abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

Editor's Note: In 1994 and 1995 there was a move among many of the individual state legislatures to begin the long and hard task of restoring the constitutional balance of power between the states and the federal government as established by the United States Constitution. Central to this move was a resolution that was introduced and passed in many of the state legislatures that used the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to call the federal government in Washington, D. C. to account for its breach of the powers delegated to it in the Constitution, and to assert jurisdictional sovereignty of the individual states over their own affairs. This resolution was known as the "Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution." According to sources that I have seen, as many as 20 states passed such a resolution in at least one of their chambers (as of February, 1995), and more may have done so later on because the resolution was introduced in 20 other state legislatures. On October 22, 1994, I participated in a panel discussion on the "Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution." The panel consisted of Pennsylvania State Rep- resentatives, Thomas Armstrong and Samuel Rohrer, along with John Einwechter, Esq., and myself. My assignment on the panel was to provide a biblical perspective on the Tenth Amendment. The article that follows contains the text of my prepared comments for the panel with only a few changes.

To my knowledge nothing earth-shaking has come from the passage of the "Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution" in Pennsylvania or in any other state. Its greatest good may have been its educational impact on many legislators and citizens in the various states (for surely the politicians in Washington ignored it!). Perhaps it was a signal that a shift is taking place which will lead to a restoration of the balance of power in our federal system. Let us hope so. The lack of any real change or impact from the "Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution" only underscores to me (nearly 2 years later) the importance of the warnings contained in my presentation and my concluding exhortation that outlines seven essentials for a Christian reconstruction of our constitutional republic.

Introduction

The Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution ought to be of great interest to Christians and to all who love freedom. For years now, the federal government has cast aside the constitutional limitations on its power and has been invading our states and our lives with laws, regulations, and mandates which have seriously undermined our liberties and brought us under the heel of the power-hungry politicians in Washington. The Tenth Amendment Resolution is an attempt to deal with this problem of federal encroachment by reasserting the constitutional limits on federal power. My purpose is to give a biblical perspective on the Tenth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution.

The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This amendment was added to the Constitution to make it crystal clear that the new federal government was one of enumerated powers, i.e., that it had no authority over the states or the people in any area except that which was specifically granted to it in the Constitution.

The United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment were based on the principles of limited government, local self-government, constitutional government, and republican government. These principles of American civil government are rooted primarily in the Bible; the true foundation of our liberties and our system of government is the Word of God. The following biblical principles form the basis of American government in general and of the Tenth Amendment in particular.

The Sovereignty of God

The majority of the colonists who founded the various states were Christians who believed in the sovereignty of God. This was particularly true of the Puritans of New England, but was surely not limited to them. The fact that God was sovereign meant that every aspect of life was under His authority and was to be regulated by His law. Therefore, the early colonists believed that neither the people nor the magistrates were free to structure their laws or government according to human reason, but were required to submit themselves to the law of God and the principles of government revealed in the Scriptures.¹ This led to the fundamental principle that the people, the magistrates, and the civil law are subject to a higher law--the law of God. Singer explains that the doctrine of divine sovereignty in Puritan political philosophy meant:

...that both the voters and the magistrates were to look to the Scriptures as a guide for the general conduct of their government. The rulers and the people were thus subject to the revealed will of God, and the will of the people could never take precedence over the divinely ordained powers and functions of human government.²

Covenantalism

A covenant is a compact or agreement between two or more people or parties where the contracting parties solemnly agree to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities in regard to one another. In Scripture, God's promises to man and man's responsibilities to God are given in terms of a covenant (e.g., the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant).

The Christians who founded this country were covenantal in their theology. From their study of the Scripture they came to believe that all of life was covenantal, i.e., governed by covenants. They believed that marriage was a covenant between a husband and wife; that church membership was a covenant between Christians in a church; and that civil society was a covenant between the members of a particular society. Each covenantal relationship must be established according to the principles of God's Word and be subject to the law of God.

