Swallowing Camels… Pt. 4

Posted: 24th May 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
10

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 2’s Executive Usurpation

Isaiah 33:22 informs us that Yahweh1 is our judge, lawgiver, and king. This means He alone is sovereign:

He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords … to Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16)

Consequently, any government that does not recognize His sovereignty is Biblically spurious:

Because the constitutional framers did not acknowledge the United States Constitution’s subordination to Yahweh and His sovereignty, Article 2 can only be understood as a rejection of Yahweh’s executive authority and an attempt to usurp His executive power.2

The constitutional framers’ failure to establish a government under Yahweh’s sovereignty is perhaps best seen when we contrast the Constitutional Republic of, by, and for the people with some of the Colonial governments of, by, and for Yahweh:

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….”

Almost as impressive as New Haven’s agreement are the testimonies to it and other similar documents:

John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 1874: “In June of 1639 the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the constitution of the State. Everything was strictly conformed to the religious standard. The government was called the House of Wisdom…. None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship. [John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181.]….”

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: “They exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found.

“Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ. “Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,” says the preamble of the Code, “shall surely be put to death.” This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death…. [Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.]

McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader, America’s most popular school book in the 1800s, also testified to America’s early form of theocratic government:

“Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….” [William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.]

William McGuffey was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of renowned early American preachers such as John Cotton:

“The famous John Cotton, the first minister of Boston … earnestly pleaded ‘that the government might be considered as a theocracy, wherein the Lord was judge, lawgiver and king; that the laws which He gave Israel might be adopted….’ At the desire of the court, he compiled a system of laws founded chiefly on the laws of Moses….” (Jeremy Belknap, John Farmer, The History of New-Hampshire (Dover, NH: George Wadleigh, 1862) pp. 42-43.)3

The disparity between the Colonial governments’ candid allegiance to Yahweh and His law and the framers’ traditions of man is compelling. Among other things, their rejection of Yahweh as their sovereign is testified to by the lack of any formal declarations of subordination to Him:

 The framers of the Constitution, although mostly churchgoers, were not the same cut of churchmen as those of the 17th century. The churches of the late 18th century and the churches of the 17th century were radically different. The former were interested in building the kingdom of God based upon the perfect law of Yahweh. The latter were hardly interested in Yahweh’s law at all, which certainly contributed to the absence of quotations from, or even references to, the laws of Yahweh in the Constitution….

The theological differences between the worldviews of the Puritans and the constitutional framers are striking:

“The idea that the state was beyond the reach of the claims of the Bible was … abhorrent to the Puritan…. In the Scriptures they found the origin, the form, the functions and the power of the state and human government. This resort to the Scriptures as the exclusive norm for human political organization and activity clearly differentiated them from both the Roman Catholics and that rising group of secularist writers [particularly in the 1700s] who were finding the origin of the state and the source of its powers in a vaguely defined source known as the social compact or contract. In the Puritan view of life man could no more create the government under which he would live and endow it with its just powers than he could effect his own salvation….

“Basic in Puritan political thought is the doctrine of divine sovereignty. The earthly magistrate … was a minister of God under common grace for the execution of the laws of God among the people at large, for the maintenance of law and order, and for so ruling the state…. In Puritan political theory the magistrate derived his powers from God and not from the people….” [C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) pp. 13-14.]

“The whole conception of government that would later be proclaimed by John Locke and others, which placed the sovereignty in the hands of the people and which found the origin of government in a human compact was utterly unknown to the Puritans. They did not believe in a government by the people…. [They sensed] that in the democratic philosophy, with its emphasis upon the sovereignty of the people, lay a fundamental contradiction to the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. They clearly perceived that democracy was the fruit of humanism and not the Reformation concept.” [Ibid., pp. 18-19.]4

If Christians ever intend to re-establish Yahweh’s government (as in the days of the Puritans), the only executive branch must be the one described in Isaiah 33:22, in which Yahweh is King, His judges adjudicate according to His law, and all other officials govern according to His will. Anything else usurps His executive sovereignty.

Stay tuned for Part 5.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH”

Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation”

 

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 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 3

Posted: 17th May 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
148

In this article, I continue to address some of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 1’s Legislative Usurpation

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines a “legislator” as “a lawgiver, one who makes laws….”1 How does this definition and Article 1’s Legislative Branch comport with what the Bible declares about legislators?

Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 declare that Yahweh2 is the exclusive legislator. There are no others, period! Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statutes, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the sin begun by Adam and Eve. The same is true for any one of us who would modify Yahweh’s triune law.

Any legislation antithetical to Yahweh’s turns evil to good and good to evil (Isaiah 5:20). When man rejects Yahweh’s standard of morality, it is inevitable he will make legal what Yahweh has made unlawful (e.g., infanticide and sodomy) and make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful (e.g., monotheistic Christianity outside the four walls of church buildings).

