Introduction to Psalm 2
1. Psalm 2 is a Messianic Psalm written by David about 3000 years ago. Prophetically it speaks about the second person of the Triune Godhead becoming man and eventually King over the earth and we know of course it is speaking of Jesus. Psalm 2 is the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament. Different verses of the Psalm are quoted or alluded to 16 times in the New Testament.
a. Matthew 3:17; 17:5 Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; John 1:49; Acts 4:25, 26; 13:33; Hebrews 1:2, 5; 5:5; Revelation 2:26, 27; 11:18; 12:5; 19:15.
2. Psalm 2 though is not only a Messianic Psalm, but also a prophetic warning to the Gentile nations to serve the LORD Jesus Christ IN THE CHURCH AGE! This is established by the fact the passage was quoted by the Apostles in the book of Acts thus placing it in the Church Age and attributing its authorship to David.
a. Acts 4:23-30 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
3. I received that revelation around 1993 after reading David Barton’s book “The Myth of Separation”. Though I don’t remember David Barton mentioning that aspect in his book, the Holy Spirit began to stir my previous studies of Psalm 2 in my spirit. In the book, “The Myth of Separation”, David Barton detailed America's early leaders dedicating this nation to God. The court case by court case that upheld that dedication and the court case by court case that sought to undermine that dedication. This war against the LORD and against his Christ has been waging in America ever since its beginning but is documented to have accelerated in the 1960’s with court cases.
5. Mike Bickel said this in a conference in 2014: Psalm 2 is one of the most relevant and descriptive passages in the Bible for what's happening in this hour of history. I am going to say that again, in this very short passage of scripture King David by the spirit of prophecy, he described I believe what is happening in this very hour and it's going to escalate into the full conflict that David prophesied the full crisis that he describes here but also the full of the glory of God being released in the nations. I believe we are in a very sober season in America. There is a crisis that is in the land that is escalating quickly.
Psalm 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
a. NLT: Why are the nations so angry? Why do they waste their time with futile plans? [Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.]
b. NIV: Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? [THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by Permission of Biblica, Inc.® All rights reserved worldwide.]
c. Amplified Bible: Why do the nations assemble with commotion [uproar and confusion of voices], and why do the people imagine (meditate upon and devise) an empty scheme? [Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation]
d. Septuagint: Wherefore did the heathen rage, and the nations imagine vain things?
e. Stone Edition Torah/Writings/Prophets: Why do nations gather, and regimes talk in vain? [The Artscroll Series/Stone Edition, THE TANACH--STUDENT SIZE EDITION Copyright 1996, 1998 by Mesorah Publications, Ldt.]
1. “Why do the heathen rage…”
a. Why [Strong: 4100 mah maw or mah {mah}; or ma {maw}; or ma {mah}; also meh {meh}; a primitive particle; properly, interrogative what? (including how? why? when?); but also exclamation, what! (including how!), or indefinitely what (including whatever, and even relatively, that which); often used with prefixes in various adverbial or conjunctive senses:--how (long, oft, (- soever)), (no-)thing, what (end, good, purpose, thing), whereby(-fore, -in, -to, -with), (for) why.]
b. [do the] heathen [Strong: 1471 gowy go'-ee; A foreign nation, hence a gentile] [D.C. Note: Foreign in respect to Israel. We are the heathen!]
b. rage [Strong: 7283 ragash raw-gash'; To be tumultuous, rage.]
1). The warning is clearly to the Gentile nations, it is the heathen who are raging and imagining a vain thing not Israel. The questions asked are, “Why do the heathen rage?” and, “Why do the people imagine a vain thing?”
2. “…and the people imagine a vain thing?”
a. [and the] people [Strong: 3816 lom leh-ome' or l owm {leh-ome'}; from an unused root meaning to gather; a community:--nation, people.]
b. imagine [Strong: 1897 hagah daw-gaw'; To murmur, in pleasure or anger.]
c. [a] vain [thing] [Strong: 7385 riyq reek; Emptiness, fig., a worthless thing, in vain, empty, no purpose.
1). Both questions can be answered by looking at Scripture. Becoming vain occurs after truth and light are rejected.
a). 2 Kings 17:15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.
b). Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
2). In both of the above examples, the truth and light of God’s word were rejected and as a result, worthless thinking followed. The effects of rejecting light are clear. There are three of them.
a). A mind void of judgment:
(1) Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
(2) reprobate [96 * adokimos; a-without; dokimos-acceptable] [Zodhiates: Unapproved, unworthy, rejected, cast away. In Romans 1:28, an active usage meaning, undiscerning, not distinguishing, void of judgment.]
