Clean Transcript

Authority - Part 1 of 2

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

• Well, let's open our Bible today to Luke chapter 7. Now the other button push, brother. Luke chapter 7. Let me tell you, as you turn there, that this is going to be the first part of a two-part message. And this message is basically going to be my introduction. So that means the exposition of this passage is going to wait until next week. But the title of the message is simply "Authority." So if you look at Luke chapter 7 verse 1: "Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum."

  #1 | 0:11 to 1:00 | cleaned

• "And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying that he was worthy for whom he should do this: for he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say to one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."

  #2 | 1:01 to 2:08 | cleaned

• "And they that were sent returning to the house found the servant whole that had been sick." Years ago, I had a friend give me a t-shirt—I still have that t-shirt—and on the front in big bold letters were two words: "Question Authority." So you would have to ask this question: Why in the world would anyone want to question authority? And the answer is very simple: because most authority is usurped, self-arrogated, and fictional.

  #3 | 2:09 to 2:46 | cleaned

• The statement is even true in relationship to what you and I would refer to as civil government. So let me ask a question, and I want you to think in light of the situation that we have been in for several months. Does the federal government or the state government have the authority to close churches, deny work, and demand that you stay home? If they have such authority, you must ask: From where did they derive that authority? From whom did they derive that authority? And when was that authority derived? You have to understand that there is a lawful, legitimate authority, and that lawful, legitimate authority is authority that has been ordained by God. But on the other hand, there is also an unlawful and an illegitimate authority, and that authority is usually derived by power, force, wickedness, and ignorance.

  #4 | 2:46 to 3:52 | cleaned

• I don't suppose there could be any greater illustration of that than Revelation 13 and verse 2. If you will turn there very quickly, Revelation chapter 13, look if you would please at verse 2. Notice what the Bible says. Revelation 13 verse 2: "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." So here you have a satanic power and a satanic authority. Now, the interesting thing is the word for "authority" in verse 2 is a standard Greek word that occurs throughout the New Testament. When you refer to authority, it's the word exousia, which literally means power, authority, strength, and jurisdiction. Now, if you look in your Bibles to Matthew chapter 21 at verse 23, you will see that the high priest and the elders questioned the Lord Jesus Christ.

  #5 | 3:53 to 5:08 | cleaned

• I want you to note the question. Look in Matthew chapter 21 and verse 23. The Bible said that when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?" So they wanted to know, number one, the nature of his authority, and number two, the source of his authority.

  #6 | 5:09 to 5:38 | cleaned

• Now, such a question may not be appropriate to the God of heaven and earth, but it is appropriate to men who are claiming authority over our lives, our property, our faith, and our family. Illegitimate and unlawful authority must always be challenged, exposed, and nullified. No one is obligated to obey unlawful, illegitimate, usurped authority. Now, when we consider authority, you have to consider what is known as sphere authority. All authority is located in what you and I would call spheres. And the reason being, there is not one individual on earth—no one has unlimited authority. The only one who has unlimited authority is the sovereign God of heaven and earth. Now, all lawful authority is delegated, that is, it is given, it is derived from God, and all lawful authority is not only delegated, it is also limited. So authority then must stem from a proper source in order to be valid. So let me give you an illustration of what I'm going to call unlawful, unreasonable, usurped authority. Suppose I looked at Francis and I said, "Francis, I give you authority."

  #7 | 5:39 to 7:12 | cleaned

• "I give you authority to go into Steve's house and take whatever you want." Well, first of all, where would I derive such authority? What would be my source? Clearly, I don't have authority over that. And moreover, that would be a denial of private property. It would also be a violation of "Thou shalt not steal." So God has never, ever given me authority to violate His law. He's never given me authority to give someone else authority to do something that's contrary to God's law. So let me just put something down that you need to really remember in your mind: No man has ever been given authority to violate God's law. I don't care who he is. No man has ever been given authority to violate God's law.

  #8 | 7:14 to 8:09 | cleaned

• Now, God created only three institutions. I've told you this before, but He created, first of all, the family, which is a ministry of education. At the creation of the family institution, He ordained authority in the home, and He also gave to the head of the home a limited delegated authority. So let me just put it to you very plainly: As a husband and as a father, I have authority from God to bring up my children in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. But I do not have authority from God to teach my children to be liars, thieves, rapists, and murderers. I have authority over my wife for her benefit, for her blessing, and for her protection, but I do not have the authority to abuse and to beat and to mistreat her and not provide for her. In other words, my authority is not only derived, it is also limited. Now, simply because I have authority over my children and authority over my wife, that does not mean that I now have authority over your wives and your children.

