[T]he law is ignored and justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; therefore, justice comes out perverted. (Habakkuk 1:4)
November 19, 2013, was the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The speech is iconic, but is it Biblical?
Under God
…—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—….
The term “under God” (along with “God bless this nation!” and similar declarations) is often used to provide an air of sanctity to what is otherwise ungodly. So it was with this address, most Presidents’ speeches, and Christian support of the Biblically incompatible Constitution. For example, consider Article 6’s claim that the “Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land”:
The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh1 subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:6-9)
The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists (non-Christians and, ironically, Christians alike) pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme….
Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add “under God” or “under the Bible” to the declaration in [Article 6’s] Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.
If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document [under God], that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry by making Yahweh his partner.2
The same is true for Lincoln’s nation. It was built on a document that not only fails to recognize Yahweh as God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22), but in numerous components is hostile to His perfect and righteous law (Psalm 19:7-9). It’s doubtful God views the Constitutional Republic as “under” Him, at least in the sense Lincoln implied.
Of, By, and For the People
…—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
If ever there was a declaration of humanism, this is it:
Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things. (Francis Schaeffer3)
Lincoln couldn’t have made a more exact statement about the Constitutional Republic—at least not if the following men, some of whom were involved in drafting the Constitution, are to be believed:
As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power … it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the [power of the] several branches of government … is derived. (James Madison4)
The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. (Alexander Hamilton5)
This government, the offspring of our own choice … has a just claim to your confidence and support. (President George Washington6)
[T]he people are the sovereign of this country. (John Jay, First Chief Justice7)
The people, the highest authority known in our system, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend, formed it. (President James Monroe8)
[T]he people are the only sovereigns recognized by our Constitution…. (President James K. Polk9)
In our Constitution, We The People … are the masters…. [H]ere in America, We The People are in charge. (President Ronald Reagan10)
The Constitution’s Preamble, which begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” is arguably the most brazen human claim to sovereignty ever written. It is humanism of the rankest sort:
As non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity. (Humanist Manifesto II11)
The framers not only slighted Yahweh and compromised His law, they completely ignored it, and, in many instances, legislated against it (and the wicked have compassed the righteous ever since).
With such a significant Christian beginning in the 1600s, how can we have strayed so far from our Christian roots? The answer is simple: the framers’ hearts were divided (Hosea 10:2). Consequently, Yahweh’s law was slacked (Habakkuk 1:4, KJV). Once that door was unbolted, there was nothing to stop the continuing compromise, especially when Christians heralded the very document that started America down the pernicious road on which she finds herself today.
Lincoln’s statement about “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people” (incredibly, esteemed by Christians as much as non-Christians) is perhaps the most iconic part of the entire Gettysburg Address. Nothing could be more unbiblical. It is, in fact, Biblically seditious.
Nothing is more oxymoronic than the fact that many contemporary Christians condemn the Puritans for establishing governments of, by, and for Yahweh while lauding the framers (and Lincoln) for their humanistic government of, by, and for the people.
Shall not perish from off the earth
…—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It would seem Lincoln not only fancied himself a monarch,12 but also a prophet. The day is coming when he’ll be proven a false prophet:
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)
The house known as the United States Constitutional Republic was not built on the rock of Yahweh’s inspired Word. There is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s Word and Law.13
Lincoln was correct. The Constitutional Republic is a humanistic contract of, by, and for the people—and therefore Biblically seditious. Consequently, he was also wrong. The Constitutional Republic is not under God, and, therefore, one day, it will perish from the earth. When that day arrives, may Christians be prepared to establish government of, by, and for Yahweh in its place. (See our suggested Biblical rewrite of the Secular Constitution’s Preamble and Articles 1-3 as a place to begin.)
Related posts:
The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 1
The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 2
The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 3
Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of 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. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (1981), in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982) vol. 5, p. 426.
4. James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 217.
5. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 22 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 135.
6. George Washington, “Farewell Address,” Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols. (New York; NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892) vol. 13, p. 297.
7. John Jay, First Chief Justice, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793
8. James Monroe, “Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements,” 4 May 1822, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles20.html.
9. James K. Polk, Third Annual Message, 7 December 1847, The American Presidency Project, <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php.>
10. President Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, 1987.
11. Humanist Manifesto II, www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II.
12. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Thomas DiLorenzo.
13. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
With the possible exception of the “Mayflower Compact”, is anything done by this country’s alleged governing authority in contract or law Biblical?
“…History demonstrates that during the 17th and early 18th centuries, Yahweh’s law governed the majority of what was then America. The following are but two of the documents attesting that early Americans formed Christian governments designed around Yahweh’s law:
“The Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Compact, 1638
We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.
“Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, 1639
“Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of
inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….
