Law of the Land

Not necessarily.

Your place of nativity i.e. "the location where you were born" does not determine citizenship. This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have submitted themselves to.

As followers of Jesus Christ, we are to answer to THAT authority, and none other. We are strangers, sojourners in a land we're not even citizens of.

Are bondmen of Christ citizens of any place in this world? No, we are not. Our citizenship does not reside in any Country or State because we are "...fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). Therefore, we can't say, "I'm a fellow citizen with the saints and the household of God, but I'm also an American citizen." Well, that's the same thing as saying "I serve two masters," because citizenship has a very specific meaning; and that is "Who are you subject to?"

How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.

Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:

"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.

Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we can not participate in the politics of the nation.

To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:

"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.

This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.

"Morally" does not even appear in scripture. It is an invention of men.

Rather, Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor 6:7).

We are to avoid, not evade, the things of the world.

Proverbs 4:14-15, "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."

When one brings freshly mined gold to the assayers office, the assayer will test, examine, and evaluate the gold to determine its authenticity and purity. In the same manner, government evaluates those who claim to answer to and do the will of another Master. They test you, examine you, and analyze you to find out your true composition. Their question is: are you the real item, or are you a pyrite - or a mixture of the two? Their determination of the content, or purity, is based on three major factors:

One: Does the amount of ‘minimum contacts’ you have with them, give them jurisdiction? Are you serving two masters?

Two: Where does the access to you take place? Are you a resident, do you have a commercial domicile? Do you have a home (tax home)? Are you an owner? Or, are you truly a sojourner with Christ, able to be accessed only through ‘The Door’ (a foreign door to them), which is Christ Jesus? (John 10:7,9).

Three: Are you genuine? Will you see the wolf coming and leave the sheepfold because of fear (lack of Faith and Knowledge) and hearken to the voice of the wolf instead of the Shepherd?

Before you exercise your right of avoidance, you must take these questions into consideration, and determine whether or not you will pass in the eyes of the military beast, or if you will be seen as a low and lawless form of humanity. If you are doing the lawful service of God, but, at the same time, partaking of the things of the world (which God condemns), even man's law recognizes that the bad will destroy the good:

“Where lawful services are blended with such as are forbidden, the whole being a unit and indivisible, the bad destroys the good.” Trist v. child, 21 Wall. 452 (1874).

ONLY if it is indeed "our judicial system" i.e., if that's the authority you have chosen to submit to. Yes, YOU HAVE A CHOICE. So choose wisely, grasshopper, because there's a form of obedience that leads to death: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

Again, as I have shown with scripture, it is Caesar's system that uses force, while God's way is love - a world of difference between the two kingdoms.

...and to reap the fruits thereof from such 'freedom.'

Say what? Rather, there is no other objective.

Rather than continue now to spout our worldly conditioned responses, let's conform our responses to the requirements of the OP.

 

I have to admit that I really don’t understand the point you are making.

I think Christians, generally speaking, understand they obey the state unless the state law violates scripture.

There is scriptural support for obeying the state to the degree you can.

I also believe Christians, generally speaking, understand that conformity to the world will be at odds with obedience to our Lord, and we must be constantly aware to avoid that influence.

peace to you

 

Paul would not only disagree with you, he in fact did disagree with you. He would have been subject to terminal judgement in Jerusalem if he hadn't ardently proclaimed his Roman citizenry.

 

Well, that's an honest comment!

Yeah, that's what they've been taught. Unfortunately, it's because of that falsehood that we're presently in a terrible pickle.

If there was, then you'd post it. But there isn't, and thus you haven't.

No kidding ...as in, COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING.

So, you and others reading this know we're in a hurt locker. What they don't know is how to get out of that locker. Again, the gist of this thread, re the OP, is that the constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

Yeah, the first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen".

Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."

Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same meaning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.

Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."

City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"

Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."

And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:

Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.

Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."

"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."

In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."

Notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a citizen of that country, one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," as I illustrated in my previous post re the US soldier in Germany.