  #9 | 8:09 to 9:26 | cleaned

• In other words, we're talking about sphere of authority. So if I leave my house and my wife and my children, I cannot go into Steve's house and say, "Let me tell Lorraine what she needs to do," or "Let me tell these children what they need to do." I have no authority to do that. In other words, here's another principle you need to understand: When I leave my sphere of authority, I do not carry my authority with me. My authority is a sphere of authority. It is located in my particular sphere. So let me go.

  #10 | 9:26 to 10:01 | cleaned

• Secondly, God only created the family, which is basic, which is foundational. And why did I mention the family first? Without a family, you don't have a church. Without a family, you don't have a civil government either. So the family is foundational. So He created the family as a ministry of education. Secondly, He created the church as a ministry of grace.

  #11 | 10:02 to 10:23 | cleaned

• Now then, as a pastor, God has given me certain authority. For instance, I have authority under God to speak and to exhort and to rebuke and reprove with all authority. That's what the Bible said in Titus 2 and verse 15. Paul told Timothy, "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. And let no man despise thee." So I have authority then to teach and to preach and to exhort and rebuke in the totality of the Word of God. But however, since that is a delegated authority, it is also limited. For instance, here you have it in 2 Timothy chapter 4, verse 2. God said through Paul, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

  #12 | 10:24 to 11:23 | cleaned

• So that means when I start reproving, rebuking, exhorting, and speaking, I must do it first of all with longsuffering or with patience, because not everybody sees everything immediately. But I must not only do it with patience, I must do it with doctrine. That would be biblical doctrine. So I don't have any authority to rebuke and reprove and exhort outside of the Bible. For instance, I could not look at Steve and say, "You must part your hair on the left-hand side." Or look at Gary and say, "You must never wear the color blue." Or look at James and say, "You must never eat turkey." I don't have any authority to tell him not to eat turkey. He's going to eat turkey anyhow. And Gary's going to wear blue. And Steve's going to part his hair the way he always parted his hair.

  #13 | 11:24 to 12:16 | cleaned

• So the point I'm trying to make is, although I have authority, it's a limited authority. It is limited in the Word of God. It does not go over and above and beyond the Word of God.

  #14 | 12:16 to 12:28 | cleaned

• Now, I also have no authority to come to this church and tell the pastor what he should do. Nor do I have the authority to come to this church and say, "Well, you ought to do things this way." No, I have no authority to do that. If I leave my sphere of authority, I do not carry that authority with me. Okay?

  #15 | 12:28 to 12:51 | cleaned

• Now, thirdly, God created an institution of civil government. And He gave that institution specific, limited authority.

  #16 | 12:51 to 13:03 | cleaned

• Now, if you read Romans 13 verses 1 through 4, you will find that civil government or the civil magistrate is charged with two basic functions: number one, the punishment of the wicked, and number two, the protection of the righteous. This is the reason why God ordained civil government: to punish the wicked and to protect the righteous. The family does not have the power of the death penalty. The church doesn't have the power of the death penalty, with the exception of excommunicating someone and turning him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

  #17 | 13:04 to 13:39 | cleaned

• The apostle Paul says that the body may be saved, or the soul may be saved. But see, understand this: we can't execute anybody in the church. The only one that has the power to execute and the authority to execute would be the civil magistrate.

  #18 | 13:40 to 13:55 | cleaned

• Now, according to the Bible, two basic functions: punishment of the wicked, protection of the righteous, promotion of the righteous included with that protection. Now, according to the Bible, at no level in government has the government ever been given the authority over education. It has never been given authority over the home. It has never been given authority over welfare. It has never been given authority, as I said, in education. It has never been given authority to appropriate or confiscate the property of others. It has never been given the power to meddle in the affairs of people and seek to control and manipulate their lives. No, it has never been given that. Civil government has no authority in the church or in the home unless the law of God is being violated. Let me explain that.

  #19 | 13:55 to 14:58 | cleaned

• What I mean by that is simply this: A murder in the church is just as wicked as a murder out on the streets. A murder in the home is just as wicked as a murder out on the streets. So if someone murders someone in the church, yes, the civil authority may kill him. But he's not interfering in the church. He's just simply getting the murderer. You understand that? Same thing in the home as well. But what we must understand is this: Government, civil government, and church are two separate jurisdictions. They are not one and the same. So each of these three institutions—family, church, and civil government—all have their limited sphere of authority. And if one leaves that sphere, he does not carry that authority with him. Each of these institutions also is an aspect of the kingdom of God. So when you look at it like this, it's the family, it's the church, and it's the civil government that make up the kingdom of God.