“The 1639 agreement makes no reference to any other government as its source of authority:
‘It is worthy of note that this document contains none of the conventional references to a “dread sovereign” or a “gracious King,” nor the slightest allusion to the British or any other government outside of Connecticut itself….’19
“Its longevity is also remarkable:
‘…Thomas Hooker, founded the colony of Connecticut.… In 1639, he wrote the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which many consider to be the first full-fledged written constitution in history. Whereas other documents in the Colonies were later modified or replaced, the Connecticut Constitution remained intact up to and well beyond the adoption of the national Constitution.’20….”
Excerpted from Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.
Mr. Weiland- Two references, that honest adherents to the Gospel given to ‘His People’ [Matt. 1:21] such as we, need to address. First, do you know of this man, and his fictional books? http://revolttrilogy.com/trt/
I read the first two before reading your newest articles analyzing the Constitution, American exceptionalism, and the fallacy that God blesses America, when America does not bless God. Even so, I think it would be of interest for you to read and critique these books, as they fall within your Evangelical cultural concensus.
Secondly, do you know of this woman’s utterly dismissive website?http://4christcrowncovenant.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/a-discerning-look-at-ted-weilands-bible-law-vs-the-united-states-constitution-the-christian-perspective/
First (as a woman) she has no right to critique a man called by God- so much for ‘learning in all submission’ and in EVERYTHING! [I Tim. 2:11-13] If she were truly a godly woman, she would not be pretending to be our equals. Secondly, no one addresses the THEOLOGICAL issues, but only sees things through the prism of filioquist egalitarianism. I mean, how can one honestly debate minds such as this, that don’t even know they are in bondage and outside the gate?
I hope you are having a blessed Christmas season.
Yes, I am aware of the Second site. Angela Wittman actually was a responder on this site for a short period of time. However, when confronted for what amounted to utter nonsense and calumny, not only by me but by several others as well (all of which she never provided any Scriptural answer for), she disappeared and wrote the article/tripe you’ve noted. Too bad, tragic in fact. I had hopes she would be honest with the Scriptures but she proved to be more interested in being faithful to her denomination’s creeds than the Bible.
With all this having the probability of being accurate, what is your viable solution to it?
First, we must repent our way out of this mess, which means returning to
Yahweh and His morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. I know you know this, but it would seem many have yet to figure out that if sin is a violation of Yahweh’s moral laws (1 John 3:4), then
righteous living involved the implementation of His law at every level
of society.
This is not going to occur overnight. Most of modern Christianity is antinomian, meaning they believe that Yahweh’s moral laws have been abolished and have no practical purpose under the New Covenant. In short, modern Christianity (what in the 17th-century was Christendom) is saltless, good for nothing but to trampled under the foot of man, as per Matthew 5:13. This means that modern saltless Christianity is our principle mission field. They must be taught the truth concerning Yahweh’s law and kingdom as they pertain to us under the New Covenant.
We must recognize that this a generational vision and that this generation must begin now in order that a future generation of our progeny might have the opportunity of doing it right(eous) this time – unlike our late 18th-century American forefathers.
This is not going to occur by trying to save this nation by employing the
current ungodly system’s means of doing things. Do we really think voting for
anyone on the ticket today is going to fix anything? To do so only reveals our
shortsightedness. By unbiblically voting for what they HOPE is the lesser of
two evils, Christians and others are trying to save this present generation
while sacrificing the next several generations in the process. Case in point,
the last 224 years of voting, which have only produced a nation less Christian, more depraved, and further enslaved, REGARDLESS whose
elected.
This battle begins by accepting and teaching the literal truth of Psalm 19:7-11
and identifying our national idol that stands in the way of implementing Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments. Like Gideon of old, our
fathers’ idol must be isolated, exposed, and addressed before we can implement Yahweh’s law. THIS is where the battle is today.
If every Christian were putting the same effort and resources into this as some do every four years in trying to vote the “better” man into office, we would begin to see our way to some REAL progress in saving this nation from the precipice she now teeters on.
You are incorrect. Most Christians DO NOT BELIEVE that the moral law is invalid today. We know that the COVENANT/CONTRACT OF MOSES AT SINAI is passed away. The moral law was part of it. The moral law is found in the New Covenant because it transcends ages and dispensations. Murder, stealing, lying is always wrong in all times and places. Not offering lambs for sin is not wrong. Then it would be wrong to not offer, NOW it would be wrong to offer!
I am also concerned about your statement of faith. It seems like a hodge-podge of truth and various heresies. No statement on the trinity, you clearly think water has magical powers, and so are a Campbellite, and you have imbibed some Hebrew Roots Judaizer error. WHAT A COMBO!
Thanks for the thought provoking article.