Proverbs 28:4

Proverbs 28:4

They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.

a. NLT: To reject the law is to praise the wicked; to obey the law is to fight them.

b. NIV: Those who forsake instruction praise the wicked, but those who heed it resist them.

c. YLT: Those forsaking the law praise the wicked, Those keeping the law plead against them.

d. Amplified Bible: Those who set aside the law [of God and man] praise the wicked,
But those who keep the law [of God and man] struggle with them.

e. Septuagint: so they that forsake the law praise ungodliness; but they that love the law fortify themselves with a wall

f. Stone Edition Torah/Prophets/Writings: Those who forsake the Torah praise the wicked, but the keepers of Torah contend with them.

1. “They that forsake the law praise the wicked…”

a. they that forsake [5800 * ‘azab] [Strongs: to loosen, relinquish, permit.] [Gesenius: to loosen bands, to let go a beast from its bonds; to leave, to leave off, cease.] [AMG, Old Testament Word Study: to leave, abandon, forsake.]

b. the law [8451 * towrah or torah] [Strong: from 3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch:--law.]

c. praise [1984 * halal] [Strongs: a primitive root; to be clear (orig. of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify:--(make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.][Gesenius: to be clear brilliant, to make a show, to be foolish, to praise , celebrate.]

d. wicked [7563 * rasha`] [Strong: from 7561; morally wrong; concretely, an (actively) bad person:--+ condemned, guilty, ungodly, wicked (man), that did wrong.]

1). They that loosen the bands or restrictions of the law celebrate the wicked, celebrate wickedness.

a). “Ten Commandments Thrown Out Of School”, Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/18/80, Washington: “Thou shalt not post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, the Supreme Court told states Monday. By a 5-4 vote, the justices invalidated a 1978 Kentucky law requiring that a 16 x 20 inch copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased at private expense, be placed on the wall of every public classroom in the state. “The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on school room walls is plainly religious in nature,” the court majority concluded in an unsigned opinion issued without waiting for oral arguments and complete legal briefs. The state had argued that the statute did not violate the constitutional principle of church-state separation because no public funds were involved. Moreover, the state contended, the Ten Commandments brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses in the Old Testament have become the foundation of American law. Those arguments were summarily rejected by the Court, which itself sits in a courtroom that includes Moses among its lawgivers. Above the justices’ heads, in fact, is a marble panel depicting the Ten Commandments, flanked by the Majesty of the Law and the Power of Government.”   

b). Stone v. Graham was decided in 1980. It is the first Supreme Court case that dealt with the Ten Commandments and the second time it dealt with the Word of God in public schools. The posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools were declared unconstitutional because, the majority said, it failed the first prong of the Lemon test-a secular purpose.

c). In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602). In the case, the Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The case is discussed in more detail on the Constitution and Religion Page. One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment. The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:  First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. https://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

d). On a side note the similarities of the constitutional principles in the Lemon Test and Psalm 2:1-3 are extremely enlightening.

2). I want to look a little closer at “secular legislative purpose”. It is interesting that in 1963, 17 years previous, when the Supreme Court struck down all Bible reading in public schools (Abington v. Schempp). In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism…” This is exactly what it was because in 1961 the court listed secular humanism as a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins 1961). The removal of the Ten Commandments from all public schools in the U.S. is not just a court decision. It is a decision that sets in motion other spiritual principles. More than a few online grammar sites gives “profane” as a synonym for “secular.”  I think that is very interesting and I am reminded of what Paul warned Timothy.

a). 2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

3). This ruling was indeed a profane babbling and it increased unto more ungodliness.

a). In Adams County, Ohio, this ruling was used as authority to force the county to remove the monument of the Commandments away from the school. It was used in Cobb County Georgia to force them to move its Ten Commandment plaque out of the courthouse. And lastly it was appealed to when McCreary County Kentucky and all U.S. County Courthouses were forced to remove the Ten Commandments from inside the courthouse. In Stone v. Graham the majority wrote: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.” It might induce the children to obey the Commandments??? You mean, they might not commit murder? Sixty years of hostile court decisions against the things of God in our public schools, in our courts and in our traditional public celebrations are a large part of the blame.  

b). I am reminded of Hosea 4:6 that says, “…because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” I am also reminded of Proverbs 1:30, 31 that declares that those who will have nothing to do with God’s counsel or reproof shall eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with their own devices. It was Martin Luther who wrote: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.”

c). The passages in Hosea and Proverbs must be viewed in light of Romans 1:18-32 where the wrath of God is revealed as the sowing and reaping principle of the Lord allowing man by his own free will, given to man at his creation (Genesis 1:26-28), to continue to descend to lower and lower depths of ungodliness.  

4). I have information on school shootings from Wikipedia that spans from 1794 up to the present day. Since the Stone v. Graham decision in June 1980, there have been 18 school shootings and 23 deaths in the 1980’s, 41 school shootings and 77 deaths in the 1990’s, 45 school shootings and 90 deaths in school shootings in the first 10 years of the 21st century, and in the first 8 years of the second decade of the 21st century there have been 149 school shootings and 176 deaths.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States     

In light of this quote from Stone v. Graham, and the fact that Stone V. Graham was sighted as a precedent in 2005 in McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU, it appears the Court is willing to sacrifice the lives of school children to protect its perverted interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I am not naïve enough to think that simply posting the Ten Commandments would prevent these murders; I know there are many more factors to consider, but the bigger picture is our nation forcing God out of our courts, our schools and our lives. But at the same time, the word of God, because it is the word of God and is taught in a sound manner, is able to deter individuals by causing a conflict in the conscience of an individual meditating a crime and convince them not to commit the crime. See Romans 2:15. I can not stress to strongly that it is not God’s will that school shootings occur, but men have determined to force God out of their lives, our courts and our schools. When human beings do so, the dismantling and destruction of lives, families, cities and nations is inevitable.