  #20 | 14:59 to 16:05 | cleaned

• They are to complement each other. That means they're to complete each other. They're not to fight against each other. They're not to seek to control each other or overthrow each other. They are to work together according as God has ordained in His Word.

  #21 | 16:05 to 16:22 | cleaned

• Now, I want to discuss civil government for a little bit. I want you to see some things today. I hope that will open your eyes and get you ready for Luke chapter 7. There are principles that most Christians and most Americans have forgotten. First of all, as Christians and Americans, we receive our rights from God and not from government. Government cannot give rights. It may grant privileges, but it cannot give rights.

  #22 | 16:22 to 16:53 | cleaned

• Secondly, in our republican system of government, we delegate authority to our representatives. So let me break that down for you: They work for us. We do not work for them. But what has happened in our day and time, we've actually turned everything topsy-turvy. We now have the government as our master and we are the servants of government. It's kind of like that passage that Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes chapter 10 verse 7: "I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." So now we've got it where the government is riding the horse and we the people are walking in the dirt. So, but the second principle is in our republican form of government, our representatives are to work for us. We're not to work for them.

  #23 | 16:54 to 17:46 | cleaned

• Thirdly, government has been established and ordained to secure our rights. It is the duty and the obligation and responsibility of government to protect and preserve our God-given rights. By the way, listen to this straight from the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights"—we already had them; they did not come from government—"that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So if there is no consent, it is not a just power. It is an unjust power. If government is going to have a legitimate authority, it must be by consent of the people. By the way, it is true that God chose David to be king. But if you'll study the Bible, you'll find out that the people also said to David, "We want you to be our king." God did ordain David to be king, but He ordained him to be king with the approval and approbation of the people as well. So the just powers that government has happen to be derived from the consent of the people.

  #24 | 17:47 to 19:03 | cleaned

• Now I want to give you some quotes today. I want you to listen very carefully. The first one is from Gary D. Barnett. You can find him all over the internet, but listen to what he says. It is so true. He said, "It has taken little time for the people of the United States to become a comatose society due to the fraud called coronavirus. An easier takeover of the minds of Americans could hardly have been imagined. This has been due in large part to mass ignorance that has been bred into the people over many decades. Ignorance will always be evident in the herd. So in order to survive as a free soul, one must open his mind and change his perceptions so that an escape from ignorance is possible."

  #25 | 19:04 to 19:53 | cleaned

• "Accomplishment of this freedom requires a belief in only what one can prove," I would add, in accordance to the Bible. "So question everything and believe only in self," and I would add the Bible. He says, "Accept love, empathy, caring, joy, humility, kindness, compassion, and truth. And this will lead to a joining with others instead of fear and divisiveness. At this point, fear is the single common denominator of human action. And that fear has led to chaos and large-scale submission."

  #26 | 19:54 to 20:31 | cleaned

• "This is a recipe for tyranny. And this is well known by the engineers of this fake crisis, as they structured this pandemic in a manner to cause global upheaval through isolation," listen, "and pitting everyone against his neighbor. By doing this, infighting has taken the place of sanity. And instead of questioning the government's false narrative, people are questioning each other. That leaves the real criminals free to continue their plot, to restructure society, to fit their agenda of total control." Wow.

  #27 | 20:32 to 21:09 | cleaned

• And then one author said it like this, and I just quoted the scripture from Ecclesiastes 10, but here it is: "We are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion, the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission—which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." Wow.

  #28 | 21:09 to 21:36 | cleaned

• Now, in light of what I'm discussing and what I'm going to share with you next week in light of authority, we need to consider Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution. Now, let me make a statement before I go any further. Whether you like the Constitution or not is immaterial. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial. If you say, "Well, the Constitution was initiated in fraud," I understand that because the founding fathers went to that convention, what?

  #29 | 21:37 to 22:15 | cleaned

• To work on and rewrite the Articles of Confederation. And then instead of doing that, they came up with the Constitution. So regardless of whether that happened—and it did happen—or whether you believe it was wicked or right is immaterial. The point I'm trying to make is right now, the Constitution is supposed to be the document which binds our government. Okay. So it is in existence. It is here, whether we agree with it, whether we like it or not.

  #30 | 22:15 to 22:47 | cleaned

• Thomas Jefferson said this: "To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment or to expropriate his values. Basically, there's only one way to do it: by the use of physical force." Now listen, "There are two potential violators of man's rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second, that is the government, the legalized version of the activities of the first." So he said, we wrote this Constitution to keep the government from becoming the criminal element. He goes on to say this: "It cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of government. That it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." So what he is saying is the Constitution was indeed to protect each of us from the government and to keep it from becoming a criminal gang.

