Introduction: Nimrod as the First Statist

Weaver introduces Nimrod from Genesis 10, whose name means 'rebellion,' and describes him as the first to establish a coercive government and idolatry, openly defying God.

Genesis chapter 10, and I'm going to tell you up front that you're going to have to listen very closely today. The message is entitled just simply "Statism." If you will grasp the principles that I'm going to be enunciating this morning, I believe you'll be able to understand what is happening in our land today. So let's look in Genesis chapter 10 and let's begin reading with verse 8. Genesis 10, verse 8: "And Cush begat Nimrod."

Now note the Bible says he was a mighty hunter before the Lord, wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. Think just for a moment of the name Nimrod. The only thing that you can say, first of all, is what a name, and then secondly, what a legacy. The word Nimrod comes from the Hebrew word "Marad," which literally means "he rebelled" or "rebellion," or "one who is valiant in rebellion." Now, the Bible tells us that Nimrod was a descendant of Cush, the son of Ham. He was first to be claimed a mighty one in the earth. Babel was the beginning of his kingdom. Now, I'm not asking that you turn to Micah 5 and verse 6, but in that passage, the Word of God refers to the land of Nimrod.

So the land of Nimrod then is a designation for Assyria or Shinar, which, of course, was a part of his dominion. Now, the Bible tells us that Nimrod began to be a mighty one in the earth. That is, he was the first one that formed a plan of government and brought men into subjection unto it. He began to be mighty in sin and to rebel before the Lord in the earth. In his civil character, he was a ruler and a governor. Nimrod was the first to reduce people under one form of government from various cities, and literally he became the head of this government. He either did so by force or usurpation or with the consent of the people through his persuasion and through his deception. Now the Bible specifically says in Genesis 10 and verse 9 that Nimrod was a mighty hunter, and you can look at it, "before the Lord."

Now the word "before" is a very interesting word. It not only refers to "in the presence of," but it also means "against." So Nimrod was not only doing what he did in the presence of the Lord God, that is, with God looking on, but he did what he did against the Lord. In other words, Nimrod was not only defiant, but he was also presumptuous. He openly challenged God. Now, when the Bible tells us that Nimrod was the first one who set up this kingdom, we must understand that he set it up first and foremost by idolatry, the way Jeroboam did for the confirming of his usurped dominion. He did so that he might set up a new government in establishing his government and his religion. Thus, Nimrod basically became the first in idolatry and the first in tyranny.

And of course, you know, the Bible teaches us that Babylon was indeed the mother of harlots. Secondly, this verse also refers to the fact that he carried on oppression and violence in defiance of God himself. Here is the attitude of Nimrod: "I will do what I want to do, and God—I could care less what God thinks. It doesn't matter. I am in control."

Nimrod's Character: Hunter vs. Shepherd

Nimrod is contrasted with a shepherd; he was a hunter who gratified himself at others' expense, while God's ideal ruler is a shepherd who protects and feeds the flock.

Now, I want to give you in just a moment, and I want to give you one now, two quotes concerning verse 9. And the only reason I'm going to give you these quotes are, number one, because they're excellent quotes, but number two, to demonstrate to you that what I'm teaching you is not some recent innovation, but godly men have held this interpretation down through the years. So here's a quote from John Calvin on Genesis 10 and verse 9, when he talks about how he became a mighty hunter before the Lord. So here's the quote. Listen to what Calvin said: "The ambition of Nimrod disturbed and broke through the boundaries of this reverence." "Moreover, since it sufficiently appears that in this sentence of Moses, the tyrant is branded with an eternal mark of infamy, we may hence conclude how highly pleasing to God is a mild administration of affairs among men. And truly, whosoever remembers that he is a man will gladly cultivate the society of others. With respect to the meaning of the Hebrew terms, it properly signifies hunting. But whether Moses says that he was robust in hunting or in violently seizing upon prey, he metaphorically intimates that he was a furious man and approximated to beasts rather than to men. The expression 'before the Lord' seems to me to declare that Nimrod attempted to raise himself above the order of men, just as proud men become transported by a vain self-confidence that they may look down as from the clouds upon others."