Yahweh is the only lawgiver because as Creator He’s the only one with the authority to determine what is good and evil. His morals as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments determine what is right and left. Anything left of His right(eousness) is left, liberal, and ungodly.3

This Biblical truth did not dissuade the constitutional framers from legislating or providing for a legislative branch of government in perpetuity. Is it any wonder America is drowning in an inestimable number of “laws,” most of which conflict with Yahweh’s morality?

As the source of morality, Yahweh is the source of all true law. Because legislation enacts morality, morality and legislation are indivisible. Yahweh holds the monopoly on legislation and thus on the determination of what is good and what is evil….

Article 1 begins, “All legislative powers herein granted….” Granted by whom? You will look in vain to find any reference (inside or outside the Constitution) in which the framers affirmed the government’s legislative powers were granted by Yahweh. Neither did they ever affirm the laws of Yahweh:

“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)

And yet the men at the Philadelphia convention are lauded for their disregard for Yahweh and His law. Any attempt to legislate outside Biblical parameters is sedition against Yahweh. To usurp a legislator’s power is to dethrone him:

“[The God of Puritanism] stripped of his antique powers [by the constitutional framers] … had no recourse but to enter as a weakened prince into the temple of individualism, and there to seek refuge.” (Richard Mosier, The American Temper (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1952) p. 70.)4

The moment the Constitution was ratified by the States as the supreme law of the land (per Article 6), 17th-century Colonial America’s Christendom (Christian dominion on behalf of Christ) became merely Christianity, confined to people’s hearts and the four walls of their church buildings. Christianity very quickly became salt that had lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the feet of man (Matthew 5:13).

The legislation agreed upon by the framers and authorized by the Constitution is frequently inconsonant with and antagonistic to Yahweh’s law:

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1)

If we believe all morality originates with Yahweh, then we must conclude any law that adds to or subtracts from His law represents lawlessness, unrighteousness, and immorality.4

America teeters on the precipice of depravity and destruction because the framers’ failed to expressly establish the Republic upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His law.

Because Yahweh is the sole legislator, only His legislation is law. Any attempt to make laws contrary or in addition to His laws is ultimately futile, as demonstrated by the fickle propensity of constitutional “legislators”:

“Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U. S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal. “(W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4, quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 644.)4

This has been the inevitable pattern ever since the Constitution was adopted.

Psalm 19:7-11 declares that Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments are more desirable than gold. The framers obviously did not desire them because they replaced them with their own edicts.

“…they that handle the law knew me not…. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit…. For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:8-13)

Because Yahweh’s law is perfect [Psalm 19:7], endeavors to improve upon it, via human legislators, are attempts to dethrone our King and commandeer His throne. This is what happened in the Garden, at the Tower of Babel, and when the people chose Saul over Yahweh as their king. It is what has been attempted every time our forefathers rejected Yahweh’s laws and chose man’s laws to replace them.

“Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment [of men].” (Hosea 5:11)4

R.J. Rushdoony explained that “since there is only one true God, and His law is the expression of His unchanging nature and righteousness, then to abandon the Biblical law for another law-system is to change gods.”5 In other words, man’s choice of legislator(s) determines his god:

If Christians truly believed Isaiah 33:22, they would refuse to use the word “legislators” for yesterday’s constitutional framers or today’s senators and representatives. They certainly would not regard the unbiblical decrees of these “legislators” as law.

“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever.” (Deuteronomy 4:39-40)6

Stay tuned for Part 4.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation”

Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?

 

1. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “Legislator” (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).

2. 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.”

3. Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?

4. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 20.

6. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels . . . Pt. 2

Posted: 10th May 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
14

In this article, I continue to address some of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing:

The Preamble’s Humanism

Francis Shaeffer described humanism as “the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things”1:

The Preamble is arguably the most brazen human claim to sovereignty ever written. If you stop and think about its presumptuous claims, you will see that this new constitution is humanism of the rankest sort….

“…[the Chaldeans’] judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves. …imputing this his power unto his god.” (Habakkuk 1:7, 11)

The New American Standard Bible renders verse 7 more accurately: “their justice and authority originate with themselves.” The Preamble declares that “WE THE PEOPLE,” for various reasons, do “ordain and establish this constitution….”….2

The framers nowhere attributed Yahweh3 as the source of anything specific in the Constitution. He’s not even acknowledged, except perhaps as the paper’s timekeeper. Horace Greeley correctly stated, “Almighty God is not the source of authority and power in our government; the people of The United States are.”4

In one of his many arguments on behalf of the Constitution, [James] Madison revealed where ultimate power resides in a Constitutional Republic:

“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 Madison, The Federalist, No. 46 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 217.)