In the civil covenant the people agreed together before God to be governed in a particular way, and only in the way that the covenant stipulated. The civil covenant bound the people and the magistrates to certain duties and responsibilities. The civil magistrates promised to rule in the fear of God, maintain the law, protect the rights of the people, and punish all who broke the covenant. The people promised to obey the law and render due submission in the Lord to their rulers. The magistrates received their authority from God, but the means that God used to place them into authority was the vote of the people (cf., 2 Sam. 2:3-4; 5:1-3; 1 Kings 12:1-20). The people had the power to remove their rulers whenever they violated the terms of the civil covenant.

In this sense, the primary political authority (under God and His law, of course) resided in the people who had established the covenant. They were responsible to God to uphold its terms, and this meant that they must resist and, if necessary, remove any ruler who violated his covenant responsibilities to uphold the law and secure the God-given rights of the people.

The civil covenant was, therefore, a written document that spelled out the form of government, the power and duties of the magistrates, and the rights and duties of the people.

This covenantalism is the basis of what we call constitutional government. A constitution is the written document that records and establishes the terms of the civil covenant. It was customary in the colonial period to speak of "political covenants and constitutions" (John Winthrop) because they were considered interchangeable terms. Therefore, our heritage of a written constitution as the basis for the body politic is a Christian heritage, and unquestionably founded on the biblical theology of God's covenants with man, and also the covenantal structure that God has established for all spheres of life.

It is vital that we understand that the Constitution of 1787, is a covenantal document. The very word "federal" is from the Latin word for a "compact or covenant." The United States Constitution is the written covenant established by the states wherein the people of the states, acting through their representatives, gave certain authority and duties to a central government in carefully defined areas for the good of all the states.

The United States Constitution is a covenant between the states that appoints a federal government of enumerated powers. Consequently, the states have ultimate power over the federal government because they are the original parties of the covenant. The civil officers on the federal level are bound by the terms of the Constitution (Covenant) and must strictly adhere to its provisions. They have no authority from the states to go beyond the powers specifically granted to them in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment is a strong statement of the covenant principle upon which the Constitution is based. It emphatically declares that the federal government must not transgress the bounds set for it in the Constitution; in other words it must keep covenant with the people. If the federal officers violate the bounds set for them, they have broken covenant and must be called to account. If these covenant-breakers refuse to be corrected by the states, then they must be resisted and ultimately removed from power. It is the responsibility of the people operating through their representatives to uphold the original terms of the covenant. Our liberty depends upon it; for there can be no liberty under covenant-breakers.

The Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution must be understood in terms of the civil covenant. This Resolution is a reaffirmation of the original covenant between the states to create a federal government of limited and specific powers. This Resolution ought to be seen as a first step in our responsibility before God to call the covenant-breakers in Washington to account.

Sphere Sovereignty

Another very important principle that shaped our political tradition is the understanding that God is the source of all authority in the world, and that He has established three institutions to mediate His rule on earth and provide order for human society. These institutions are the family (Gen. 2:24; Col. 3:18-21), the church (Gen. 12:1-3; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:19-22), and the state (Gen. 9:5; Rom. 13:1-7). Each of these institutions have been assigned specific responsibilities and given authority from God for carrying out their work.

This biblical teaching leads to the concept of the separation of church and state. The church and state are separate institutions with different commissions. However, both have a divine origin, and both are under divine law. The church and state should work together to advance God's kingdom by carrying out their responsibilities given to them in God's Word. The state is a ministry of justice charged with the duty of up-holding God's law in the civil sphere by punishing evil doers and rewarding and protecting the righteous. The church is a ministry of grace commissioned to preach the gospel to sinners, administer the sacraments, and disciple the people by teaching and preaching the whole counsel of God.

This theology of multiple governments leads to the concept of limited government. Civil government has a limited task in God's plan, and it must not transgress the limits placed upon it by God. The state ought not to transgress the authority that God has given to the family (and hence the marketplace which is an extension of the family, since ultimately all wealth and capital reside with the family), and to the church.

The Christians who established this nation understood these things, and therefore sought to limit civil government to its proper sphere. Unlike many people today, they did not believe that civil government is an agency of social salvation. They did not want the government meddling in their lives and taking away their God-given freedoms. They were zealous to limit government to its proper sphere of punishing evil doers and protecting life, liberty, and property.