 

Explain Luke 14:26 in light of that.

 

Paul proclaims his Roman citizenship when he “appeals to Caesar” for judgement of his case. Being a Roman citizen had privilege all over the Roman Empire, not just in a city.

Romans 13 was the passage I was referring to when I stated there is scriptural support for obeying the government if not in conflict with scripture.

You said we are in a “hurt locker”, but you haven’t given any opinion on how to get out of it.

And, I might add that for someone adamantly opposed to all things “of the world”, you have at least twice made reference to “pop culture”.

The first was when you used a phrase from the Kung Fu movie/TV series (grasshopper), and now with the movie Hurt Locker.

Perhaps you are more compromised by the world than you know. Logs and splinters and all that.

peace to you

 

You've missed the lesson of the episode. Paul had done nothing wrong, and thus would have been set free, so why wasn't he set free? Answer: Because he had appealed to Caesar in the first instance (like the majority have today):

The king, the governor, and Bernice "talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." (Act 26:31-32)

Tossing up a chapter reference proves nothing.

I don't deal in opinions, rather I deal in truth, which is precisely why you've been unable to defend "the constitution is the supreme land of the law" myth re the OP.

Well, life does sometimes seem to imitate art, as I've not viewed either movie/series (as my discernment tells me not to).

Your ad hominems don't change the truth. You could (indeed, you should) do better...

 

Paul intended to go to Rome anyway and was certainly moved by God Holy Spirit to take that position.

Certain Pharisees had made pledges to assassinate him, should they get the chance. By staying in custody, that effort was thwarted. Additionally, the opportunity presented itself to preach the gospel to the guards.

The Romans 13 passage certainly supports my statement there is scriptural support for obeying the government if they.don’t conflict with scripture.

Your think your “opinion” is truth. I think your opinion is just another opinion in 8 billion.

peace to you

 

That is not in dispute. Please stay on topic.

Again, that's not germane to the topic.

Yet again, you flog your "Romans 13 passage" but post no scripture.

But I'll humor you for a bit, if only to clarify Paul's involvement with "the government."

It's fundamentally a spiritual problem.

Paul was a powerful example of a servant of Christ dealing with an onerous law enforcement framework. Throughout the whole book of Acts and his ministry, Paul not only dealt effectively with the local and Federal law enforcement community, he thrived within it. Paul, at one time was a law enforcer, an officer representing a governing body, as we see recorded in the beginning of Acts 9 where he was given authority by the Jewish religious high command to bring any Christians he found, bound to Jerusalem (before the Lord “recruited” him on the road to Damascus). So it's true he might of had some pre-existing sympathy for the cops.

We read about one notable example of Paul in custody, the way he and Silas responded to it, and then the way Paul responded to the Phillipian jailer (Acts 16: 25-30). If Paul had hated the cops, if he had an attitude of disrespect and contempt for them, he would surely have said nothing as this honorable jailer had committed suicide for his misguided belief he had let his prisoners escape. But Paul stopped him. Paul and Silas ended up witnessing to this, what would be a modern day “correctional officer,” and leading him and his house to the Lord. In Paul's mind, law enforcers were not enemies or people to be avoided and mistrusted, but people who he saw needed a real and dynamic relationship with the Lord, like everybody else.

Another example, in Acts 21, we see where Paul had found himself in the middle of a near riot situation as the Jews of the city were enraged at him. As they were in the process of pounding him into a bloody pulp, the local law enforcers strode in there, probably in full armor (riot gear) prepared for crowd control, and quite literally had to carry him out on their shoulders (Acts 21:33-35).

Was Paul glad to see the local cops? I'm sure he was! I'm sure he was quite gratified to see these law men muscling through the crowd, shouting commands and shoving people aside to get to him. I'm sure he realized after that, that the Lord had Providentially protected him through these law enforcers so that he could continue on with his ministry. It possibly could have been all over right there. But the Lord used the Feds to protect him.