So what Calvin is saying is basically the same that I've just given you. He is saying that Nimrod was a man who lifted himself up against God and against his fellow men. He usurped power, he stole authority, he thought himself above others, and that he was to be the ruler rather than the ruled. You know, it's interesting, as you study through Scripture, you often find that earthly power is first found with those who are under the curse and those who are wicked, like here under the auspices of Nimrod. Isn't it amazing that you find that things usually develop far more quickly under the wicked than they do under the righteous? And here, Nimrod was the man who took control. By the way, there's a reason for that. You know what the reason is? Because the godly people want to do things right, wait upon the Lord, and make sure they do things according to His Word, whereas the ungodly are not concerned about the truth of the Word of God at all, nor are they concerned about God. Nimrod was a mighty rebel. Remember, his name means "rebel" or "rebellion," and his character before God was that of a hunter. Now, think about this. God took notice of his character. A hunter is exactly the opposite of a shepherd. A hunter always gratifies himself at the expense of his victim, but a shepherd is one who extends and expends himself for the good of the subject under his care.

Have you ever noticed that God's ideal of a king, God's ideal of a civil ruler, is a shepherd? Do you know where David was when God called him? Keeping his father's sheep. Do you know where Moses was when God called him? Out in the desert of Midian, keeping his father-in-law's sheep. He was a shepherd. You see, the Lord loves a shepherd. Why? Because a shepherd is one who gathers and protects and feeds the flock.

The opposite of a hunter. But it's interesting that Nimrod was a mighty hunter. In other words, Nimrod was a rebel toward God and a hunter toward men. So are all who follow in his footsteps. We see the beginning here. It is the character in which earthly imperial power appears on the scene of Scripture. I want you to note two things. Corruption and violence are the two principles of Babylon and Nineveh. Babylon is always marked with corruption. And then it is always marked by violence. You see, there is a vain glory in Babylon. Babylon was the scene of man's glory and the most corrupting influence that you could possibly think of. And Assyria has always been the enemy of God's people.

Historical Interpretation of Nimrod

Quotes from John Calvin and Matthew Poole confirm that Nimrod's tyranny and defiance of God have been recognized throughout church history.

"Moreover, since it sufficiently appears that in this sentence of Moses, the tyrant is branded with an eternal mark of infamy, we may hence conclude how highly pleasing to God is a mild administration of affairs among men. And truly, whosoever remembers that he is a man will gladly cultivate the society of others. With respect to the meaning of the Hebrew terms, it properly signifies hunting. But whether Moses says that he was robust in hunting or in violently seizing upon prey, he metaphorically intimates that he was a furious man and approximated to beasts rather than to men. The expression 'before the Lord' seems to me to declare that Nimrod attempted to raise himself above the order of men, just as proud men become transported by a vain self-confidence that they may look down as from the clouds upon others."

So what Calvin is saying is basically the same that I've just given you. He is saying that Nimrod was a man who lifted himself up against God and against his fellow men. He usurped power, he stole authority, he thought himself above others, and that he was to be the ruler rather than the ruled. You know, it's interesting, as you study through Scripture, you often find that earthly power is first found with those who are under the curse and those who are wicked, like here under the auspices of Nimrod. Isn't it amazing that you find that things usually develop far more quickly under the wicked than they do under the righteous? And here, Nimrod was the man who took control. By the way, there's a reason for that. You know what the reason is? Because the godly people want to do things right, wait upon the Lord, and make sure they do things according to His Word, whereas the ungodly are not concerned about the truth of the Word of God at all, nor are they concerned about God. Nimrod was a mighty rebel. Remember, his name means "rebel" or "rebellion," and his character before God was that of a hunter. Now, think about this. God took notice of his character. A hunter is exactly the opposite of a shepherd. A hunter always gratifies himself at the expense of his victim, but a shepherd is one who extends and expends himself for the good of the subject under his care.

Have you ever noticed that God's ideal of a king, God's ideal of a civil ruler, is a shepherd? Do you know where David was when God called him? Keeping his father's sheep. Do you know where Moses was when God called him? Out in the desert of Midian, keeping his father-in-law's sheep. He was a shepherd. You see, the Lord loves a shepherd. Why? Because a shepherd is one who gathers and protects and feeds the flock.

