In this article, I continue to examine Mr. Fortenberry’s “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era,” in which he proposes forty-eight points that allegedly prove the Constitution was based upon the Bible.
Point #15: “Article 1, Section 8 – ‘To establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ In accordance with this law, Congress was to provide a single process through which citizenship could be obtained by anyone who wished to become an American. Israel also had a ‘uniform rule of naturalization’ by which any stranger could become a Jew. Their process of naturalization which consisted of circumcision and observance of the Passover is outlined in Exodus 12:48…. The Church in the New Testament also has a single rule of naturalization for all those who wished to become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. That rule which consists only of salvation is outlined in Ephesians 2.”
Mr. Fortenberry begins by misidentifying all twelve tribes of Israel in Exodus 12 as Jews and ends (by implication) by misidentifying the gentiles in Ephesians 2 as non-Israelites.1 He then endeavors to compare the constitutional “rule of naturalization” to Biblical circumcision by which non-Israelites allegedly became Israelites—a genetic impossibility.
Lost in all of this is the Constitution’s unbiblical citizenship by physical birth versus the Bible’s citizenship by spiritual birth:
The Fourteenth Amendment made citizenship contingent upon birth or naturalization instead of a person’s profession of Christianity:
“Humanists have written civil covenants (constitutions) that make citizenship the product of physical birth or of a State adoption (“naturalized citizenship”) rather than citizenship by ritual subordination to the God of the Bible.” (Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 846.)
This [Article 1, Section 8’s physical-birth] contingency contrasts with that of 17th-century America. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, an adult male became a citizen of the Colony by covenant with the church, by profession of faith in Jesus, His blood-atoning sacrifice, and resurrection from the grave. The Puritans’ earthly citizenship was indistinguishable from their heavenly citizenship:
“In 1637 the General Court passed an order prohibiting anyone from settling within the colony without first having his orthodoxy approved by the magistrates…. Here was a community formed by free consent of its members. Why should they not exclude dangerous men, or men with dangerous thoughts?” (Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience (Norwalk, CT: The Easton Press, 1958/1987) p. 7.)
“…no one could be a “freeman” of the colony unless he had been admitted to the church. And only “freemen” could vote or hold office.” (Ibid., p. 25.)2
Point #17: “Article 1, Section 8 – ‘To coin money, regulate the value thereof… and fix the standard of weights and measures.’ This law is based on the biblical mandate to have a just weight as given in Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and Proverbs 11:1.”
If Section 8 were based upon the cited Scriptures, then the framers failed to give credit where credit was due. If these men were the God-honoring Christians so many claim they were, doesn’t it seem just a little suspicious that they never credited Yahweh3, His morality, or His law for anything specific in the Constitution? (Of course, since much of the Constitution is contrary to Yahweh’s specific laws, this would have been challenging, to say the least.)
Point #22: “Article 1, Section 8 – ‘To raise and support armies.” This right … is founded on God’s instructions to Moses to raise an army from among the Children of Israel in Numbers 31:4-6.”
If this were true, Mr. Fortenberry would certainly have provided a quotation from the framers’ to verify his claim. The Constitution’s provision for a standing army is not supported by the Bible and has led to the Constitutional Republic’s current imperialistic military-industrial complex, which is responsible for the murders of millions of people:
The power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the only place of significance where warfare is mentioned in the Constitution. Little wonder this power has been abused. Luther Martin [one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention] protested:
“…the congress have also a power given them to raise and support armies, without any limitation as to numbers, and without any restriction in time of peace. Thus, sir, this plan of government, instead of guarding against a standing army, that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom, has in its formation given it an express and constitutional sanction….” (Luther Martin, Jonathan Elliott, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: Jonathan Elliott, 1836) vol. 1, p. 59)….
Because the framers provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule ever since…. From 1945 to the present, the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy—not that this would be anything to celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or financial profit can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression.4
Instead, Numbers 1 provides for militias made up of all able-bodied men in Israel. Constitutional congresses couldn’t even get something as simple as the age of manhood correct:
Congress had two opportunities to get the age of manhood correct. In both instances (Amendments 14 and 26), they failed. Neither eighteen nor twenty-one is the Biblical age of manhood. Yahweh set the age of military service (and thus manhood) at twenty years:
“Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war….” (Numbers 1:2-3)
In both instances, Congress ignored Yahweh’s will. Why should they consult Him when nothing in the United States Constitution requires them to do so?5
Yahweh is not even acknowledged in the Constitution, except, perhaps as the paper’s timekeeper.
Point #23: “Article 1, Section 8 – ‘To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union.’ The power of the government to enforce the law is founded on the explanation given in Romans 13:1-5 that such enforcement is ordained of God for the punishment of evil.”
Except for the phrase “execute the laws of the union,” the Constitution has finally provided something compatible with the Bible: a militia composed of able-bodied men for the defense of themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation. However, Patrick Henry found good reason for concern with Congress’ control over the militia:
“…this government … does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants…. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put into the hands of congress?”6
The militia has since been abolished.
Whether or not Romans 13:1-5 provides government with the power to enforce the law, depends upon what Mr. Fortenberry means by “the law.” If it’s anything other than Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9), it’s not law but lawlessness, and Romans 13:1-57 has nothing to do with enforcing it.
Point #28: “Article 1, Section 9 – ‘A regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.’ This philosophy of accountability is based on the biblical teaching that we must all give an account for our actions as explained in Romans 14:12, Matthew 18:23, Luke 16:1-8 and I Corinthians 4:2.”
The passages cited by Mr. Fortenberry have nothing to do with accountability to man-made governments. Rather, they discuss our accountability to Yahweh.
The only way the Constitution can be made compatible with the Bible is for people to read the Bible into the minds of the framers. Mindreading is difficult enough when the subject is alive.
Stay tuned for Part 5.
Related posts:
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
1. For Biblical explanations, see The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?
2. Chapter 23 “Amendment 14: First Birth vs. Second Birth Citizenship” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
4. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
5. Chapter 32 “Amendment 26: The Curse of Children’s Suffrage” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
6. Patrick Henry, quoted in William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Ithaca, NY: Andrus, Gauntlett, & Co., 1850) p. 195.
7. For a more exhaustive explanation of Romans 13:1-7, see Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary of Romans 13:1-7.
Carry on, Ted. You’re doing great!
Incidentally, I posted an article this morning in a similar vein in response to Bradlee Dean and his effort to slap a “christian” veneer on the Constitution. It appears to me that these people are becoming desperate.
http://christianusa.us/gideonproject/making-holy-scripture-fit-the-constitution/
Excellent. Keep battling for King, kith and kin.
“The Puritans’ earthly citizenship was indistinguishable from their heavenly citizenship…”
Excellent. “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Well done. I would only add that “regulating the value of money” might imply the power to vary its value and hence perpetrate the crime of inflation or deflation (theft) which would obliterate Mr. Fortenberry’s point here.