Another example we see of Paul's attitude towards the Federal law enforcement community and, indeed, their established respect and trust of him, can be seen in the account of the shipwreck in Acts 27. Indeed, we read that the Centurion, Julius, in charge of the prisoners and before the departure, “... courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself.” What a wonderful thing! How many Federal or Local cops would let a prisoner in custody do that?! The great trust between these people is undeniable.

As the journey by ship took place, we see that a great storm overtook them, yet with Paul's counsel, that encouragement being received from the “Angel of God,” they grounded the ship on the island of Melita. The soldiers in charge of the prisoners wanted to kill them, lest they escape, but the relationship Paul had established with the Centurion, the senior officer in charge, prevented that also.

When Paul finally made it to Rome, we see the Centurion “delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.” Protective custody. In the final chapter of Acts, we see that Paul's reputation, integrity, and his open relationship with the Roman Federal law enforcement community served him well, even for many years afterwards.

Christ spent his entire life in a region occupied by troops of a foreign conqueror. Hence, his message was delivered in an occupied country. Still, the gospel records indicate that he never gave the slightest support to any movement aimed at a military revolution that might bring national freedom.

Even as it was in Imperial Roman occupied Israel, so it is in America today. It's a matter of humility and repentance before God. A much quoted verse, to the point it has almost lost its meaning, says this,

2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Yet many fail to see who this is directed at. Not the unbelievers, not the Liberals, not the anarchists and anti-authority types, not the atheists. The Lord is saying, “My people.”

The American culture is obsessed with salvation by politics. We as a corporate body cannot comprehend any other way of changing the culture. They do not understand that God changes cultures by the preaching of the Word. Nineveh's culture was not changed by Jonah getting elected king or arguing that Nineveh stop socialism or stealing from her citizens. It was changed when God ordered him to preach.

William Penn said, “Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” Franklin Sanders once said, “So what is the answer? The only answer to every need of sinful humanity: the Gospel. The hearts of America must be changed, and the nation brought to obedience to God. All other changes, including gun-toting militias, are merely cosmetic.”

God hates compromise and fear, as these are traits imputed to simple unbelief. He also hates insubordination and contempt of lawful authority by His people. Note well His rebuke of King Saul,

I Samuel 15:23, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”

Both Jesus and Paul recognized the primacy of the spiritual realm as the command sphere in their outreach to the world around them, the paramount fundamental purposes and work of the Father in their lives, and the rule of correction by the Sovereign Hand of God wrought through the oppressive Imperial Roman Army over their nation and stratum of influence. Yet, their relationship with the Local and Federal law enforcement community was not unfriendly nor antagonistic, but a mutually counterbalanced combination of Supremely ordained forces working to accomplish the Will of God in the world. As solid spiritual leaders, they operated in the midst, right out in front of God and everybody, in spite of the Roman Federal force.

Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints - nor even Jesus - are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).

The policy and precedent of Jesus and Paul concerning interaction with law enforcement, both Local and Federal, is pretty clear. The Lord used the Feds to Providentially protect His people, and His work, and saved Paul's' skin more than once. One day He may use them to save yours.

I've posted and reasoned the truth via several scores of scriptures; you, however, have posted zero.

Of course you do. Absent any reasoning of the truth, what's left for you but to commiserate about that pickle the majority find themselves in?

The OP has been exposed, as well as the usual sophistry and pettifogging. My purpose is finished here.

 

Peace to you

 

This is the Mathew Henry commentary on that verse:

Every good man loves his relations; and yet, if he be a disciple of Christ, he must comparatively hate them, must love them less than Christ, as Leah is said to be hated when Rachel was better loved. Not that their persons must be in any degree hated, but our comfort and satisfaction in them must be lost and swallowed up in our love to Christ, as Levi's was, when he said to his father, I have not seen him, Deu. 33:9. When our duty to our parents comes in competition with our evident duty to Christ, we must give Christ the preference. If we must either deny Christ or be banished from our families and relations (as many of the primitive Christians were), we must rather lose their society than his favour.