Alexander Hamilton stated it similarly:

“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 Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 22 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 135.)

This emphasis on the people by both the federalists and anti-federalists alike is evidence that they had lost sight of Yahweh and His ultimate authority. Such an emphasis on the people cannot be found anywhere in the Bible….

John Adams confessed to the same humanism regarding the States’ Constitutions:

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [the establishment of the States’ Constitutions] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven … it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses…. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone….” (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865) vol. 4, pp. 292-93.)5

According to Habakkuk, the Chaldeans’ justice originated with themselves. So does the justice of WE THE PEOPLE: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice….”

What an audacious assertion. Only Yahweh is just, and only He can establish justice:

“Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy [Yahweh’s] throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” (Psalm 89:14)….5

The “justice” the framers wrote about in the Preamble was not the justice that originates with Yahweh but rather with themselves. Otherwise, they would have followed the example of America’s true Christian founding fathers in the 1600s and cited, or at least mentioned, the laws of Yahweh upon which their justice was based.

Anytime autonomous man attempts to establish justice outside Yahweh’s moral laws, the result is always injustice. In Isaiah 5:20, this transposition is depicted as calling good evil and evil good. The word “autonomous” comes from two Greek words: auto meaning self and nomos meaning law. The word, which literally means “self-law,” is just another way of describing humanism and, in this instance, constitutionalism….

Justice is defined as “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “justice,” p. 720.) This is a perfect description of Yahweh and His law, particularly from the perspective found in Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 that there is only one lawgiver and judge. All law, righteousness, equity, morality, truthfulness, and justice originate with and emanate from Him. None of this exists outside Yahweh and His law, and it all existed long before 1787. Because the Constitution did not uphold Yahweh’s lawfulness, righteousness, and justice, it established lawlessness, unrighteousness, and injustice. Christian Constitutionalists recognize this in regard to any other false god. Their unwillingness to apply the same criterion to WE THE PEOPLE is evidence that WE THE PEOPLE is indeed a god to them.5

The Ephesians in Acts 19 cried out for two hours, “Great is Diana of Ephesians!” Idols are never surrendered easily. Proponents of the Constitution are especially tenacious. Most Americans have been crying out for over two centuries, “Great is the Constitution of the United States!”

“Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne [and compounded] their iniquities.” (Lamentations 5:7)

If we hope to pass on to our posterity a Christian legacy and the means for them to one day rule over their enemies (Deuteronomy 28:13, Matthew 5:13, 1 Corinthians 6:2-4, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, etc.), we must first repent of our American fathers’ idol and its inherent humanism.

Stay tuned for Part 3.

 

Related posts:

The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

Petition for Forgiveness Signature Pledge

 

1. Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (1981), in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982) vol. 5, p. 426.

2. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” 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. Horace Greeley, quoted in Robert Michael, A Concise History of American Antisemitism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005) p. 87.

5. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 1

Posted: 3rd May 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
23

In the previous series, “Straining at Gnats…,” I addressed what is regrettably an all too common malady among people who call themselves Constitutional Christians—that is, the propensity to try to read the Bible into the Constitution or, at least, into the minds of its framers. The extent that some people go in their attempt to make the Constitution Biblical is alarming, to say the least. But what’s even more horrific than their “straining at gnats” is their “swallowing camels”—that is, completely overlooking the numerous instances in which the Constitution is antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s1 sovereignty and morality. In this series, I will address some of the more serious “camels” Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing:

The Constitution’s Surrogate God

Theocracy is inherent in the First Commandment (“thou shalt have no other gods before me”). Unless one believes the First Commandment is no longer relevant under the New Covenant, theocracy is not only mandated but unavoidable. The principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws, as codified in the other Nine Commandments and their respective statutes:

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever. (Deuteronomy 4:39-40)

It’s no different with other gods. Idolatry is not so much about statues as statutes. There is no such thing as statutory neutrality. When this truth is accepted, it becomes apparent all governments are theocratic in practice. They serve either the true God or some false god, as demonstrated by what laws they promote and consider the supreme law of the land:

“1. Law is in every culture religious in origin.

“2. The source of law is the god of that society….” [Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 4-5.]

There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.2

All nonexistent false gods (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) always have and always will represent WE THE PEOPLE in one form or another. All theocracies that are not Yahweh’s are, in practice, autocracies in defiance of Him. This defiance is seldom verbalized. In fact, most people are oblivious to their rebellion. Their defiance of Yahweh is externalized in the laws they observe and promote:

People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The only question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?