  #31 | 22:48 to 24:20 | cleaned

• Now, listen, if you would, to Article 6, paragraph 2 and 3: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Here's the third paragraph: "The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So, it should be quite clear that paragraph 2 of Article 6 states that the Constitution is to be the supreme law of the land. Now, as Christians, of course, we believe that the Word of God is the supreme law of the land.

  #32 | 24:21 to 25:37 | cleaned

• Under that, of course, we would say, yes, here is the Constitution. However, I want you to note, although it said very clearly that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it also said that no state has any right, power, or authority to violate the Constitution. So no state then can pass any law or write any constitution that's going to be in violation of the United States Constitution. Moreover, he said that judges are bound by the Constitution. Senators, representatives, judicial officers, police, all public officials are all bound by the Constitution. Now, any law that is passed by Congress or any state that violates the Constitution is automatically null and void. Now, I want you to listen carefully because I'm going to quote.

  #33 | 25:38 to 26:39 | cleaned

• From AmJur, second edition, that is American Jurisprudence, section 195. And I want you to think of this in light of some of the laws, some of the statutes, some of the rules, some of the regulations. Here it is: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed and never existed." That is, it is void ab initio, which is Latin for "from the beginning."

  #34 | 26:40 to 27:38 | cleaned

• Now let me stop there just for a moment. But note what the American Jurisprudence said. It says, "No law, any law that violates the Constitution is null and void, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it unconstitutional." So if Congress passes unconstitutional law, if the state of Georgia, if the state of Florida passes unconstitutional law, it has no binding effect upon me. It is unconstitutional from its enactment. I do not have to wait until some court comes along and says, "Well, it's unconstitutional." Well, how would I know whether it's unconstitutional or not? Because I need to study my Constitution. I need to know what the Constitution says. So AmJur is saying, look, any law that violates the Constitution is null and void from the beginning. You do not have to wait for some court to declare it unconstitutional. Let me go. Here it is.

  #35 | 27:38 to 28:42 | cleaned

• "Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as if the statute had never been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, it follows that generally the statute imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office or liabilities, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, is incapable of creating any rights or obligations, does not allow for the granting of any relief, and justifies no acts performed under it. Once a statute is determined to be unconstitutional, no private citizen or division of the state may take any further action pursuant to its provisions. A contract that rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. A law contrary to the United States Constitution may not be enforced. Once a statute has been declared unconstitutional, courts thereafter have no jurisdiction over alleged violations. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines that they paid."

  #36 | 28:42 to 30:05 | cleaned

• Now this is American Jurisprudence. This is a law work. This is what lawyers go to. This is what they read, or at least what they should be reading. You see, one of the problems, I would say the biggest problem that we have today, is even most Christians don't even read their Bible. They have no idea what biblical law is all about. And most Americans have never, ever read the United States Constitution, and they've never, ever read their state constitution. They have no idea what is put there. Most Christians unhappily, most Americans unhappily believe that government can do whatever it pleases, that politicians can do whatever they please. If that is so, then government is God, but government is not God. It cannot do as it pleases. Politicians cannot do as they please. The Bible tells you very clearly in Psalm 115, verse 3, only God is sovereign. And the Bible says, "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." He can do that because He's God, but government's not God. Politicians are not God.

  #37 | 30:06 to 31:07 | cleaned

• He has done whatsoever he has pleased. He can do that because he's God, but government's not God. Politicians are not God.

  #38 | 31:07 to 31:15 | cleaned

• Now, oftentimes we speak of tyranny, totalitarianism, despotism. Let me give you a definition. Totalitarianism: a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience or submission to the state. I hope you remember the Battle of Thermopylae. I think it was in 490 BC, where Xerxes, the Persian emperor, brought over a million soldiers to that pass where King Leonidas of Sparta was defending it with 300 men. And you remember, Leonidas ordered his men to stand. That is, "You stand and you fight with me. We're going to fight this invading horde." And Xerxes, according to the movie 300, said this, listen carefully. He said, "Unlike the cruel Leonidas who demands that you stand, I only require that you kneel." That is a tyrant. He says, "I don't want you to stand. I want you to kneel."

  #39 | 31:15 to 32:40 | cleaned

• In other words, tyranny always wants people to kneel and to voluntarily submit without any thought of resistance, without any thought of independence. James Madison, who was known as the father of the Constitution because he was secretary at the Constitutional Convention, said this: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives them." Huh. If that is so, we are a disarmed people, I can assure you. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." And then Patrick Henry said, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

  #40 | 32:40 to 33:36 | cleaned

• How many of us really know what goes on behind closed doors? We don't. In light of these quotes, here's a question. I'm going to answer it. What about executive orders? Before I answer that, I want you to listen to two quotes from Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here's what he said: "It is hard to believe that any judge in America would permit a criminal trial of any person for violating a standard of behavior that has not been enacted into law by a legislature."