(3) A mind that makes wrong decisions. Decisions worthy of rejection, decisions rejected and unapproved from God’s perspective. When men and women reject light and truth, the results will show up in their lives. It is just the same as walking around in the dark, we will be constantly running into things and falling down. Some things will be minor, while some will be extremely serious to the point of losing our lives and determining where we spend eternity.
b). Captivity:
(1) Isaiah 5:13 Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.
c). Destruction:
(1) Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
3). The Scriptures given above further establish this warning is to the nations in the Church Age because before light can be rejected it had to have been received. This fact will be further established in notes concerning Psalm 2:3. These principles can be applied to the individual, to families, and churches, but also to society as a whole. Every institution and everything created by God are all subject to his will, they are all subject to spiritual law, they are all subject to the effects of rejecting the word of God.
Psalm 2:2
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
a. NLT: The kings of the earth prepare for battle; the rulers plot together against the LORD and against his anointed one. [Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.]
b. NIV: The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, [THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by Permission of Biblica, Inc.® All rights reserved worldwide.]
c. Amplified Bible: The kings of the earth take their places; the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and His Anointed One (the Messiah, the Christ). They say, [Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation]
d. Septuagint: The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered themselves together, against the Lord, and against his Christ;
e. Stone Edition Torah/Writings/Prophets: The kings of the earth take their stand and the princes conspire secretly, against HASHEM and against His anointed: [The Artscroll Series/Stone Edition, THE TANACH--STUDENT SIZE EDITION Copyright 1996, 1998 by Mesorah Publications, Ldt.]
1. “The kings of the earth set themselves…”
a. [The] kings [Strong: 4428 melek meh'-lek from 4427; a king:--king, royal.]
b. [of the] earth [Strong: 776 'erets eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.]
c. set [themselves] [Strong: 3320 yâtsab, yaw-tsab'; a primitive root; : To place anything so as to stay, to station, steadfast.]
1). The kings position themselves steadfastly. They position themselves.
2). Tehillim: Page 66. “The kings of the earth take their stand…is a more forceful term than ‘they stand’…[it] implies a firm erect stance in a challenging uncompromising position. The man so entrenched will not allow himself to be budged.”
2. “…and the rulers take counsel together…”
a. [and the] rulers [Strong: 7336 razan raw-zan'; a primitive root; probably to be heavy, i.e. (figuratively) honorable:--prince, ruler.]
b. take counsel [Strong: 3245 yacad yaw-sad'; a primitive root; to set (literally or figuratively); intensively, to found; reflexively, to sit down together, i.e. settle, consult:--appoint, take counsel, establish, (lay the, lay for a) found(-ation), instruct, lay, ordain, set, X sure.]
c. together [Strong: 3162 yachad yakh'-ad; from 3161; properly, a unit, i.e. (adverb) unitedly:--alike, at all (once), both, likewise, only, (al-)together, withal.]
1). The rulers do the same, i.e., position themselves.Then they sit down together and take counsel together and consult one another to lay a foundation or get a plan of action against the LORD and His Christ.
a). Psalm 33:10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
3. “…against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
a. against [Strong: 5921 `al al properly, the same as 5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow):--above, according to(-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-)on, over, than, through(-out), to, touching, X with.]
b. [the] LORD [Strong: 3068 Yehovah yeh-ho-vaw' ; from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord.]
c. [and] against [Strong: 5921 `al al properly, the same as 5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow):--above, according to(-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-)on, over, than, through(-out), to, touching, X with.]
d. [his] anointed [saying] [Strong: 4899 * mashiyach] [Strong’s: usually a consecrated person as a king, a priest, specifically the Messiah: anointed Messiah.]