“The rejection of one god leads inescapably to the choice of another god. If a person, group, court, etc. establishes himself as the final arbiter of right and wrong, then he/they have assumed the attributes of a god. Thus, he/they are theocratic…. Democracy can become theocratic if absolute power is given to the people. …vox populi, vox dei, “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” Those who promote a particular worldview and want to see it implemented socially, educationally, politically, and judicially have elevated the majority to the status of gods….

“One assumes the mantle of deity when he sets himself up as the ultimate authority. It’s the attributes of deity that makes someone god-like. In the eighteenth century, the French revolutionaries declared “reason” to be the goddess of their new state religion. Nineteenth century France was spoken of as “goddess France” by patriotic figures like Victor Hugo and Charles Maurras. Hegel, the philosophical patron saint of communism, wrote that ‘the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth…. We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth…. The State is the march of God through the world.'” (Gary DeMar, “Defining Terms: Theocracy,” 26 February 2007.)

Because “…there is none other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4), there can be only one true theocracy. All other governments represent some form of humanism. The United States Constitutional Republic is one of many governments in which the people have dethroned Yahweh as the god of their society. All governments are theocentric—that is, god-centered. This is true of a government of, by, and for Yahweh, and it is true of a government of, by, and for the people. Herein we find the battle so often described in the Bible—the war between Yahweh’s will and man’s will.

“It is better to trust in YHWH than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in YHWH than to put confidence in princes.” (Psalm 118:8-9)

The first three words of the Preamble [as contrasted with the first four words of the Bible] are an expression of this eternal conflict.2

Humanity’s eminent question is never that of god or no god, but which god: Yahweh or Baal (1 Kings 18:21), God or Caesar (Matthew 22:21), or God or mammon (Matthew 6:24)? “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21) This was Elijah’s challenge to the double-minded Israelites on Mt. Carmel.

What is today’s Mount Carmel? As individuals, we may each have several personal Mount Carmels to be scaled and conquered. However, as a nation, America’s Mount Carmel is unequivocally Yahweh versus We the People (a modern form of Baal).

I can understand humanists’ choosing We the People. We the People is just a collective form of a majority doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). What I cannot understand is that Christians would choose to serve Yahweh as God on one hand and We the People on the other. What’s even more paradoxical is that “conservative” Christians are the greatest advocates of We the People and its humanistic government built upon the traditions of men….3

Christian Constitutionalists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are as double minded as were the Israelites on Mount Carmel. The question remains, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if WE THE PEOPLE, then follow them.” Choose carefully!

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Related posts:

The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

 

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

 

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 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

Straining at Gnats… Pt. 7

Posted: 26th April 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
29

In this article, I complete my examination of 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 #45

“Article 6 – ‘All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution.’ The decision to honor all the debts accrued under the previous government system was made in recognition of the biblical command given in Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 to ‘pay that which thou hast vowed.’”

The framers never acknowledged Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 as their inspiration for this provision in Article 6. Unless Mr. Fortenberry has been involved in necromancy, one has to wonder where he comes up with these special insights into the minds of men long dead. If the framers were as Biblically astute as they are often made out to be, they would not have selected Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 as the basis for this provision. This passage concerns vows made directly to God, not between men or governments.

It was noble that the framers chose to honor the nation’s and states’ past debts. However, had they intended to abide by Biblical law, this would have been the ideal place to stipulate a return to Yahweh’s1 sabbatical year and its provision for debt cancellation…. Without this stipulation, the United States Constitution essentially provided for debt perpetuity, in contrast to Yahweh’s law provision for debt cancellation. Every seventh year (known as the sabbatical year) Yahweh requires the cancellation of all debts:

“At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.… Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called YHWH’s release.” (Deuteronomy 15:1-2)

The seventh-year release is not a moratorium, but a cancellation of all private and public debts. If the framers (and today’s politicians) were earnest about balancing the budget, they would have returned to Yahweh’s law and its seventh-year cancellation of debt. Rather than choosing the only means by which America’s current budget can ever be balanced, politicians opted to shackle future generations with ever-increasing debt.2

Point #46

“Article 6 – ‘The Constitution, and all laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.’ This recognition of a supreme law of the land is based on the same recognition given by Israel to the Law of God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and Proverbs 30:6, the Law given by Moses superseded all laws which may be given by men.”

What an incredibly audacious claim. Article 6’s assertion that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is not based upon the Scriptures Mr. Fortenberry provided. It is, in fact, seditious to Yahweh and His law:

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 Yahweh 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 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 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, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to [make Yahweh his partner and] provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry.3

Point #47

“Article 6 – ‘No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” As strange as it might sound, the prohibition against the use of a religious test is also founded on the Bible; for in the laws concerning the choosing of a king given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20; in the laws concerning the election of elders given in Deuteronomy 1:13 and Exodus 18:25; in the laws concerning the appointment of the princes given in Numbers 1:1-16; in all the Law of God, there is not one religious test given as a requirement for holding office.”