  #41 | 33:38 to 34:22 | cleaned

• Let me just stop there. The quote goes on, but what he's talking about is social distancing, wearing a mask, don't meet in groups larger than three, don't meet in groups larger than 50. Here's what he's saying: "It's hard to believe that any judge in America would permit a criminal trial of any person for violating a standard of behavior that has not been enacted into law by a legislature."

  #42 | 34:23 to 34:51 | cleaned

• "We know this because under our system of representative government, separated powers, and guaranteed liberties, only the legislative branch can craft laws and assign punishments for noncompliance. This is Constitutional Law 101." That is, it's the simplest. It's the most basic. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has written that the executive branch—President Trump—that the executive branch cannot enforce a law that it has written. If it does, we will have approached tyranny. He goes on.

  #43 | 34:52 to 35:34 | cleaned

• Here's a pop quiz on the Constitution. What is the first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights? If you guessed speech or press, then you're close. The first protected freedom is religion. The two religion clauses in the First Amendment keep the government out of our pockets for religious purposes and out of our churches for all purposes. This was at least the intent of the founders. The tyrannical behavior of many state governors, who have issued executive orders purporting to regulate private behavior on private property, even religious behavior in houses of worship, and in the process have enforced these orders as if they were laws, have ignored this. In America, governors do not write laws, only legislatures do. There are no pandemic or public health or emergency exceptions in the Constitution. Here are two other quotes from Lawrence O. Gostin and Eric A.

  #44 | 35:36 to 36:46 | cleaned

• Freeman, who are law professors at Georgetown University: "Mass quarantines are too blunt a tool, sweeping up many people who pose no risk to the public. Even under a declared public health emergency, the rule of law stands precisely to prevent the state from depriving individuals of liberty based on irrational and exaggerated public fear. Civil confinement of individuals who have not committed an offense is a massive deprivation of liberty that requires a clear justification beyond public fear."

  #45 | 36:47 to 37:30 | cleaned

• Now, here it is again. It repeats almost the first part of that: "But the rule of law stands precisely to prevent the state from depriving individuals of liberty based on irrational or exaggerated public fear. Legal standards on the state's police powers to protect the public's health and safety are well-developed. Civil confinement of individuals who have not committed an offense is a massive deprivation of liberty that requires a clear justification beyond public fear. State statutes and constitutional law require sound scientific evidence of significant risk reflecting a delicate balance between public health and civil liberties."

  #46 | 37:31 to 38:16 | cleaned

• "Current quarantines and calls for travel bans are reminiscent of 19th-century views of walling off borders, which is impossible in a modern globalized world. Although the states undoubtedly have the authority to issue quarantine orders, the Supreme Court has set clear standards for civil confinement, recognizing that quarantines implicate fundamental liberty interest. It is not enough that the individual belongs to a class of people who could present a risk."

  #47 | 38:17 to 38:55 | cleaned

• In other words, you're not sick, but I still want you to wear a mask. I still want you to do social distancing. I still want you to do that. No, no, no. He said it's not enough that someone says, "Well, you might infect others." That's immaterial.

  #48 | 38:56 to 39:11 | cleaned

• Secondly, I want you to think with me, we're talking about executive orders. I want you to think with me about the very first executive order. I'm going to give you a quote in just a moment from Jake McAulay, who is a constitutional scholar. But did you know the first executive order actually took place in 1789 by George Washington? You know what that executive order was? I want you to listen to it. Here it is: In 1789, George Washington issued his first executive order to the heads of the departments under him.

  #49 | 39:13 to 39:54 | cleaned

• And he said, "To impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States." Hmm. So let me see, by precedent, that first executive order only went to the people who worked for him, who were under him. Mr. McAulay goes on: "As you may note, it was addressed to officials of the executive branch of the national or federal government. It was applicable only to those already under his authority as head of the executive branch. Properly understood, this is the nature of executive orders. They are directives or public instructions addressed to and binding upon persons who are already under the authority of the executive, but they have no binding effect on anyone else."

  #50 | 39:54 to 40:53 | cleaned

• "They are not law and they do not have the force of law. Only legislatures have lawmaking power and that power is specified and limited by the Constitution. So, if the governor of a state wanted to do so, he could direct his department heads and employees in the executive agencies of the state to wear masks and stay six feet apart while they're in state office buildings. He could arguably order them to do so because they work for him. But he can't order the rest of us to do that because we don't work for him. He works for us. Executive orders have their purpose and place. But it is crucial that all Americans, and especially those in law enforcement, understand that they are not law and cannot be lawfully enforced. Therefore," he says, "I would like to remind all law enforcement agents that when you took your oath of office, you swore obedience and fidelity to the United States Constitution and the constitution of your state. You did not swear allegiance to a mayor or a governor or a judge or a president."

