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 #37
“Article 3, Section 1 – ‘The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.’ The requirement that judges maintain good behavior is based on an identical command given to the judges of Israel in Deuteronomy 16:20.”
Based on an identical command?
That which is altogether just shalt thou follow…. (Deuteronomy 16:20)
Biblical judges are required to seek justice, based on Yahweh’s1 righteousness. Constitutional judges are required to behave themselves, based on nothing:
Of what worth is a condition of good behavior if it is nowhere defined? In Mark 10:18, Jesus declared, “No one is good except God alone” (NASB). Good behavior can be defined and understood only from the parameters of Yahweh and His morality. Any standard that leaves “good behavior” to the determination of humans is humanism.
What the framers did was essentially the same as a father who tells his five-year-old son to be a good boy without explaining to him what is required of him to be good. When the son comes up with his own ideas about what qualifies as “good,” the father has no grounds to discipline him. No wonder bad judges are so seldom disciplined and so difficult to remove from their benches.2
Point #39
“Article 3, Section 2 – ‘The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.’ The right to a trial by jury is also predicated on the example of Israel. Israel’s reliance on a jury system can be found in both Numbers 35:24-26 and Joshua 20:6.”
No, juries are not found in Numbers 35, Joshua 20, or anywhere else in the Bible. Not only is the Constitutional Republic’s jury system not predicated upon “Israel’s reliance on a jury system,” it is, in fact, completely unbiblical:
Article 3’s provision for juries is yet another instance of the framers’ deciding they knew better than Yahweh. The Bible offers nothing that resembles a jury system….
Most Constitutionalists favor the jury system, provided jury nullification (a juror’s right to judge a law as unjust, oppressive, or inapplicable to any particular case) is in force. However, even if jury nullification were restored, juries would still render decisions based upon each jury’s collective standard of morality or immorality. “A jury drawn from the [Biblically] uninstructed population is no better equipped to administer the just requirements of God’s law than a corrupt judge.” [Dennis Oliver Woods, A Handbook of Biblical Law (Prepublication, 2010) p. 12.] A jury awarded $2.3 million to Stella Liebeck when she burned herself with McDonald’s coffee, and a jury found O.J. Simpson innocent on all charges. Although it might be argued that it only takes one juror to dissent and prevent a “railroad job,” most people lack the independence and resolution to resist the will of a majority. More often than not, today’s jurors reflect the type of people we are warned against in Exodus 23:
‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.’ (Exodus 23:2)
Juries produce, at best, erratic justice. Without Yahweh’s law as the standard, jury decisions are based upon the capricious morality of its members. Nothing demonstrates this better than Jesus’ trial by a jury of His peers with Pontius Pilate presiding. The prevailing immorality of the day demanded Jesus be crucified even though He was clearly innocent [and despite the fact the presiding judge wanted Him acquitted].3
Point #40
“Article 3, Section 3 – ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies.’ This definition of treason was a precursor to the freedom of speech which was later to be expressly granted by the first amendment. It is based on the teachings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 and on the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 29:20-21.”
Based on?
That the framers were not concerned with treason against Yahweh proves by itself their government was not Biblical. In fact, because treason is a crime against sovereignty, the Constitutional Republic established in 1789 was itself a treasonous act against Yahweh and His government. Two sovereigns cannot coexist. When the framers established the United States government as sovereign [and it’s law as the supreme law of the land, per Article 6, they became guilty of First and Second Commandment treason against Yahweh.4
Point #41
“Article 3, Section 3 – ‘No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act.’ This law is nearly identical to that given by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15 which also required the testimony of at least two witnesses for convictions.”
Why only nearly identical?
Section 3, Clause 1 requires two witnesses only to the crime of treason. Deuteronomy 19:15 requires two or more witnesses in all criminal cases:
‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.’ (Deuteronomy 19:15)
If Deuteronomy 19:15 was the inspiration for the two-witness requirement of Section 3, this is but another instance of the framers compromising Yahweh’s law.5
Point #43
“Article 4, Section 2 – “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.’ This guarantee of privileges stems directly from an application of the scriptural principle of the body of Christ as explained in I Corinthians 12:12-26.”
What do the miraculous gifts and the interworking of the body of Christ have to do with the privileges and immunities shared between States? Do you see the pattern in Mr. Fortenberry’s claims? Because the framers never based anything specific in the Constitution upon the Bible, Mr. Fortenberry has taken it upon himself to find anything in the Bible that remotely resembles something in the Constitution in order to assert the Constitution is a Biblical document. He fails to realize that citizens of any country can do the same with their Constitutions.
Stay tuned for Part 7.
Related posts:
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
1. 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.”
2. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Thanks Ted for analyzing these points. Any claim that the Bible is expressed in the Constitution in more than a few points in passing is simply naive. The Constitution recognizes certain basic morality but never makes any internal claim, not exhibits any specific strong evidence that it was formulated upon Biblical precept.
Thanks Don!
With all due respect to Mr. Fortenberry, I have sorrow knowing the land is filled with this brand of Baal worship, and especially that this worship continues to be defended in the name of “freedom”.
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”
Tragically true. But, praise Yahweh, more and more are awakening all the time. Like Gideon of old, our fathers’ idols must be torn down before the kingdom can be advanced in any significant fashion.