The opposite of a hunter. But it's interesting that Nimrod was a mighty hunter. In other words, Nimrod was a rebel toward God and a hunter toward men. So are all who follow in his footsteps. We see the beginning here. It is the character in which earthly imperial power appears on the scene of Scripture. I want you to note two things. Corruption and violence are the two principles of Babylon and Nineveh. Babylon is always marked with corruption. And then it is always marked by violence. You see, there is a vain glory in Babylon. Babylon was the scene of man's glory and the most corrupting influence that you could possibly think of. And Assyria has always been the enemy of God's people.

Now listen to me carefully because here is what I'm going to develop. We live in a Nimrod society. A Nimrod society is a statist society. In a statist society, everything must be for the state and nothing against the state. An excellent illustration of this is when President George Bush said recently, and I might add while plagiarizing the words of Jesus Christ, when he said concerning his war on terrorism, "You're either for us or against us." What was he saying? "You're either for us or against us." Unhappily, that is indeed the attitude of a statist government in every sphere, not just on the sphere of the war on terrorism. You see, a statist religion exists in America, and many times a statist religion parades under the umbrella of Christianity. Do you realize, I suppose our greatest problem in this country is this, that we have so forgotten, so neglected and turned from the Word of God that we really do not recognize or know what biblical Christianity really is.

Modern Statism and the Mark of the Beast

Weaver argues that many Christians already think and act like statists, having made government a false god, and that unbiblical thinking is akin to taking the mark of the beast.

We have been so brainwashed and propagandized to the extent that the average American, and I will go further, the average American Christian, are nothing less than good little statists. And we don't even realize it. We profess to be Christians, we express a desire to act like Christians, but the truth is that our attitude and our actions betray our profession. We say one thing and we live another. We profess the truth, but we live a lie. Let me give you an illustration. I suppose I have heard countless numbers of Christians say this to me: "Well, Brother Weaver, one thing for sure, I'll never take the mark of the beast."

Now, I want you to stop and think with me just for a moment. We read about the mark of the beast in the book of Revelation. Do you remember that mark was supposedly to be put either on the forehead or in the hand? Do you realize that you really do not have to have a literal mark to have a mark? The forehead always speaks of the thoughts. The hand always speaks of the actions. Many Christians already think and act like good little statists. They do not need a literal mark. Their thoughts are unbiblical and unscriptural. Their actions are unbiblical and unscriptural. And to demonstrate that, in this country, the Christians have literally made government a god. It is a false god.

But still, we give government the worship, the honor, the praise, and the homage—and I might add the money—that belongs only to the one true and the living God. The truth is, we already have a mark. We don't even realize it. Anytime you think unbiblically, you're thinking like an antichrist. Anytime you act unbiblically, you're acting like an antichrist.

Now, let me just try to begin to demonstrate for you how we got in the mess that we're in. You see, there has been a shift in power in this country, and it has been done imperceptibly. There's been a shift in power all through the years. But let me demonstrate it. Do you realize that originally, in the beginning of the Scripture, power was centered in the individual?

The Shift of Power Through History

Power has moved from self-government to patriarchy, to churches and pastors, to universities, and finally to the state, which now claims absolute authority.

Because of that, the first, most basic form of government is self-government. Let's be absolutely honest, folks. If you're not going to do what's right, if you're not going to govern yourself, the truth is there's always going to be an outside power that's going to govern you for your own good. So the very first and most basic form of government is self-government. What is it that has been destroyed primarily in this country? Self-government. Alice heard on the news today—I didn't hear it, but she was telling me—they started a camp now just for atheists. And you can go there as an atheist and learn how to live responsibly and morally as atheists. How in the world can you live responsibly and morally as an atheist? If there is no one or nothing to whom you must ultimately give an account, why should you be responsible?

And why should you be accountable? I mean, it's ridiculous. What we've lost in this country is self-responsibility. We've lost self-government.