  #51 | 40:54 to 42:08 | cleaned

• "Your fidelity to your oath and to the rule of law requires that you abstain from enforcing any edict or order from a governor or any executive which lacks constitutional authority. In the words of founding father James Madison, we are right to take alarm at the first experiment with our liberties."

  #52 | 42:09 to 42:29 | cleaned

• "Finally, your duties require that you shelter and protect the citizenry from all acts of lawlessness, even and especially when they originate with civil authorities." And that is usually where lawlessness originates—with civil authorities. Gary Barnett wrote again, he said, "We're definitely facing a horrible pandemic, but it's not due to any virus. The real pandemic in the United States government and the enforcers for the controlling ruling class are waging war on American citizens and will not relent until the people themselves stop it." He goes on to say that you cannot expect help from a corrupt political system because that's why we're in the mess we're in now. He goes on to say that no vibrant society can exist in a state of submissive obedience when you don't think for yourself and you don't act for yourself.

  #53 | 42:30 to 43:28 | cleaned

• So let me ask this question. And by the way, you can research all this for yourself. But what in the world is an executive order? I want to read to you something that may surprise you, but here is the answer: The United States Constitution does not directly define or give the president authority to issue presidential actions, which includes executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations. Instead, this implied and accepted power derives from Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that as head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces, the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Now, let me ask you a question. How does that relate to executive orders that would apply to any of us? His executive orders would have to apply to the individuals under him who are working under him. He goes on: "With an executive order, the president instructs the government how to work within the parameters already set by Congress and the Constitution. In effect, this allows the president to push through policy changes without going through Congress."

  #54 | 43:29 to 45:02 | cleaned

• "By issuing an executive order, the president does not create a new law or appropriate any funds from the United States Treasury. Only Congress has the power to do these things." And then he goes on to say this: "An executive order must identify whether the order is based on the powers given to the president by the United States Constitution or delegated to him by Congress." So any executive order that does not define where his authority comes from would be null and void anyhow.

  #55 | 45:03 to 45:39 | cleaned

• Now, in light of all the executive orders that have been going on in the state of Georgia, in the state of Florida, and all these other states around, we need to consider something else. We need to consider the oaths that these individuals take when they go in to serve their office. The United States Constitution talks about the oath for the president of the United States. And here is what Article II, Section 1 says: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" The article goes on to say, explaining it: "The framers fittingly placed the oath of the office clause between the preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the president's executive power."

  #56 | 45:40 to 47:10 | cleaned

• And it goes on to say that this is not an empowering clause, but a limiting clause because it limits the president's executive power to be exercised. And here you have presidents, here you have governors that say, "I'm going to do this by executive authority," when they really have no executive authority to do anything. It was Joseph Story, who was a chief justice, by the way, who wrote in 1842: "A president who shall dare to violate the obligations of his solemn oath or affirmation of office"

  #57 | 47:10 to 47:53 | cleaned

• "may escape human censure, nay, may even receive applause from the giddy multitude, but he will be compelled to learn that there is a watchful providence that cannot be deceived, and a righteous being, the searcher of all hearts, who will render unto all men according to their desires. Consideration of this sort will necessarily make a conscientious man more scrupulous in the discharge of his duty and will even make a man of looser principles pause when he's about to enter upon a deliberate violation of his official oath." Well, I certainly agree with that. But the problem is today, most people have no concept of God and they have no concept of biblical law and they have no concept of what they're doing when they're taking an oath.

  #58 | 47:54 to 48:43 | cleaned

• Did you know that most presidents, practically all presidents, have taken their oath with their hand upon the Bible? In the old days, that oath was taken with their hand upon Deuteronomy 28, which is the blessings and the curses of the law spelled there. George Washington, when he was inaugurated as president and when he took his oath, he bent down and kissed the Bible. Unhappily today, most presidents and most governors think hardly anything of it. And by the way, George Washington took his oath of office on April 30th, 1789—1789, before the Supreme Court was ever in existence. So obviously. Here is the oath of the vice president.

  #59 | 48:44 to 49:41 | cleaned

• It is the one that you and I are most familiar with: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office for which I'm about to enter, so help me God."

  #60 | 49:41 to 50:07 | cleaned

• Any military man that ever entered the military took this oath, basically. And so did every law enforcement.