Strange? This is the strangest of Mr. Fortenberry’s claims. If requirements such as fearing Yahweh, being schooled in Yahweh’s law, writing out copies of His law, being men of truth, and hating covetousness aren’t religious tests, what are they?

Because Article 6 outlaws the Christian tests required by early State constitutions (which themselves fell short of what’s Biblically required), it repudiates all Biblical qualifications, particularly Deuteronomy 17:15: “Thou shalt in any wise set him king [leader] over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose….” (Deuteronomy 17:15). Is it any wonder both federal and state governments are populated with nincompoops, scoundrels, and criminals?

Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. It became the initial means by which America was transformed from a [predominantly] monotheistic Christian nation to a [thoroughly] polytheistic one.4

The strangest thing about Mr. Fortenberry’s claim is that it denounces the late 18th-century States’ extant Christian tests as unbiblical.

Point #48

“Article 7 – ‘In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.’ The concluding line of the Constitution of the United States of America contains direct recognition of its Christian foundation, for in this line our founding fathers publicly recognized the Christian God as their Lord….”

Mr. Fortenberry ends where we began in Part 1 of “Straining at Gnats…”

The extent people will go to in their attempts to make the Constitution Biblically compatible is alarming. This demonstrates the idol the Constitution has become to many Americans. The sad irony in this is that the Constitution’s greatest proponents are predominantly people who claim to be Christians. They strain at gnats and swallow camels and, in so doing, become complicit in the framers’ sedition against Yahweh. Lord willing, I will begin addressing “swallowing camels” in the next article.

 

Related posts:

Straining at Gnats…

Swallowing Camels…

10 “Radical” Recommendations

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 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

Straining at Gnats… Pt. 6

Posted: 19th April 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4

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:

Straining at Gnats…

10 “Radical” Recommendations

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.

Straining at Gnats . . . Pt. 5

Posted: 12th April 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
40

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 #30

“Article 2, Section 1 – ‘The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot…. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President.’ Our Electoral College system is very similar to the election system established in Israel in many aspects. According to II Samuel 5:3, II Chronicles 23:2-3 and many other passages, the kings of Israel were chosen jointly by the elders of Israel and by the congregation as a whole.”

The Constitutional Republic’s Electoral College system is nothing like the election system established in Israel. Israel never elected anyone to anything. Election belongs to Yahweh1 alone:

…unlike Yahweh’s system, which provides for the appointment of the best of the best—the Constitution compels people to (hopefully) elect the best of the worst. It also necessitates political parties that are not only unbiblical but whose platforms are invariably ungodly. Political parties are the mechanism by which Christian constituents are offered up on the altar of WE THE PEOPLE.

After every election, regardless who’s elected, Americans eventually have cause for regret (Proverbs 29:2). And yet, every four years, they march right back to the voting booths with eternal hope (or is it merely short-sightedness?) and do it all over again. Elections provide us with a lose-lose proposition. On the other hand, when we have two or more Biblically qualified candidates [all but made impossible under the Constitution by Article 6], we end up with a servant of God, regardless who’s appointed….

By Yahweh’s means of appointment, man does the selecting and Yahweh does the electing. The term “election” is actually a Biblical expression, referring to Yahweh’s choice of leaders. Man has hijacked the term and replaced Yahweh’s means of election with his own, by which (we hope) the better man, rather than Yahweh’s best man, is chosen.

The Constitutional Republic’s surrogate election process is essentially no different from what occurred in Numbers 14 after the Israelites refused to go in and take possession of the land of Canaan. Verse 4 informs us that they clamored for a leader of their own choosing. Nehemiah 9:17 aptly depicts their substitute plan: “[The Israelites] refused to obey … but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage….” History has demonstrated that the Constitutional Republic’s election process has produced spiritual, political, and economic bondage for Americans.2

Election day is WE THE PEOPLE’s high holy day conducted in veneration to the Constitution, America’s national idol.

Point #33

“Article 2, Section 1 – ‘Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’ The terms of the presidential oath are nearly the same as those outlined for the kings of Israel in Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Those kings, like the President, were required to preserve and protect the law of the land.”

“Nearly the same”?

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…. (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)

The constitutional oath is nothing like what’s found in Deuteronomy 17. Presidents are required to swear an oath to a contract with the people that is antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in nearly every article and amendment.3 Israelite kings were required to write, read, obey, and enforce the law of Yahweh:

“Thou shalt fear Yahweh thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13)

…The lack of any mention of Yahweh in the presidential oath was vehemently contested in the State’s ratifying conventions….. As early as 1796 when oaths still retained an appeal to the Supreme Being, they were already inclusive of gods other than Yahweh, as attested by United States Representative Zephaniah Swift:

“All persons who believe in the existence of a God, let their religion be what it will, may be admitted to be witnesses. An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being that he who takes it will speak the truth, and an imprecation of His vengeance if he swears false.” (Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne, 1796) vol. 2, p. 238.)