Now, what happened in the Old Testament was this. Power then went from the individual to what you and I would call the patriarch. So in the Old Testament, you had patriarchy, that is, the rule of the family and the extended family by one head member of the clan. Do you remember Genesis chapter 39? You don't have to turn there, but Genesis 39 in verses 1 through 3, it was Jacob who gave Joseph that coat of many colors. Do you remember when the Bible says that he gave him that coat that his brethren hated him and could not speak peaceably for him? Now, they weren't mad at Joseph just because he got a new coat, nor were they mad at Joseph just because he got a pretty coat. What upset them was the implication of that coat.

If you read the context, those boys had planned some crime and some sin against their father. I don't know what it was. Maybe they were going to steal some of the sheep. I have no earthly idea. The Bible does not say. But when Joseph found out of their scheme, he came and told his father. Now I want you to understand that Joseph was not being a tattletale. That's not his attitude. His attitude is, "My brothers are doing what is wrong and wicked and contrary to the Word of God. And I'm not going to put up with it. I'm not going to allow it. I will not have my father and my family defrauded." And when Joseph reported to his father, his father said, "Here is someone that is trustworthy," and he gave him this coat, and that coat meant that Joseph now was going to be the next head of the family, not the firstborn.

Not Reuben, who defiled his father's bed. No, no, no. Now it's going to be Joseph. Joseph will be the executor of the estate. Joseph will be the administrator. Joseph will be the next head. And as that next head, Joseph not only gets a double portion of the goods, he not only becomes the head of the family, but also now is given him the lineage of Jesus Christ. So you have then, in the Old Testament, this patriarchy that's being passed down from one family member to the other family member. Well, patriarchy soon passed off the scene.

We no longer live like that. But guess where the power went? It went to the churches. And it went primarily to the pastors. Especially those pastors who realized their position under God and their responsibility under God. Do you know who the leaders of the American Revolution were? The pastors. You remember they wore those long flowing black robes, and the British so hated the pastors in the American Revolution.

They gave them a name. They called them the Black Robe Regiment. I have a sermon on that showing how those pastors preached and taught and fought. And why did they wear these long flowing black robes? Not because they wanted to be pretty, not because they thought it was something nice and fancy, but that robe was an expression of power and authority. That's why Joseph was given that robe. That robe expressed power and authority. So now that power and authority is being passed not from the head of one particular family, but now it's being passed to a pastor who is the head of a number of families in a local congregation. You see, it's the same concept, but applied just a little bit differently. Well, what happened? The pastors, of course, began to throw away the power, throw away the authority, throw away their responsibility, and they wanted to be sweet, effeminate individuals who just, you know, got along with everybody. And guess what happened? The power passed to the universities. Well, actually, it went to the universities first before it got to the pastors.

That's why Martin Luther, you remember? It was the universities. That's why they had all of these robes and all this fancy regalia at graduation, because at one time the universities were responsible for conveying truth. You don't get any scriptural truth now in the universities. When you stop and think about Yale and Princeton being begun as divinity schools. So the robes, then, have actually gone from the individual to the head of a family, actually to a university, then to a pastor.

But now pastors have denied Him. And let me ask you, I know you know the answer to this. Who wears the robes today? The government, and especially the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court justices. Do you realize they have stolen, they have usurped the authority? And God never gave them the authority that they now possess. Now, they do have authority in a certain area. But it's just like when our country was first founded. When judges walked into the courtroom carrying an open Bible and men stood out of respect for the Word of God. Now they kick the Bible out and they want you to stand out of respect for the man. And their robes, according to their own interpretation, not only speak of power, but absolute power.

So the judge is really not interested in doing what's right and honest and just. His attitude is this: "If you don't like my ruling, appeal it. It doesn't matter. I can do what I want to do. I am a judge."

The Nature and Powers of the State

The state operates through coercion, conscription, and confiscation, and views itself as the source of all law and sovereignty, competing with Christianity.