  #61 | 50:08 to 50:16 | cleaned

• Now, here's what I want you to think about. I've just shown you the oath of the President and the Vice President of the United States. Think about the oaths of governors. Here is the governor's oath in the state of Georgia: "Before he assumes office, he does this: 'I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of governor of the state of Georgia and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution thereof and the Constitution of the United States.'" The lieutenant governor takes the same oath. Probably all governors in every state would either take the same oath or one very similar. Their primary allegiance is to the constitution of their state and the Constitution of the United States. Their allegiance is not to their party, not to their power, not to their platform. If they do not have allegiance to the constitution of the state and the Constitution of the United States, then they would effectively become tyrants.

  #62 | 50:16 to 51:34 | cleaned

• One of the representatives from Florida years back, I believe he is now dead, Democrat Alcee Hastings, when he was asked what were the rules in Congress, his response was, and I quote, "There are no rules. We make them up as we go along." Well, if there are no rules, we're not a republic. Because a republic is ruled by law. If there are no rules, then we are already under despotism and totalitarianism.

  #63 | 51:36 to 52:25 | cleaned

• Thomas Jefferson said it like this: "The issue today"—now this is back in the 1700s—he says, "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Wow.

  #64 | 52:26 to 52:47 | cleaned

• Now, let me show you something. I want to challenge you to read the Florida constitution. Listen to what the Georgia Constitution says. I'm going to share with you some others too, but here's what the Georgia Constitution says, Article 1, Declaration of Rights: "All government of right originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state." In other words, nothing can violate, nothing can alienate these rights.

  #65 | 52:50 to 53:46 | cleaned

• So what is number eight? Here it is: Freedom of religion. "No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Really? Now if no law can be enacted respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that means that no executive order, no emergency order, no pandemic, no war, no rights, no scheme of anything can affect it. It is to be inviolate.

  #66 | 53:46 to 54:30 | cleaned

• Listen to the Maryland state constitution, Article 44: "That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and this state apply as well in time of war, as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom or violation thereof under the plea of necessity or any other plea is subversive of good government and tends to anarchy and despotism." So they're saying nothing can violate the rights in the Maryland Constitution. Here's the Tennessee Constitution, Section 4: "The declaration of rights hereto annexed is declared to be part of this constitution of the state and shall never be violated on any pretense whatsoever." Wow. Well, our rights did not originate with government. Our rights came from God. And it's the duty of government to protect these rights and preserve these rights. And when government fails to do that, then they are failing to do that which God ordained them for.

  #67 | 54:31 to 55:33 | cleaned

• What are they required to do? They're required to punish the wicked and protect and promote the righteous. That's what they're required to do. And when they cease to do that, they cease to be an ordination of God and become a tyranny and a despotism. Let me tell you something, if you will study Romans chapter 13, 1 Peter chapter 2 verses 13 and 14, you will understand this principle: God has never ever ordained a totalitarian government. He's never ordained a tyrannical government. And any government that is tyrannical is not of God.

  #68 | 55:34 to 56:15 | cleaned

• Just recently, several months back, when the church in Louisiana was refusing to close, and the pastor was being confronted by a police officer, the pastor responded to the police officer, "But we have a right to worship God." And the police officer either ignorantly or stupidly or both said, "Your rights are suspended." You cannot suspend a right. You can suspend a privilege, but you cannot suspend a right. If a right can be suspended, it is not a right.

  #69 | 56:16 to 56:51 | cleaned

• Here's what Jonathan Mayberry wrote. I want you to think about this. He says, "There are moments that define a person's whole life. Moments in which everything they are and everything they may possibly become balance on a single decision. Life and death, hope and despair, victory and failure teeter precariously on the decision made at that moment. These are moments ungoverned by happenstance, untroubled by love. These are the moments in which a person earns the right to live or not." I would suggest to you that we're living in that moment of time as to whether we will live free or become more and more enslaved. We're living in that moment of time as to whether we will repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ and follow His law or live as do the heathen. We are living in that moment of time as to whether or not we will have the limited form of government ordained by God and by our forefathers or whether we will submit and kneel to a usurped, wicked, tyrannical government.

  #70 | 56:53 to 58:00 | cleaned

• Now, let me make something exceedingly clear. No one—no president, no congressman, no cop, no deputy, no mayor, no governor—has the power to suspend the Constitution. If they suspend the Constitution, quote, they suspend their own power and authority. The only authority they have is from the Constitution, but no one has the power or the authority to suspend it. So listen carefully as I try to bring this to a close.