The United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment are products of the Christian concept of limited government. The framers of the Constitution and the people who ratified it were jealous of their liberty, and were very careful not to grant unlimited power to a central government. They painstakingly constructed a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. By the Tenth Amendment they made it perfectly clear that they reserved to the states and the people all authority not granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

If the Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution is to make any difference in our day, it must be pursued with the vision of limited government that originally inspired it. The ultimate goal must be that of restoring all civil government to its properly appointed sphere, including state and local government.

The Depravity of Man

The Bible teaches that man is a fallen creature. He is born in sin and, apart from the grace of God, he will pursue his own pleasure and glory. Man is a rebel who transgresses the commandment of God to love the Lord with all of his heart and to love his neighbor as himself (Matt. 22:37-39). Even those who have been redeemed still struggle with the old man and are prone to temptation and sin.

This doctrine of man's depravity had profound implications on the political philosophy of the colonial period. In short, it was foundational to the belief that a man could not be trusted to use his political power for the glory of God and the good of his fellow men. This doctrine further emphasized the need for limited government. As John Cotton the Puritan pastor said:

Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content they shall use--for use it they will. And unless they be better taught of God, they will use it and anon.... This is one of the strains of nature: it affects boundless liberty, and to run to the utmost extent...for whatever transcendent power is given will certainly overrun those that give it and those that receive it. There is a strain in a man's heart that will sometime or other run out to excess, unless the Lord restrain it; but it is not good to venture it. It is necessary, therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited....³

Furthermore, they believed that checks and balances should be built into the structure of civil government so that the evil tendencies in man's heart will be restrained. Authority should be divided in such a way that the evil ambitions for power in the hearts of men will be restrained by the various departments of government. For example, in accord with such passages as Isa. 33:22, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king", the colonists divided civil government into three branches: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. Power was therefore distributed among the three branches, with the goal of each branch restraining the others as each sought to guard its own authority.

Limited government with a system of checks and balances is also evident in the United States Constitution. There was a general fear among the states that the federal government would assume too much power and begin to infringe on the powers of the state governments. This fear was born of a healthy distrust of sinful man and of the folly of placing too much power into the hands of any government. Many opposed the Constitution because they believed that it did in fact open the door to future tyranny by the federal government. There was, therefore, an intense effort made by the Anti-Federalists to scuttle the proposed Constitution. The Federalists, however, defeated the Anti-Federalists and were able to secure the ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalists relied on two factors to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. First, was the promise of a bill of rights which would protect the people in the states in their basic rights from federal intrusion. This bill of rights, of course, came to include the Tenth Amendment which specifically bound the United States government to the powers granted to it in the written text of the Constitution. Second, it was argued that the states would, naturally, jealously guard against any encroachments on their powers by the federal government. The individual state governments would serve as a check and balance to federal power.

However, something has gone wrong. The federal government has not kept within the bounds of its Constitutional powers, and the states have not been able to check the rampant and oppressive growth of federal power over the states. But there is some reason to hope that the situation is beginning to change a little. More and more people are beginning to realize the wisdom of our Puritan forefathers that you cannot entrust too much power into the hands of any one man or any one branch or part of government. Men are sinful, and all too prone to abuse their civil office for their own selfish purposes. It is becoming clear to many that it is dangerous to liberty to allow the federal government to ignore the constitutional restraints on its authority and to allow it to run roughshod over the powers of the states and the people.

The Tenth Amendment - State Sovereignty Resolution is an important attempt by the states to re-establish the crucial balance of power between the state governments and the United States government. A strong movement among the states to reject federal despotism and to begin to exercise the powers that legitimately belong to the states will hopefully serve to check federal power and return it to its proper constitutional bounds.

Local Self-Government

The Bible teaches that each man is responsible for his own actions and that he will give personal account on the day of judgment for the life that he lived. Each man is responsible to govern his own life in accordance with God's law. This doctrine of personal responsibility and the need for self-government is foundational to any free society. A people who will not govern themselves are not fit to be a free people; they deserve to be enslaved (and most assuredly they will be).