Now, the point I'm trying to make, folks, is very simple. And that is this: Power never, ever operates in a vacuum. If you and I do not use the power and the authority that God has given us, it is always going to pass to someone else who will use it. Thus we have today statism. Listen carefully. Statism views the state as the source of authority, morality, law, and dominion. In statism, religion becomes a department of the state, and the state becomes the total institution comprehending the life and the property of man. Under statism, the state must regulate and control everything for the benefit of the state. Do you realize the state has three great powers?

First of all, coercion; secondly, conscription; and thirdly, confiscation. Coercion comes to its power of intimidation and enforcement. How many of you—although you're not criminals, have no desire to become a criminal—how many of you just dearly love going through a roadblock? You see what I'm saying? Do you realize we are intimidated? Why? They have weapons, we don't. And although we're not doing anything wrong, the average individual is afraid that they will be suspected of doing something wrong. That's intimidation. So, coercion comes to its power of intimidation and enforcement. Conscription comes to its ability to draft for the military, or emergency, or even in economic matters. And confiscation is accomplished through taxation and eminent domain. I want you to listen very carefully because one author has said this very succinctly and I'm going to give you a quote. I want you to think about this. The author stated, "What is considered theft in the private sector is taxation when done by the state. What is kidnapping in the private sector is selective service in the public sector."

"What is counterfeiting when done in the private sector is monetary policy when done by the public sector. What is mass murder in the private sector is foreign policy in the public sector." Did you see how the state, quote-unquote, does things and the private individual cannot do things? And so you're left with coercion, conscription, and confiscation. Now, by the way, confiscation or taxation is no longer used merely as a means for the support of our government, but it's also become a means of leveling and equalitarian concepts. Taxation has become not merely the redistribution of wealth, but it is also a means of restructuring society according to the desires of the state. Taxation is now more a means of social and economic change. Through taxation, the state secures its own existence and perpetuity.

Thomas Paine, who I do not necessarily recommend that you read, but he was one of the men who was around during the founding of our country, has a book, The Rights of Man, and he affirmed the principle of the nation state. Now listen to what Thomas Paine said: "The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty, nor can any individual or any body of men be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it." End quote. Did you hear what Paine said? Paine said that the state or the nation is the source of all sovereignty. Nor can any individual or any body of men be entitled to any authority except it is given them from the state. That is statism. You see, the humanistic view of the state allows the state to view itself as the source of all law and authority. According to statism, neither law nor authority originates or flows from God, the true sovereign, but it all flows from the state.

Consequently, the government now fights against all rival forms of government: individual government, familial government, ecclesiastical government, societal government, theological government. In other words, in statism, the state claims to be the government, period, which is a humanistic premise and concept. Now, if you want to know what is happening in our land, if you want to know why there are so many anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-Bible laws, rules, regulations being enacted, I want you to listen carefully, because under statism, Christianity increasingly becomes a hindrance and an embarrassment to the powers that be. Consequently, the government then seeks to distance itself from Christianity. If that's not what is happening in this country, folks, I don't know what is. You see, it was once firmly held and firmly believed, not just by this country, but by other countries as well, that Christians make the best citizens, and therefore Christians were absolutely necessary for a good society. But statism believes and teaches that a good, moral society can be achieved without Christians, and especially without reference to God or the Bible. Thus in statism, there is a denial for the need of biblical regeneration and conversion. So under statism, salvation is not of God, it is of the state. Christians are no longer needed. Churches are no longer needed. The state has achieved a monopoly on power, and it now seeks to free men from the bondage of Christian culture, Christian law, and Christian responsibility. Is that not apparent in our country? Have we not been alienated as Christians in our own country?

So you've got to ask yourself a simple question. Here it is: Is salvation a work of God or a work of government? To put it another way, we may ask this: Is the answer to the sin problem resolved by God or resolved by the government? You stop and think of how the government tries to resolve everything unbiblically, and you might even say anti-biblically, because if a biblical principle is pointed out, it certainly is not accepted, not even plausible.

The State as a Rival God

The state claims attributes of God such as omniscience and demands unlimited obedience, but only God is sovereign; citizens owe only limited obedience to government.