5). Stone v. Graham makes it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments at public schools or Courthouses. Yet two prominent Founding Fathers didn’t believe incorporating at least two of the Ten Commandments into law were unconstitutional.

a). Oliver Ellsworth, On a Religious Test for Holding Public Office. “If any test were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one requiring all persons appointed to office to declare, at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of God, and in the divine authority of the Scriptures. In favor of such a test, it may be said that one who believes these great truths will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man who believes neither the Word or the being of God, and to be governed merely by selfish motives, how easy is it for him to dissemble!...But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.”

(1) First printed in the Connecticut Courant and the American Mercury. Reprinted in The Annals of America, Vol. 3, 1784-1796, pp. 169-172, Published by Britannica.

(2) Oliver Ellsworth was a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nominated by George Washington.

b). Details regarding James Madison legislating elements of the 4th Commandment come to light in McGowan v. State of Maryland, the 1961 Supreme Court case that upheld Sunday closing laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren authored the decision. “This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly’s enactment of “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”, 12 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in search for the First Amendment’s meaning. See the opinions in Everson v. Board of Education (US) supra. In 1776, nine years before the bill’s passage, Madison co-authored Virginia’s Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience…” 9 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 109, 11-112. Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth century; in 1776, the laws penalizing “maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever” (emphasis added), were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id., at 164. The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. This hope was finally realized when “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” was passed in 1785. In this same year 1785, Madison presented to Virginia legislators “A Bill for Punishing…Sabbathbreakers” which provided, in part: “If any person on Sunday shall himself be found laboring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence.” This became law the following year and remained during the time that Madison fought for the First Amendment in the Congress. It was the law in Virginia, and similar laws were in force in other States, when Madison stated at the Virginia ratification convention: “Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion…Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so in the other states…I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.”

a). In this quote from McGowan v. State of Maryland, 1961, we see that James Madison, in a nine year period from 1776 to 1785, not only successfully fought for religious freedom in Virginia and against the Established Church in Virginia; he also was successful in legislating elements of the Fourth Commandment in Virginia.

6). The insane revelation that the Supreme Court is more lenient toward pornography in our nation than it is toward the Ten Commandments is found when elements of Stone v. Graham are compared with Miller v. California, a pornography case. In Miller v. California, a 1973 obscenity case, the Justices defined obscenity in three parts. 1. whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and 3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

a). The first, “whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…” The second part deals with state laws and doesn’t concern us here. The third part is, “…whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” The phrase used twice in this definition, “the work taken as a whole” is the leniency shown toward pornography. [This is the constitutional principle that became precedent in Roth v. U.S., the landmark Supreme Court case that redefined obscenity in Constitutional Law.] In any pornographic publication, all that the publishers have to do is throw in a few articles on sports, biographies, or short stories and Presto! It’s protected free speech because the whole work is considered. But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, no such leniency is shown. In Stone v. Graham, the majority wrote, “The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20:12-17; Deuteronomy 5:16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers; worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20:1-11; Deuteronomy 5:6-15. Pornographic magazines are protected because, the publication must, “be taken as a whole.” But the Ten Commandments are not allowed because, “they do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters”, but also, “concerns the religious duties of believers.” This is such a twisted interpretation its only source of inspiration could be wicked spirits whispering into the ears of judges.

7). The modern antagonistic position toward Christianity in the godless justices of the Supreme Court can be summarized in a paragraph by Justice Hugo Black who wrote the Court’s opinion in Engel v. Vitale (1962), the decision striking down prayer in public schools. The prayer it struck down was the following: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, our Country.” In his decision, Justice Black wrote: “It is true that New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others--that, indeed, the government endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago.”  Here Justice Black described the prayer of dependence of school children in New York’s public school’s on Almighty God and asking His blessing on their parents, teachers and country as “government encroachment upon religion”. When in reality, The striking down of this prayer in public schools by the Court IS government encroachment upon religion. Justice Black was not only taking aim at men like Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, he was taking aim at every godly man and woman who wanted to acknowledge our dependence upon God not only in our founding but also in our continuing as a free people.

2. “…but such as keep the law contend with them.”

a. [but such as] keep [8104 * shamar] [Strong: a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:--beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).] [Gesenius: to keep, guard, observe, give heed, to keep, have charge of, to keep, guard, keep watch and ward, protect, save life, watch, watchman (participle), to watch for, wait for, to watch, observe, to keep, retain, treasure up (in memory), to keep (within bounds), restrain, to observe, celebrate, keep (sabbath or covenant or commands), perform (vow), to keep, preserve, protect, to keep, reserve, to be on one's guard, take heed, take care, beware, to keep oneself, refrain, abstain, to be kept, be guarded, to keep, pay heed, to keep oneself from.]

b. the law [8451 * towrah or torah] [Strong: from 3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch:--law.]

c. contend with them [1624 * garah][Strong: to grate, i.e. (figuratively) to anger:--contend, meddle, stir up, strive.] [Gesenius: to be rough, be irritated, angry, to make war, to stir up.]