  #71 | 58:01 to 58:34 | cleaned

• Here's Section 242, Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 242, Title 18, makes it a crime for a person acting under the color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Did you hear that? It makes it a crime for a person acting under the color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under color of law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that person's lawful authority, which teaches limited authority. If the acts are done while the official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties, persons acting under the color of law within the meaning of this statute includes police officers, prison guards, and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health

  #72 | 58:36 to 59:57 | cleaned

• facilities, health departments, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime and the resulting injury, if any. So Title 242 says any person under the color of law who deprives us of a constitutional right can face prison or the death penalty.

  #73 | 59:57 to 1:00:40 | cleaned

• So let me answer your question. What have all of the executive orders been doing? It's been closing churches, closing businesses, closing restaurants, and closing even private homes, demanding that you shelter in place. I'm just trying to ask. You see, here's our problem: Constitutions are not self-enforcing documents. Constitutions don't cry out for help. Constitutions don't cry out, "Alarm!" Constitutions don't cry out, "Help! I'm being perverted." No. We, the people, have to demand that these constitutions be obeyed by those who have sworn to uphold them.

  #74 | 1:00:40 to 1:01:34 | cleaned

• If you leave it to government, if you leave it to politicians, they're going to deny more and more rights and more and more liberties and more and more freedom so that they may keep to themselves more and more control at our expense. A constitution is not a self-enforcing document. Remember, I started this message with "Question Authority." Here's why you should question authority: Someone with a lawful authority can always point to the source of authority, maybe even quote it, and can explain it and give you a logical reason. Someone who has unlawful and illegitimate and usurped authority cannot point to a source of authority and therefore what they're going to rely upon is force to make you kneel and to make you obey. All of your unlawful, illegitimate, usurped authority is arrogated to oneself. It is stolen.

  #75 | 1:01:36 to 1:02:44 | cleaned

• It is based upon the deception and arrogance and wicked determinations of someone's brain or own will. Let me point out one other thing. There is a vast difference between authority and power. A vast difference between authority and power. I could come over to Steve's house, and I can say, "Lorraine, I want you to get up right now and fix me a steak dinner and I want it this way and I want it done. And I want you to do it just like this. Go ahead and get started. Do it right now." I have no authority to do that. Now I know Lorraine, she'd probably say, "Well, yes, if you want one, I'll fix it." She probably would, but I have no authority to do that. But suppose I did say, "Lorraine, I want you to fix me a steak, I want baked potato, I want salad, I want this, I want that," and I go down the line and she says, "Well, you know, if you ask, I might do it, but you don't have any authority to tell me,

  #76 | 1:02:46 to 1:03:53 | cleaned

• you know, to do something like that or order me to do that." I said, "No, Lorraine, you're right. I don't have any authority." And I pull out my pistol, I stick it to her head, I said, "But you will do it, won't you?" Huh? See, that's power. I may not have authority, but if I have power over her, I can make her do what I want to do. There's a vast difference. I don't have any authority over her, but I could have power over her. And where government does not have authority, it always exerts power. Okay? Now, one last thought. There is a difference between lawful authority and unlawful authority. To resist lawful authority is rebellion. If you refuse to obey unlawful authority, it is not rebellion, it is resistance. Rebellion can only be to lawful authority. So if there is no lawful authority, there is no rebellion, it is only resistance.

  #77 | 1:03:53 to 1:05:08 | cleaned

• Thomas Jefferson's personal motto was this: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Now, Lord willing, next Sunday, I want to share with you from Luke chapter 7 some of the most, I think, important points dealing with authority. Well, you and I need to learn to question authority. We need to learn when someone says, "Well, you must do this." Really? Why must I do that? Where is the authority derived? Who said it? Show it to me. Someone asked me this morning, "What do you live by?" So I live by first, the Bible, God's law. Secondly, the Constitution.

  #78 | 1:05:09 to 1:05:57 | cleaned

• If it's not biblical, if it's not constitutional, I ignore it, because it has no binding influence upon me whatsoever. I'm obligated to obey that which is biblical, that which is constitutional. If it's not biblical, if it's not constitutional, it has no binding authority on me. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee this day. We thank You for Your Word. Thank You for Your truth.

  #79 | 1:05:58 to 1:06:27 | cleaned

• Lord, help us to understand this. Help us, Lord, to grasp it. And help us, Lord, to question the authority of man, because most of it is pure fiction, usurped and self-arrogated. Help us to never question Your authority, for You're the sovereign God of heaven and earth, and You have the absolute right to tell us how to live, how to act, what to do, and when to do it. We bow before Thee in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in whose name we pray. Amen.

  #80 | 1:06:28 to 1:06:59 | cleaned

• you you you

  #81 | 1:07:14 to 1:07:17 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T01:41:14Z