Let me give you a quote from R.J. Rushdoony. He wrote a book years ago entitled Politics of Guilt and Pity. I would encourage you to read that book. It's not necessarily an easy read, but it's a wonderful read. And I will tell you this, if you read that book and understand how our society has been manipulated through guilt and pity, it'll open your eyes. You know, you talk about slavery. Now stop and think about this. You hear about slavery today, reparations for slavery. Let me tell you something, folks. I am not responsible for what someone did 200 years ago. But if I can make you guilty over that, then I can control you. If I can make you guilty over anything, or if I can get your empathy over anything, I can manipulate you and control you any way I want to.

And that's what this book deals with. It deals with the politics of guilt and pity. And whenever you put someone on a guilt trip, you're attempting to manipulate them. You're attempting to control them. Why? "Every other mom and dad let their kids do it, why don't you let me?" What is that? That's manipulation. "You ought to feel guilty because everybody else gets to do it, but I don't get to do it." Same principle.

But listen to what Rushdoony said, and I'm quoting: "The modern state has made salvation its function. Man is to be saved from poverty, sickness, death, ignorance, sin, war, superstition, and all things else by the saving state, which works steadily to create its divine order, the saving society. Every area the state wishes to invade and possess in the name of the welfare of man becomes its legitimate jurisdiction. A total sovereignty is asserted in the name of man. The state steadily denies the need of a Christian theological order as it claims jurisdiction over every area in terms of its royal divinity. Thus, the expansive state has become a competitor to Christianity." That's a very important statement. "Thus, the expansive state has become a competitor to Christianity. It has become an idol before which men prostrate themselves. This is an ancient form of idolatry. For example, the imperial Roman coinage used during Christ's earthly ministry made it plain that the civil authority was to be treated as a god. On the denarius handed to Jesus in Matthew 22:19 was the image of Caesar with this inscription: 'Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.' The other side lauded Caesar as a high priest. Though we may not have this explicit claim to an alternative religious authority printed on our coinage, we can increasingly observe some of the earmarks of religious homage paid to the state." Listen carefully.

"There is extensive regulation of what was hitherto the domain of the individual, family, or church. Our taxes, while not the highest in the world, have been on an upward trend for a century, showing an increasing financial commitment to the state as opposed to other institutions." Let me ask you a question. Is the state really concerned about the church? No. Is it really concerned about the family? No. Is it really concerned about the individual?

And the answer is no. And I'm going to show you that in just a moment. You see, Plato was one of the earlier statists. He was a Greek philosopher. He wrote a book entitled The Republic. And in his treatise on the Republic, he envisioned the world controlled by an elite group of philosopher kings. These philosopher kings were all-wise and all-knowing. And basically here was his concept.

The rulers are not accountable to the public. And they require absolute individual devotion and submission for the good of the state. How about that? In Plato's Republic, only philosophers can have access to objective knowledge. I'm fixing to give you a quote, listen carefully. "Philosophers being," as he put it, "people who are capable of apprehending what is eternal and unchanging."

Now, he's not referring to the Bible. Those individuals who can sit down in a quiet place and think clearly. Everyone else, which would include the rest of us, he describes as "those who are incapable of this and lose themselves and wander amid the multiplicities of multifarious things." So what's he saying? There's only a few people chosen who have the knowledge to rule in a state or in a nation. They are the elite, they are unaccountable to anyone, and everyone else must give them their undying devotion and loyalty and submission because it is for their own good. Do you recognize that attitude? The modern state is anti-God, anti-Bible, and anti-Christ. Why? Because it neither recognizes a power higher than itself, nor will it allow itself to be corrected or reformed by any power. I told you repeatedly, and I'm sure that you know it, but I want to say this again, just in case someone listens to this tape who's never heard any other message. God created only three institutions: the family, which is a ministry of education; the church, which is a ministry of grace; and the state or civil government, which is a ministry of justice. It is God who not only created these institutions, but He's the one who's laid down the qualifications in these institutions. He did so in the family. He did so in the church. He does so in the state. And it's God who also gives us the limitations of these institutions. Yes, the state does have authority under God in its own proper and limited sphere. But when an institution will not recognize anything higher than itself, nor be reformed by anything outside of itself, it is claiming godhood no matter how you cut it.