…This polytheistic inevitability was the consequence of Amendment 1’s freedom of religion provision…. Because the presidential oath does not appeal to Yahweh, it is essentially atheistic. It contains nothing by which presidents can be held to their word:

“The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mahammedan [sic] as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed, it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions. In these things the minority in our country has hitherto managed to govern the majority. We look on the designed omission of it [reference to the God of the Bible] as an attempt to exclude from civil affairs Him who is the governor among the nations.” (D.X. Junkin, The Oath, quoted in T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Amend the Preamble, “History of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) p. iv.)

…If ever there were an unequal yoking, it is when public officials place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. This no more Christianizes the oath than Aaron’s naming the golden calf “Yahweh” sanctified his idolatry. The Bible offers no precedent for swearing to uphold any other law than Yahweh’s. Swearing in Yahweh’s name, or swearing on the Bible, means nothing to Him if you simultaneously swear to keep the laws of another god [in this instance, WE THE PEOPLE’s]. This is treason and sedition against the God of gods and King of kings.4

Point #36

“Article 3, Section 1 – ‘The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’ The judicial system of America is securely established on the biblical model of the courts of Israel as described in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20.”

“Securely established on”?

Christian Constitutionalists generally believe the provision for a superior and inferior court system was derived from Jethro’s counsel to Moses in Exodus 18 [or Deuteronomy 1:16-17]….

“Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances [statutes] and laws…. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.” (Exodus 18:19-22)

This passage does provide Biblical precedent for a graduated judicial system, but that is where any similarity ends. The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh, as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

“And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.” (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)

…Unlike the Constitutional Republic, Yahweh’s court system has no litigant appellate process. In Exodus 18, difficult cases were turned over to higher judges (over fifties, hundreds, and thousands) and finally to Moses by lower courts, not for appeal, but for adjudication. Appellate systems such as provided by Article 3 only delay judgments. Without Yahweh’s morality as the standard, higher courts have no better chance of arriving at a just decision than do lower courts.5

Stay tuned for Part 6.

 

Related posts:

Straining at Gnats…

10 “Radical” Recommendations

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 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

 

Straining at Gants . . . Pt. 4

Posted: 5th April 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4

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:

Straining at Gnats…

10 “Radical” Recommendations

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.

 

Straining at Gnats . . . Pt. 3

Posted: 29th March 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

In this article, I’ll 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 on the Bible.

Point #4: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘The House of Representatives… shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ The power of impeachment has been recognized in Israel since the removal of their first king from office as recorded in I Samuel 13:13-14, and that power was implemented on several occasions recorded in the Old Testament in accordance with the statement in Proverbs 16:12 that ‘it is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness.’…”

…the House of Representatives’ “sole power of impeachment” has no basis in the Bible. This power of self-discipline, indicative of a good ol’ boys’ club, has been employed only once in over 220 [225] years (in the case of Senator William Blount on July 8, 1797), despite the fact that almost everyone in the House of Representatives deserves impeachment. Even Charlie Rangel, with his numerous ethics violations, did not rate an impeachment in 2010. Except in the rarest instances, the members of the House are not about to turn on one another for fear that they, in turn, will be devoured by one another.1

Point #5: “Article 1, Section 3 – ‘The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.’ The second house of our bicameral legislature is also based on the example of Israel. Numbers 1:1-16 presents a list of the princes of Israel which were chosen to stand with Moses as representatives of the people. In contrast to the elders of Israel, each tribe had equal representation among the princes.”

Numbers 1 calls for the enumeration of men twenty years and older for the defense of their nation. The heads of each tribe who stood with Moses can no more be used as an example of Article 1’s provision for two senators than can America’s own military generals. Numbers 1 is about preparations for warfare. It has nothing to do with legislatures.

In light of Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12, which declare Yahweh2 the exclusive legislator, the Senate is just as unbiblical and seditious as is the House of Representatives:

As the source of morality, Yahweh is the source of all true law. Because legislation enacts morality, morality and legislation are indivisible. Yahweh holds the monopoly on legislation and thus on the determination of what is good and what is evil….

Article 1 begins, “All legislative powers herein granted….” Granted by whom? You will look in vain to find any reference (inside or outside the Constitution) in which the framers affirmed the government’s legislative powers were granted by Yahweh. Neither did they ever affirm the laws of Yahweh:

“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)3

Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statues, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the sin begun by Adam and Eve.4

Point #9: “Article 1, Section 5 – ‘Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.’ Under this section, the members of each house of Congress are declared immune from the criticism of the other house. This same principle is found in the Scriptures in Paul’s question to the Romans. In Romans 14:4 he asks, ‘Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?’ and answers, ‘to his own master he standeth or falleth.’”