1). Though we don’t know exactly who said it, Psalm 2:1 & 2 is quoted in Acts 4:25 & 26. No doubt it shows all of the believers present were in agreement, but the important part for this lesson is that it puts the context for the fulfillment for this Psalm in the Church age. This is the first of three Scriptural witnesses that verify it, the other two will be shown later in the Psalm. So it is prophetic in two ways, first, it was written by David about 1000 years before the first advent of Christ Jesus and over 3000 years before the second advent of Christ Jesus.
a). Acts 4:24-31 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
2). There is no doubt the “his anointed’ in verse 2 is referring to Christ Jesus. The above quote in Acts 4:26 clearly says it and not only that, the almost exact wording is found two other times in the New Testament and they all of course refer to Jesus.
a). Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
b). Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
3). The universal reign of the Messiah is clearly revealed in Scripture.
a). Zechariah 9:9-10 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
9:10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
4). Because the context for the Psalm is in the Church age, the warning is to the Gentile leaders during the Church age. The warning is this, The Almighty’s anointed King has been chosen and He is Christ Jesus His Son! You need to serve Him or be held accountable for your actions of rebellion in not serving Him. This includes the United States and all of her laws passed rejecting His sovereignty over her, including your “separation of church and state”, your laws outlawing prayer in public schools, outlawing Bible reading in public schools, outlawing posting Scripture in public schools, legalizing child sacrifice. The list goes on and on, and these decisions challenge the sovereignty of God over America as it is written in Psalm 2.
Psalm 2:3
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their cords from us.
a. NLT: “Let us break their chains,” they cry, “and free ourselves from slavery to God.” [Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.]
b. NIV: “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” [THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by Permission of Biblica, Inc.® All rights reserved worldwide.]
c. Amplified Bible: Let us break Their bands [of restraint] asunder and cast Their cords [of control] from us. [Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation]
d. Septuagint: [saying], Let us break through their bonds, and cast away their yoke from us.
e. Stone Edition Torah/Writings/Prophets: “Let us cut their cords and let is cast of their ropes from ourselves.” [The Artscroll Series/Stone Edition, THE TANACH--STUDENT SIZE EDITION Copyright 1996, 1998 by Mesorah Publications, Ldt.]
1. “Let us break their bands asunder…”
a. Let us break…asunder [Strong: 5423 nathaq naw-thak'; To tear down, break off, burst, draw away, lift up, pluck away, pluck off, pull out, root out.]
b. [Strong: 853 'eth ayth apparent contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely):--(as such unrepresented in English).
c. [their] bands [Strong: 4147 mowcer mo-sare' also (in plural) feminine mowcerah {mo-say-raw'}; or mocrah {mo-ser-aw'}; from 3256; chastisement, i.e., a halter, restraint.]
1). The breaking of the bands and casting of the cords is the Gentiles raging and the vain things that the Gentile nations are imagining. We must remember that before these Gentile nations can break the bands and cast off the cords of the LORD and His Christ they must have been under them first. There had to be some sort of a relationship between these Gentile nations and the LORD and His Christ. The “raging” of the heathen, and the “vain thing” the people are imagining is breaking ties with the Almighty. If words mean anything they want to tear down, pluck off, root out the restraints that God would put on them.
2. “…and cast their cords from us.”
a. [and] cast [Strong: 7993 shalak shaw-lak; To throw out, throw down or away, cast away.]
b. [their] cords [Strong: 5688 `aboth ab-oth' or rabowth {ab-oth'}; or (feminine) tabothah {ab- oth-aw'}; the same as 5687; Something entwinded, i.e., a string, wreath, foliage, band, cord, rope.]
c. from [us] [Strong: 4480 min min or minniy {min-nee'}; or minney (constructive plural) {min-nay'}; (Isaiah 30:11); for 4482; properly, a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses (as follows):--above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.]
1). In Psalm 2:3, the kings and rulers have stationed, positioned themselves with the sum of their counsel. They want to throw off the bands of restraint, the cords of control that God has in their lives.
a). Job 21:14, 15 Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.
21:15 What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?
b). Jeremiah 5:5 I will get me unto the great men, and will speak unto them; for they have known the way of the LORD, and the judgment of their God: but these have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds. [Compare “the yoke” to Matthew 11:29.]
c). Hosea 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
2). Tehillim: page 67. “Technically speaking [the cord] refers to the bonds used to harness the oxen to the yoke… Hirsch stresses that the yoke of God’s anointed hangs heavily upon the necks of the gentile nations also. The cord of the Messiah is the moral self-discipline which he teaches, thus inhibiting the unbridled desires of mankind and saddling man with duties. These limitations are repugnant to the nations who yearn to free their conscience from any inhibition.”