It is claiming to be supreme and sovereign. Only God is absolute. Only God is supreme. Only God is sovereign. Why must the state, why must the nation steal the attributes of God? And the answer is because the Marxist Hegel said it very bluntly, "The state is God walking on earth." Now if the state is God, then Jesus Christ is not God. Have you ever wondered why the state is so nosy and desires to know everything about you?

I mean, that is really irritating to a lot of people. I mean, they want to know every detail. Look at some of the census forms that have been sent out. And by the way, you're foolish if you fill all that stuff out. You say, "How can you say that? You've got to fill it out according to the law." No. The Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land, says Congress shall have the power to enumerate the people. The word "enumerate" means to count. The only thing you owe them is how many people are in that house. That's it. They don't need to know how many bathrooms you have and how often you go to the bathroom and how far you drive to work. That's none of their business. But why do they want to know everything about you?

Do you realize that one of the attributes of God is omniscience? God is all-knowing. God knows everything. Well, if the government then claims to be God, it too must exercise the attributes of God. Do you realize the state does not have the right to total knowledge over its citizens? It does not have the right to attempt or to transgress the privacy of its citizens. When it does so, it is attempting to be omniscient and thus make itself a rival to the one true and living God. Only God is omniscient. Only God knows everything thoroughly, totally, and completely. Listen folks, the state does not have the right to do with its citizens as it wills. Listen carefully. The only thing a citizen owes his government is obedience to its laws. And that obedience is limited by the Word of God and by the various constitutions of the state. No citizen owes any government unlimited obedience. Unlimited obedience is reserved for God alone.

That's why Peter and the rest of the apostles said in Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather than men." I've often heard people say, "Well, you must understand the government is just looking out for our best interest."

The State's Self-Interest and Tyranny

Quotes from Rothbard and Mencken show the state primarily protects itself, not citizens, and is the common enemy of decent men; property taxes exemplify unjust coercion.

Now, if you really think that the government is genuinely interested in its citizens, I want you to listen to this quote by Murray Rothbard. Murray N. Rothbard. Listen to what he said: "We may test the hypothesis that the state is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking, which category of crimes does the state pursue and punish most intensely? Those against private citizens or those against itself? The greatest crimes in the state's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private property, or private persons, but dangers to its own contentment. For example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers, and such economic crimes against the state as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax."

"Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman with the attention that the state pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the state's openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes very few people as inconsistent with its very reason for being." Let me ask you a question. If a man shot at me today and missed me, and I went in and reported it to the police, and someone shot at the governor and missed him. Who do you think they're going to track down first? The man that shot at him or the man that shot at me? Or if it's just a policeman? You see what I'm saying? Which crimes does the state persecute more quickly and more intensely? Those against the citizens or those against itself? And the answer comes back, those against itself. It's not even the citizens primarily in which the state is interested. It is interested in itself. H.L.

Mencken in 1926 said this, listen carefully: "It, the state, has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities. It has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every active citizen, however secret, and has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a state religion. Its agents become a separate and superior caste with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot." "But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious, and decent men." You know, I suppose there is absolutely no tax that I despise more than the property tax. The property tax is the most unbiblical tax there is, because the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. And I get so frustrated when property taxes continue to increase and continue to increase and you find out that 90% of those taxes are going to the support of the government schools.

And you stop and think, why should I be forced to pay for the education of someone else's children? Do you realize it is not my responsibility to educate your child? That's your responsibility. It's not my responsibility to pay for your child's education. That's your responsibility. And guess what? If you do not happen to own property, if you just rent, you don't pay property taxes. Which means everyone who rents gets a free ride.

And only those who are industrious and work and save are penalized. Now that's exactly what H.L. Mencken was saying. Albert Nock wrote a book entitled Our Enemy, The State. How accurate is that title? And by the way, there are plenty of Nockian societies around today. But let me tell you, I'm going to make some applications, but I want you to understand that government without God is an age-old heresy. It is an age-old idolatry. It is when the state basically claims godhood. It is when the state claims to be able to dictate its own law and control its own destiny. Do you not remember that was exactly the temptation in the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3 when Adam and Eve could make their own law and be their own God and do their own thing? As humanistic control and humanistic philosophy progress, the state will become more and more apostate and more and more open in its rebellion to the one true and the living God. In order to elevate itself to true godhood, it must necessarily deny the one true and living God and His law.