The principle from Romans 14:4 that Mr. Fortenberry alludes to is not at all the same as that found in Article 1. Romans 14:4 makes Christians accountable to Yahweh. Article 1, Section 5 makes each house accountable to itself:

The Senate, like the House of Representatives, is a part of the good ol’ boys’ club that protects its own in order to protect itself.5

Mr. Fortenberry’s claim that Article 1’s humanism is Biblically inspired is reprehensible.

Point #10: “Article 1, Section 5 – ‘Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings.’ This requirement that congress record all legal proceedings is established on the biblical example of the recorders of ancient Israel. These recorders are mentioned in five Old Testament passages, I Samuel 8:16, I Samuel 20:24, I Kings 4:3, II Kings 18:18 and II Chronicles 34:8.

Mr. Fortenberry’s audacity in ascribing Biblical practices as the basis for constitutional procedure (which the framers themselves never claimed) is alarming, to say the least.

Point #11: “Article 1, Section 6 – ‘The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services.’ The requirement that government officials be paid for their service to their country is directly founded upon the teachings of Scripture. The command, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn,’ given in Deuteronomy 25:4 is explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18 as a command that those who provide a service should receive due compensation for that service.”

This might be true, but the framers never acknowledged this. If Article 1, Section 6 were based upon Deuteronomy 25:4, etc., why didn’t they say so? If the framers borrowed from Scripture as Mr. Fortenberry repeatedly claims, then they failed to give “honor to whom honor” is due.

Point #12: “Article 1, Section 6 – ‘They shall … be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses.’ The legal immunity provided to the members of congress is based on the teaching of Christ in Matthew 12:5 that the priests of Israel were provided immunity from the Sabbath laws so that they could perform the duties of their office unhindered.”

Article 1, Section 6 declares Congressmen can get away with murder provided they’re about their duties, most of which are criminal anyway:

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.6

Under Yahweh’s law, criminal activity is never immune from immediate intervention regardless where or when it’s occurring or who is committing it. To equate what was lawfully permissible for the priests on the Sabbath with what Article 1 depicts as arrestable activity goes beyond straining at gnats: it’s calling good evil and evil good.

Point #14: “Article 1, Section 8 – ‘Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.’ The power of the government to collect taxes has been recognized in the Bible from Joseph’s reign in Egypt recorded in Genesis 41 to Christ’s instruction to ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars’ in Matthew 22:17-21 and to Paul’s command that we ‘render to all their dues’ in Romans 13:7.”

Unlike constitutional taxes, Biblical taxes (the tithe, etc.) were never forced upon anyone or collected by government. They are required by Yahweh, but they are completely voluntary.

Matthew 22:17-21 and Romans 13:7 have been completely turned on their heads by Mr. Fortenberry. For an alternative analysis of both passages (Mark 12:17 instead of Matthew 22:21), see Amendment 10: Counterfeit Powers.6

Stay tuned for Part 4.

 

Related posts:

Straining at Gnats…

Straining at Gnats… Pt. 2

10 “Radical” Recommendations

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

 

1. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

2. 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.”

3. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4. “Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?”

5. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

6. Gideon J. Tucker, New York Surrogate Reports (New York, NY: New York Surrogate, 1866), p. 249, quoted in Suzy Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (New York: NY: Barnes & Noble, 1992) p. 198.

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.

 

Straining at Gnats . . . Pt. 2

Posted: 22nd March 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
8

When I wrote last week’s article, I had no intentions of its being a multi-part series. That was before I read Bill Fortenberry’s “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era.” His article proposes forty-eight points intended to prove the Constitution was based upon the Bible. In actuality, his article is a case study in straining at gnats, per Matthew 23:24. More than that, it is a classic case of eisegesis (reading into the Constitution what you desire it to be) rather than exegeting (taking from the text only what was intended by the authors), while at the same time completely disregarding the numerous instances where the two are antithetical and sometimes hostile to each other.

In introducing his forty-eight points, Mr. Fortenberry stated, “The following list [provides] several points in which the principles of the Constitution agree with doctrines of the Bible.” I agree there are Constitutional principles that agree with the doctrines of the Bible, as there are in nearly all government constitutions. For example, any government that forbids murder is in agreement with a doctrine of the Bible (the Sixth Commandment). However, this or any other place where the two are in agreement does not prove a government is Biblical or Christian, particularly when the same government is antagonistic to Yahweh1 and His morality in numerous other locations.