3). Before the Gentile nations can “break the bands” and “cast the cords” of the LORD and Christ from them, they must have been under them. This happened during the Church Age, the period between the resurrection of Christ and his second coming. Though the Body of Christ failed to fulfill the obedience of the Great Commission, the dominant effect of Christianity upon Western culture is undeniable, particularly the continents of Europe, North and South America. The Apostle Paul in his last message to the Jewish leaders recorded in the Book of Acts warns them that the Jews for the most part would reject the Messiah but the Gentiles would accept Him. Note particularly the last verse.
a). Acts 28:23-28 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
4). This study of Psalm 2, in particular verses 1 through 3, is a clear prophetic warning to all nations, but in this study we focus on the U.S. Over the last 60 plus years the United States of America has made rejecting Scriptural truth a foundational part of their constitutional process. Numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions fit this description. Hence we are fulfilling Psalm 2:1-3.
Additional Notes to Psalm 2:3
The United States of America over the last 60 plus years, has made rejecting Scriptural truth a foundational part of their constitutional process. This process has been furthered by all three branches of our government, but primarily in the courts. Granted, there are a good number of godly Americans, in our government and normal citizenry who are 180 degrees away from this philosophy and they have engaged in sincere attempts to reverse it, but up till now no one has been able to reverse most of the damage the Supreme Court has inflicted upon our culture, through its landmark decisions, such as the forbidding of prayer and Bible reading or the posting of Scripture in schools. The imaginary principle “separation of church and state” has not only put us on the path of following vanity, but also will lead us to captivity and destruction. Following this path is exactly what Psalm 2 is warning against.
Along this path we are also adopting Canaanite customs, and it is inevitable that our culture will become more corrupt in a step by step process under the “wrath of God”, unless we repent.
In an attempt to make this more clear we need to look at some Supreme Court decisions; all of which have been decided in the last fifty plus years. All these decisions manifest the spiritual truth of numerous scriptures that will be shown in the various cases. The primary passage violated here is Psalm 2:1-3. [Romans 1:18-32 is also applicable here but will be applied more accurately in Psalm 2:5].
Psalm 2:1-3
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”
a. One of the primary ways the Supreme Court determines whether a law or action violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is use of the “Lemon Test”, a test taken from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This ungodly test is probably cited and used in most if not all the instances where godly Christian traditions or practices have been removed from our cultural landscape.
b. The Lemon Test (Constitutional Law 961) In order for a state statute to be permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) the statutes principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster and excessive government entanglement with religion.
c. The Lemon Test in all its prongs is ungodly. This is clearly demonstrated point by point.
1). The first prong: A secular purpose.
a). According to the American Heritage Dictionary, and Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, a synonym for profane is “secular”.
b). 2 Timothy 2:16 says, “Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Although the word profane means unhallowed, it also means void of religion and lacks all relationship or affinity with God. According to Scripture, the pursuit of secularism will increase more into ungodliness.
c). It was use of this prong that did away with the Ten Commandments in public schools and in county courthouses, [Stone v. Graham (1980) and McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU (2005)]. It was also used to strike down Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act, the state law which required creation be taught alongside evolution in Louisiana public schools. [Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)].
2). The second prong: It must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
a). There is no neutrality with God. Jesus said you are either with me or you’re against me, Matthew 12:30.
3). The third prong: The statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
a). This prong has a prophetic similarity to the purpose of the kings, rulers, and judges of the earth in Psalm 2, against the Lord and against his Christ. “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their cords from us.”
d. All of the decisions of the Supreme Court or any branch of government forbidding Christian traditions on government property, whether it be about prayer, Bible reading, Nativity displays, the Ten Commandments are all “breaking the bands asunder”, “casting away the cords of the Lord”, and suppressing the truth of God. The Apostle Paul calls the attempts “ungodliness” in Romans 1:18. These Supreme Court justices know full well of what they are doing, as will be shown in the following notes.
The First Amendment
1. Adopted June 15, 1790: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
a. Original Intent
1). Joseph Story: “We are not to attribute this [First Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution)…Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation [disapproval] if not universal indignation [anger].” (Source: A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1854, pp. 259-261.) ( Joseph Story, (1779-1845). Member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, 1805-1807, 1811. Member of U. S. House of Representatives 1808-1809. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison, 1811-1845. Authored 269 majority opinions of the Court.) (This quote was taken out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996. p. 30.)
2). HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: “What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation…It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests…In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of the descendants.” (Source: Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made during the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, (Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 1, 6, 8, 9.) (This quote was taken out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996. pp. 30, 31.)
3). SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: “The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion”. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country…[which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected it communion upon its worship on religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided…They [the Founders] intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, not did they wish to see us an irreligious people…they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.” (Source: The Reports of Committes of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1-4.) (This quote was taken out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996, p. 31.)
b. The above quotes make it clear what the original intent of the First Amendment was, but I can assure you that the Judiciary branch of our government at every level, starting with the Supreme Court no longer agrees or applies it that way.
1). Allegheny County v. ACLU [1989 Supreme Court decision about Nativity Scenes at County Courthouses] “Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words[The First Amendment][The Establishment Clause] were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to “the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.” It is settled law that no governmental official in this Nation may violate these fundamental constitutional rights regarding matters of conscience.”
2). Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent: “The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.”
2. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
a. Engel v. Vitale, Prayer in School, 1962
1). The prayer : “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
2). This case was decided in 1962. It forbids children in our nation's public schools to pray while at school.
3). Job 21:15 “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?” But as Job 21:16 says, this is nothing but “the counsel of the wicked”, and full of hypocrisy.
4). Justice Stewart’s dissent in this case lists 10 different president’s requests for prayer, he lists how each day the opening Session of the Supreme Court is opened in prayer, he shows how both houses of Congress open their days with prayer. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Or is the Court suggesting that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer but prohibits school children from doing so?”
5). But the most shocking part of Engel v. Vital is from the pen of Justice Black, and reveals these Justices know full well what they are doing in removing Christian traditions from the public square. “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 governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago.”
a). Government encroachment upon religion? Perhaps he was referring to laws such as the Sunday laws. In McGowan v. Maryland, 1961 a case that challenged Sunday closing laws Chief Justice Warren writes. “The American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement.” One of the examples that he lists is a 1695 New York Sunday law that reads: “Whereas, the true and sincere worship of God according to his holy will and commandments, is often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners in this province, who do not keep holy the Lord’s day, but in a disorderly manner accustom themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse-racing, frequenting of tipping houses and using many other unlawful exercises and pastimes, upon the Lord’s day, to the great scandal of the holy Christian faith, be it enacted, etc.”
b). Or perhaps Justice Black, was referring to the many laws against cursing and blasphemy, such as North Carolina’s Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, from 1790. Or maybe he was referring to Rhode Island’s Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness from 1703.
c). Encroachments upon religion? These were state governments acknowledging their dependence on God. Justice Black’s reasoning is reprobate, it is backwards. What the courts are doing now to squash all Christian tradition from our nation's heritage is encroachment upon religion. The point is these judges know the Christian influences of our nations founding, and they are doing their unholy best to stamp it out fulfilling Psalm 2:1-3.
a. Abington v. Schempp, Forbade Bible Reading in School, 1963. Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day -- even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZS.html
1). In describing the counsel of the wicked Job said in Job 21:14 “Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” And yet this is the counsel of the highest court of land.
2). Justice Stewart vigorously disagreed with the decision and wrote in his dissent. “As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government, The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments…Each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. Thus Virginia from the beginning pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism. Massachusetts, by contrast, had an established church until well into the nineteenth century.” He goes on to write. “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, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”
a). As I read this I am reminded of the relationship of “secular” and “profane”, they are synonymous. The warning in 2 Timothy 2:16 is so applicable. “But shun profane/secular babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Nothing could be more true for the high court, for as the years have passed since those early ungodly decisions much more ungodliness has come down to us through the court, based on these precedents. As they seek to establish a state of neutrality, they are establishing a state of secularism, a state of profanity.
c. Stone v. Graham
1). This case 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.
2). Again I am reminded of the relationship of secular and profane. Paul warned Timothy that profane babbling will increase unto more ungodliness. 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.
b). It was used in Cobb County Georgia to force them to move its Ten Commandment plaque out of the courthouse.
c). 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.
3). 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.”
a). 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.
b). 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). I have no information on school shootings before 1980 or even up to the mid nineteen nineties. On the website, www.infoplease.com in its Crime Data section it listed 40 people murdered and 108 wounded in school shootings from 1996 to 2005. 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 at the same time, the word of God, because it is the word of God 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.