Applications and the Only Solution

Government is force; we must hold it accountable and use lawful means to restrain it. The only escape from statism is obedience to God and His Word, putting God on the throne.

Statism is idolatry. Statism is Nimrodism. The ultimate result is totalitarianism and tyranny. Now let me make a couple of applications. I want you to listen to the first one. The most potent weapon that the state has in its religion, in its philosophy, in its edicts upon man is force. If you don't remember anything else today, remember this: Government is force. George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." As long as that fire's in the fireplace, it is a dangerous servant, but you let it escape the fireplace and it becomes a fearful master. We must remember a simple principle: Might does not make right. Just because you're bigger, just because you're stronger, just because you have more weapons does not mean that you're right. We must stand for truth, even if everyone else stands against the truth. Benjamin Franklin said this, and here's where we are today. Listen carefully. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And what are we being told today?

We must give up our liberties so that we can be protected from the terrorists. No, the reason we must give up our liberties is to make statist and totalitarian control more easily accomplished. Secondly, we must learn to hold government accountable. You know, one distinct advantage that government has is that it always exempts itself from the very laws that it expects everyone else to obey. I like George Orwell's Animal Farm. If you've never read it, I encourage you to read it. It is really an ideal little booklet. And it shows tyranny and statism and totalitarianism. You see, Napoleon and Snowball were two pigs.

And they organized all the farm animals against the farmer, because the farmer is the old dirty owner and sovereign and head, etc., and boy, they post the rules. And the very first rule that Napoleon and Snowball have is this: "All animals are equal." But after the farmer is disposed of, Napoleon and Snowball move into his house, and all the other animals are left in the barn. And they get to scratching their head and they say something's wrong. And they go back and they look at the rules and it says, number one, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Well. Do you realize that government is to be a servant? And if you really want to make a bureaucrat or government employee angry, call him a public servant. They don't believe they're a servant. They believe that they are a master. And as long as we allow government to go unchecked, unhindered, and unrestrained, we will continue down the same path until we're totally enslaved. We must use every lawful means available to us to call government into account.

Here's the third and most important application. Listen carefully. I hear people say all the time, "Brother John, I want solutions. I know what the problem is. I want solutions to the problem." Let me tell you, solutions are not always easy. But I can assure you God's Word has the solution to every problem. And I'm going to tell you the solution to the problem that we're in. Many will not abide by it, many will not follow it, many will not allow it, but it is still the solution. Listen carefully. The only escape that you and I have from statism, the only escape that anyone has from statism is through obedience to God and His Word.

Now, write this statement down. Mark it in your heart, mark it in your mind, put it in your Bibles. I don't care where you put it, but write it down. We will never put government in its place until we put God in His place, that is upon His throne. We will never put government in its place until we put God in His place, and that is upon His throne.

There can only be one sovereign. There can only be one ultimate. There can only be one absolute. And that one ultimate as sovereign and absolute is not government. It is the one true and the living God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Do you know why most people never recognize tyranny? You know, most people think that everything's hunky-dory in this land. Do you know why? They don't know who God is. They do not know that God is sovereign. How in the world can you recognize government as a thief and a usurper if you do not know what its limitations are and if you don't know who God is? No man will ever recognize tyranny who does not recognize the sovereignty of God.

So you want a solution? Here it is. Let's learn to put God in His rightful place and obey Him. Let's put God on the throne. And when we put God on the throne and obey Him and Him alone, everything else will fall into its rightful, legitimate place.

Now let me tell you, the truth is simple. We will either obey God as sovereign or we will obey government as sovereign. We must choose between God and Caesar. We must, of necessity, obey one or the other. And as Joshua said in Joshua 24, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I confess and I acknowledge that Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the one true and the living God. He is the one sovereign, the one Savior, the one ultimate, to whom belongs all honor, glory, worship, and praise. Let's pray.