In this and following articles, I’ll be examining the bulk of Mr. Fortenberry’s points to determine whether they prove what he says they do. (The only reason I’m not addressing all of his points is because it would be redundant to do so. There is not one legitimate point in the forty-eight.)

Point #1: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years.’ The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 … against a nation that is ruled by children.”

Elsewhere on his website, Mr. Fortenberry claimed “a strong distaste for those who, through either ignorance or intent, twist the writings of antiquity to say things that the original authors never would have condoned.” Mr. Fortenberry must find himself distasteful because nowhere did the framers attribute this or any of their age limitations to Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 or any other verse in the Bible. This is just wishful thinking on the part of someone who desperately wants the Constitution to be a Christian document. The same wishful speculations are found throughout Mr. Fortenberry’s forty-eight points.

More important than the age requirement is the entire concept of representatives of the people as opposed to representatives of Yahweh:

Some Constitutionalists argue that the concept of representative government originated with Moses [in Exodus 18:25]….

Nowhere in the framers’ copious convention notes, the Federalist Papers, or anywhere else in their writings, do we find any indication that the idea for the House of Representatives was inspired by Exodus 18:25. Christian Constitutionalists apply Exodus 18:25 to this section of the Constitution to give it an aura of Biblical authority. But Moses’ charge has nothing to do with representatives of the people. As proven by its context, it is a provision for judges – representatives of Yahweh:

“…thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge…. So Moses … chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons….” (Exodus 18:21-26)

It is, in fact, a violation of Yahweh’s law for rulers to respect (represent) the people, regardless their numbers, rank, or for any other reason:

“And I [Moses] charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s….” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

“And [King Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH….” (2 Chronicles 19:6)2

Point #2: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘No person shall be a representative who shall not have … been seven years a citizen of the United States.’ Under this law all members of the House of Representatives must be American citizens. This concept of limiting government positions solely to the citizens of a country is based on the example of the nation of Israel. In Exodus 18:21 as well as in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, it is stated that the elders of Israel were elected from among the people.”

The framers never credited Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13-15, or anything else in the Bible as their inspiration for their concept of limited government. That they provided America with a limited government is itself false:

Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and even Republicans are often heard discussing the idea that limited government was an objective of the framers. It is true that government was much more limited in the late 1700s than it is today. But do not believe for a minute that the Constitution provided us with limited government, even in the late 1700s. A government consisting of a president, vice president, House of Representatives, Senate, and judiciary can hardly be described as limited. When the framers threw away America’s Christian theocracy in exchange for the United States’ secular theocracy,3 they also cast aside limited government.

With some rare exceptions, Yahweh’s government consists of only one King and Legislator—Yahweh—and a judiciary to litigate His commandments and statutes and enforce His judgments. That is limited government. Yahweh’s government has no need for a president and his cabinet, no need for the House of Representatives or the Senate and their glutted bureaucracy, no need for a prison complex, no need for a parasitical welfare system, no need for the Federal Reserve, no need for the Internal Revenue Service, and no need for a tax-subsidized standing army. Constitutionalists want to abolish nearly everything enumerated here, but they would have us “return” to the very document that permitted these excesses and robbed us of a truly limited government.4

Elections not only cannot be found in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1, they are in fact completely unbiblical:

In addition to the continual brainwashing about how fortunate we are to have free elections, one of the reasons most Christians believe so strongly about protecting their right to vote is few of them have ever challenged elections from a Biblical paradigm. Some people attempt to use Jethro’s counsel to his son-in-law Moses as the Biblical precedent for elections….

“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:21)

What is described here was not a popular election; it was a nomination of qualified men for Moses to appoint. An election is not necessary to select Biblically qualified men. Men either are Biblically qualified or they are not. Popularity determines elections; Biblical qualifications determine appointments. To assume Jethro’s instructions called for elections is just that—an assumption. Jethro’s counsel called for the appointment of rulers (elders) who would be judges, not the election of men or women who would be presidents.5

Point #3: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” The Great Compromise which led to the bicameral legislature of America is foreshadowed by Israel’s own bicameral system. In their system, the elders of Israel stood in the place of the House of Representatives and were likewise apportioned according to the populations of the tribes. Deuteronomy 1:15 reveals that the appointment of the elders of Israel was based upon an enumeration of the members of each tribe.”

The only two-house system in the Bible is that of the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Their split was the consequence of Israel’s disobedience to Yahweh’s law. The framers had enough sense not to claim Israel’s bicameral system as the prototype of the one they instituted.

The phrase “not [to] exceed one for every thirty thousand” is an unequivocal violation of Deuteronomy 1:15’s “captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens.”

Stay tuned for Part 3.

 

Related posts:

Straining at Gnats…

10 “Radical” Recommendations

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 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4.Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Older Entries
Newer Entries