America became the land of the free because it was largely populated by Christians who did govern their lives according to God's law. Having mastered self-government, they were able to successfully govern their families, their churches, and their civil communities by the principles of the law of God, which law is the perfect law of liberty (Ps. 119:45; Jas. 1:25; 2:12).

Our loss of liberty in America is largely due to our failure to shoulder our responsibilities and govern our personal lives by the standard of God's Word. Self-government is the true basis of civil liberty, and unless citizens learn to govern their own lives by God's law, the Tenth Amendment State - Sovereignty resolution will not help to regain liberty; it might only exchange one source of tyranny (i.e., the federal government) for another (i.e., the individual state governments).

The Scripture establishes the necessity and importance of local government. The Bible is no friend to those who advocate a centralized power that rules over men from a place far removed from the concerns and needs of the local community. The pattern for local government is seen in Old Testament Israel and in the New Testament Church.

A surface reading of the Old Testament might lead one to conclude that the structure of Israel's civil government was highly centralized, being concentrated in the king. But the truth of the matter is that Israel's civil government was local in its orientation and decentralized in its structure. It is true that the king was powerful and he occupied an important place in Israel, but this must not obscure the fact that civil leadership was primarily local. First of all, there were the rulers and elders of the tribes (Num. 32:28; Deut. 1:13-15; 29:10; 31:28; 1 Chron. 27:16-22; 28:1; 2 Chron. 5:2). These rulers of the tribes were no doubt the same who were called the officers and elders of the people (Deut. 5:23; Jos. 1:10; 1 Sam. 8:4; 1 Chron. 11:3). Secondly, there were the elders and judges of the cities in Israel (Deut. 19:12; 21:2-6; 22:15-18; 25:7-9; Judg. 8:16). So then, in Israel you not only had the central government of the king, but you also had the individual tribal governments and the local government of the cities. It is also important to note that the people chose their own rulers (Deut. 1:13-15; 16:18).

From the Old Testament, then, we have the pattern of decentralized government and local rule by men chosen by the people. The role of the king was to defend the nation against foreign aggression, conduct foreign policy, and uphold the law of God. In some ways (but not all), the relationship between the king and the tribal governments is similar to the relationship between the federal government and the states.

The New Testament church also exhibits a pattern of local self-government. In spite of what some claim, the New Testament presents church government as being local and decentralized. Local churches were governed by elders chosen by the people and appointed by the established leadership (Acts 14:23; 20:17; 6:3-6; Titus 1:5). There was no hierarchy in the government of the church. It is important to remember that the colonies were established primarily by Congregationalists and Presbyterians who believed in and practiced local self-government in their churches. Their understanding of the Bible and their experience under prelates, bishops, and kings, led them to distrust centralized government in the church and in the state; they insisted on local rule that would be responsive to the people.

The Tenth Amendment reflects the keen aversion of the states and their people to a strong, distant, centralized government that would have wide and unrestricted power over their lives. They believed in and practiced the biblical pattern of local government, and the Tenth Amendment was designed to protect against the usurpation of this right by the federal government.

One can only imagine the horror our forefathers would feel if they saw the strong centralized federal government of today that wields a virtually unrestrained power over the states. They would, no doubt, be ashamed of their sons and daughters who have either actively or passively allowed such a deplorable governmental structure to arise on such a carefully laid foundation. May we begin to feel some of that horror and shame. May we commit ourselves to the task of cutting the federal government down to size and to return to the biblical principle of local self-government.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion has sought to trace some of the biblical principles which form the basis of American government in general and the Tenth Amendment in particular. From this discussion we may conclude that Christians ought to support the Tenth Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution, and labor to do all in their strength to reduce the power of the federal government to its constitutional limits. However, we must not be deceived into thinking that the Tenth Amendment Resolution and the restoration of the powers of the states and the people will somehow be a cure-all for the deep problems in our society. Therefore, in conclusion, we will briefly note certain things that must accompany any effort to return America to its Christian heritage of liberty, justice, and prosperity.

First of all, there must be a true revival of obedience in the church to all that God has commanded. If the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) in the world, it can only function as such when the church knows and practices the truth as God has revealed it in the Bible. This nation cannot be returned to the biblical principles upon which it was founded unless the church first returns to these principles and then disciples the nation in the truth of God's Word. If there is no "pillar" of truth in the land, we as a people will continue to fall for the lie of socialism and centralized government.