4). In their decisions the Supreme Court has shown it is more lenient toward pornography than it is toward the Commandments. In Miller v. California, a 1972 obscenity case, the Justices defined obscenity in three parts. 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. See below.] Because of this obscenity test, 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.
a). 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.
b). 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.
6). 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 no 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.”
b). 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.
c). Oliver Ellsworth was a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nominated by George Washington.
d). In McGowan v. State of Maryland, a 1961 Supreme Court case that upheld Sunday closing laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the following in 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.”
e). In this quote from a Supreme Court case in 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.
d. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987
1). This case was decided in 1987. It dealt with a Louisiana statute that required the state’s public schools to give “balanced treatment” to “creation science” and “evolution science.”
2). This decision forbids public schools from teaching that God created all life including mankind and allows them to teach exclusively that all life evolved from slime. Not only is it a God hating opinion, it is also hypocritical. This demonic effort to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”, is interpreted by the high Court as “protecting” Louisiana and the rest of the nation from a violation of the Establishment Clause.
3). The absurd reasoning used by the majority in this case is revealed when it is shown that they have by this case, violated the same Establishment Clause they thought they were protecting.
4). In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court from 1961 that outlawed religious tests in the individual States, also established Secular Humanism as a religion [Footnote 11], and evolution is a basic tenant of Secular Humanism.
3. The Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press Clause and the Redefining of Obscenity: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
a. Roth v. U.S, 1956,
1). This case was decided in 1956. Justice Brennan wrote this decision. This is a landmark case because it redefined obscenity. One of the Constitutional standards for obscenity as a result of this case was the material has to be taken as a whole.
2). At the beginning of the opinion Justice Brennan wrote, “The guarantees of freedom of expression in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. As early as 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon” in imitation or mimicking of religious services…Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offences.”
a). Some of the examples listed in footnote 12 are: “Act Against Drunkenness, Blasphemy, Connecticut, 1737; Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, New Hampshire, 1791; Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, North Carolina, 1700; Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness, Rhode Island, 1703.”
b). It is obvious that the standard of early America was much stricter than what we have today. All those actions that were illegal in 17th, 18th and early 19th century America are now “protected” behaviors. They were incrementally included into the freedoms of the press and speech of the First Amendment by Supreme Court cases within the last 60 years. 20th and 21st century America is not our Founders America.
3). In this case the contemporary Constitutional standard of, “…the material must be taken as a whole…”, was established in judging obscenity.
a). “The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin, [1868]. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of an isolated passage upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.”
b). This is why magazines like Playboy are constitutionally protected. They put in articles about sports, cooking; biographies and they are “protected”.
c). Reprobate reasoning would argue that this was done for the advancement of science and freedom. But in another obscenity case, this one from 1972, Miller v. California, Chief Justice Burger wrote, “There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex, in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an “extraordinary vigorous period,” not just in economics and politics, but in bellesletters and in “the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.”
b. Why and How did this happen? Earlier in our nation’s history, the local, state and federal government was still guided by Biblical principles, and we still acknowledged our dependence on God. But over time “secular/profane” “rulers” and “judges” have arisen and purposed to “break their [the LORD and his anointed] bands asunder, and cast away their cords”. Because of this our nation is eating the fruit of its own ways.
1). What Isaiah wrote concerning Israel 2700 years ago now certainly applies to contemporary America. Isaiah 5:20,21,23,24: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight….Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore…their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
a). In Leviticus 18 there is a list of Canaanite sexual practices that were forbidden for God’s Covenant people. Verses 6-18 deal with incest, verse 19 forbids sex when a woman is on her period. Verse 20 forbids sex with another man’s wife. Verse 21 forbids child sacrifice. Verse 22 forbids homosexuality. Verse 23 forbids bestiality. Leviticus 18:24-30 declares that if Israel engaged in these behaviors they would defile the land. Total: 6 behaviors.
b). In Deuteronomy 18:9-14 there is another list of Canaanite practices that God’s Covenant people were forbidden to practice. They include in verse 10, child sacrifice, and 9 different practices of witchcraft described in verses 10 and 11. Total 10 behaviors. All 10 are constitutionally protected behaviors.
c). Including both lists we have a total of 7 different general ehaviors. Four out of the seven practices are Constitutionally protected behaviors in 21st century America.
No comments:
Post a Comment