some Christians argue that we are supposed to submit to such deception if it’s committed by “authorities.” We don’t even need the modern historical context to take such an argument apart. Let’s go back to the context of the Roman Empire & consider this example to demonstrate how absurd that proposition is. A magistrate, who has jurisdiction over a particular region of the Empire, orders all slaves and servants freed from their masters. No change in Roman law occurred, the Roman Senate did not issue any such proclamation, nor did the Emperor. This lower magistrate simply issued an order.

Let’s apply Paul & Peter’s injunction about obeying “the authorities” to a Christian living within that magistrate’s jurisdiction. While all the other slaves are packing up to leave, the Christian slave stays, telling his master, “I know that this order by the magistrate is an unlawful one and that the higher authorities will not allow it to stand. He’ll be removed from office soon, and the law will be restored; therefore, in spite of this order from ‘the authority’ over me, I will not be leaving your service like the others.” That is a Christian witness to the requisite biblical submission to the civil authority, even though that Christian was disobeying “the authority.”

Fast forward back to our historical context and an extreme hypothetical: After the conviction of a defendant, the judge orders the bailiff of the court to shoot the defendant, alleging that exigent circumstances change the meaning of due process and that the defendant is “too dangerous to allow him to exercise the right to appeal.” The bailiff refuses and is held in contempt. The contempt case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agrees with the original judge and changes the meaning of “due process” under the U.S. Constitution for such situations. During the appellate process, the original judge retires, and you are appointed to take his place as judge. The order from the U.S. Supreme Court comes to you: “Ensure your bailiff kills the defendant.”

As a judge, you may be able to find a way around that order, or you may recuse yourself, but the precedent has been set. Unless you directly oppose such a perversion of the meaning of “due process,” it will stand – at least for a time. We’re talking about the highest court in the land, after all. Which preserves the original “ordinance,” that is, the U.S. Constitution – obeying the order to have the defendant killed or disobeying the order? In such a situation, the judge can either remain faithful to the concept that once the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on a provision of the Constitution, it is the law of the land, or the judge can be faithful to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. The judge cannot have it both ways.

In our day, the legal profession teaches and advocates that the Supreme Court is absolutely the last court of appeal, and no one can defy it without violating the Constitution. “The Supreme Court is not final because it’s infallible; it’s infallible because it’s final.” Really? If that is so, then we have reversed the order of our republic. Instead of all men, no matter how high their office, being subject to the rule of law, we have all men being subject to certain unelected men and women on the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a “dead letter.” They called it a living Constitution, so they could kill it.

*Over time, the people of Rome defected willingly to Christianity because of the truth of the gospel and the word of God as opposed to the false word of man, then the emperor and law followed afterwards.

*Later it became the only tolerated religion of the Empire.

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, . . . .” I Peter2:1, KJV. “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; . . . .” I Peter 2:11, KJV. The King James translators used “strangers” for a Greek term meaning “foreigners.”

The “original charter” of any society must be interpreted within its proper historical context, or it will be interpreted for mischief. Being like Christ means being faithful to His “original charter,” but it does not mean ignoring our human “original charter,” like the U.S. Constitution. However, just as “the wicked” can misconstrue the bible for their own unfaithful purposes, they can do the same with the U.S. Constitution.

Each society has multiple “authorities.” Society, particularly one that claims to be “free,” must have plural authorities to protect its people from the tyranny of power becoming consolidated in one entity within civil government. This was the “genius” of the Founders – to divide power among the 3 branches of the federal government and to divide power between the federal government and that of the states, the localities, and the people themselves. That practical idea changed the world, and it does not contradict the bible’s ideal for the biblical governing of a free people. In fact, the separation of powers complements the biblical ideal of restricting human power to its proper bounds.

The accumulation of political power into one entity, subject to no other part of civil government, is an unlawful attempt to consolidate power contrary to the original charter, and such can never be a “constitutional act.” Instead of “prais[ing] the wicked” who do such, righteous judges, who “keep the law, contend with them.” Proverbs 28:4, KJV.

In contrast, submitting to such is akin to a “righteous man falling down [or shaking, tottering] before the wicked.” Proverbs 25:26a, KJV. The result according to the God of the bible?

When I say unto the wicked, ‘Thou shalt surely die;’ and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Ezekiel 3:18, KJV.

If you do not oppose the “fouling of the spring,” the corruption of the original charter, then everything is fouled. And God says that as a result, “the wicked beareth rule, [&] the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2, KJV. And just as the Hebrew word for “corrupt” in Proverbs 25 means also to “destroy,” consenting to the original charter’s corruption means its destruction also. Just as God would somehow hold responsible the prophet Ezekiel for his failure to warn the people in Ezekiel 3, could God also hold responsible the professionals in our day (the bench & bar) who promote such wickedness?

Unlike Christ, the wicked are unfaithful to the “original charter,” seeking their own glory. Thereby, they “accept the persons of the wicked,” “justifieth the wicked, and [] condemneth the just,” “saith unto the wicked, ‘Thou art righteous;’ ” “frameth mischief by a law,” and “gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.” In doing so, they “judge unjustly,” they “forsake the law,” they “are abomination to the LORD,” and “the people mourn.” If the righteous do not “contend with them,” or warn their society, but instead let themselves be shaken or moved, “falling down before the wicked,” then judgment still comes upon the society, and God “[r]emove[s] the diadem,” “overturn[ing] it,” and holds accountable the one who should have warned the society.

If the U.S. Constitution is “the supreme law of the land,” then it must be preserved and defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic, even if that enemy is the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s why any society needs plural authorities. That’s why free societies die – the people and those other authorities consent to the lawless consolidation of power and do not contend against it.

So, can the righteous rebuke the wicked, even if they’re in the highest positions of power in the civil government. Or must they “fall down before” them? This is the question before us today – not submission to authorities of which Romans 13 speaks.

In spite of the prospering of the wicked, the believer can rejoice, for “[w]hen the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:” Psalm 92:7, KJV.