Secondly, the church needs to aggressively preach the gospel to the lost. We can only truly return to our Christian roots if we turn the people of the United States to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Self-government according to the principles of God's Word is foundational to true civil liberty, and such self-government is only possible in the hearts of those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, there must be an official and true recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the United States. All nations are commanded to honor God and pay due homage to the Lord Jesus Christ (Ps. 2:10-12). God's blessings are promised to the state that honors Him and follows Him as their God and Sovereign (Ps. 9:17; 33:12). The Lordship of Christ ought to be recognized in the civil covenants of a people since these covenants establish the structure, responsibilities, and duties of the people and their magistrates. How can Christ be properly honored and His Lordship recognized when He is not even mentioned in a state's or nation's civil covenant? Doesn't this omission officially declare that Christ has no part nor authority in the body politic established by that covenant (constitution)?

Therefore, we believe that the United States Constitution and the individual state constitutions should be amended to recognize Christ's Lordship. This is imperative if we want to establish a lasting Christian republic. The omission of any reference to the Lordship of Christ in our federal and state constitutions is one of the causes for our drift today into a secular and pluralistic state.

Fourthly, there needs to be a restoration of biblical law as the basis for our civil law. The rejection of the sovereignty of Christ and the law of God has led us into the bondage of humanistic law and the rule of evil men. Only God's law teaches the way of freedom and justice.

Fifthly, we must reaffirm the three spheres of government: the family, the church, and the state. If civil authority is to be limited to its proper sphere, the legitimacy and inviolability of family government and church government must be established in the thinking of the people and the magistrates. The civil government must limit its activity to the duties that God has assigned to it. The state should be taught the bounds of its authority, and resisted whenever it transgresses those bounds.

Sixthly, Christians need to labor to elect godly magistrates. The law of God establishing the necessary qualifications for civil magistrates must be carefully obeyed (Ex. 18:21). It is foolish to believe that the ungodly will lead us in the rebuilding of our state and nation according to the principles of biblical law. It is only when the righteous are in authority that we will rejoice in the liberty and justice of God's law (Prov. 29:2).

Finally, the biblical principle of interposition needs to be applied in our present situation.⁴ The principle of interposition is simply this: when a people are being oppressed and denied their God-given rights by a tyrannical government or magistrate, they should not choose the path of individual resistance or rebellion; rather, they ought to seek out a magistrate or magistrates at an intermediate level of government that will lead them in their resistance. The lesser magistrate, or level of government, then interposes itself between the people and the oppressing higher power. Anarchy, or that of taking the law into our own hands is not blessed of God; it is the way of the flesh and the world. All resistance movements should be under a lawful magistrate.

Let us pray that God will raise up principled and courageous Christian magistrates who will lead us in our resistance to unjust laws and oppressive civil leaders and governments. Perhaps the Tenth Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution is the start of our state government representatives interposing between the people of the states and an oppressive federal government which has burst its constitutional bounds and has arrogantly trampled on our God-given rights.

However, if our attempts to re-establish the constitutional limits on the federal government and to restore the legitimate powers of the state governments are not accompanied by these seven essentials for a Christian reconstruction of our constitutional republic, we may discover that we have traded one tyranny for another. Instead of being oppressed from Washington, we might very well find ourselves being oppressed from our state capitals.

William Einwechter is the pastor of Covenant Christian Church, Vice President of the National Reform Association, and editor of The Christian Statesman. He resides with his wife and eight children near Reading, Pennsylvania.

Endnotes:

1. As seen, for example, in William Penn's Frame of Government of Pennsylvania (1682), that grounded civil government in the sovereignty of God over men. Penn used Romans 13 to set forth his philosophy of civil government.

2. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964), 15.

3. As cited by Edmund S. Morgan in Puritan Political Ideas (Indianapolis: The Bobbs Merrill Company, 1965), 174.

4. For an important discussion of the doctrine of interposition see, Tom Rose, Reclaiming the American Dream by Reconstructing the American Republic (Mercer, PA: American Enterprise Publications, 1996).

back to top