CONSTITUTION MYTHBUSTERS

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 10

Posted: 22nd February 2021 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6–7

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

As we continue to biblically examine the twenty-seven Facts (grievances), take note again how many of these same abuses can be leveled at both the Declaration’s signatories and the Constitution’s framers.

Grievance #8

He [Britain’s King George III] has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

King George had barred the appointment of judges from among the American colonials to litigate their own legal cases. The colonials had to consequently wait for delayed adjudication from across the Atlantic Ocean via George’s English appointees. This was certainly a valid complaint. But it doesn’t begin to compare with King George’s underlying judicial malfeasance.

Truer Words Never Spoken

There are no truer words in the entire Declaration of Independence than “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.” However, they are only true when evaluated from a biblical paradigm.

Where does justice originate? Without answering this question correctly, any discussion regarding justice is an exercise in futility. Not only does justice originate with Yahweh, it’s the foundation of His throne, emanating from God Himself:

Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy [Yahweh’s] throne; lovingkindness and truth go before Thee. (Psalm 89:14, NASB)

Yahweh, the habitation of justice, even Yahweh, the hope of their fathers. (Jeremiah 50:7)

Psalm 89:14 is repeated in Psalm 97:2. Verse 1 provides the reason righteousness and justice are intrinsic to our God:

Yahweh reigneth … righteousness and judgment [justice, NASB] are the habitation of his throne. (Psalm 97:1-2)

As reigning Creator, Yahweh has sole authority for what constitutes law and therefore justice—that is, the determination for what’s good and what’s evil. Has God ceased reigning? He reigns as much now over His creation as He did at creation. Like it or not, because He always has and always will reign over heaven and earth, He gets to determine what’s good and what’s evil and therefore what’s just and what’s unjust.

Anytime man claims differently as to what constitutes good and evil, it’s the same sin responsible for Adam and Eve being thrown out of the Garden. This is true even when man’s replacement is better than what it replaced. Case in point: the Declaration’s signatories’ and Constitution’s framers’ injustice³ that replaced King George’s and Great Britain’s worse injustices.

These were merely two different versions of Adam and Eve’s biblical sedition, resulting in government of, by, and for the people. This biblical perversion juxtaposed with government of, by, and for God, as can only be established upon His perfect law of liberty. This includes its altogether righteous justice as expressed in its civil sanctions per Psalm 19:9. Such justice can only be consistently administered by biblically qualified men of God, adjudicating by the same righteous judgments, enforcing the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes.

Their Authority and Justice Originated with Themselves

Therefore, the law is ignored [slacked, KJV] and justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; therefore, justice comes out perverted…. Their justice and authority originate with themselves. (Habakkuk 1:4, 7, NASB)

Now travel forward in time with me some 2,400 years and listen to this as it reverberates through the eons of time, proving Solomon, once again, correct that there’s nothing new under the sun:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice…. (Preamble, United States Constitution)

What an audacious claim! Only Yahweh, God of the Bible, can establish justice. It’s where He resides, intrinsic in who He is.

On the other hand, anytime autonomous man attempts to establish justice outside God’s moral law—whether King George, the Declaration’s signatories, the Constitution’s framers, or anyone else—the result is always injustice.

Isaiah 5:20 depicts this transposition as calling good evil and evil good. Case in point: the biblically seditious Constitution⁴ sired by the biblically adverse Declaration of Independence.⁵

The word “autonomous,” comes from two Greek words auto meaning self and nomos meaning law. The word literally means self law. It’s just another way of describing humanism, in this instance constitutionalism.

In Deuteronomy 12:8, Moses warned, “Ye shall not do after … whatsoever is right in [every man’s] own eyes.” Constitutionalism is a collective, agreed-upon form of humanism. By their silence, and thus their acquiescence to this new form of government, the American people claim their authority and their justice, not from Yahweh, but from themselves. In turn, they make themselves their own God.⁶

Biblically Unqualified Judges

Compounding the American colonials’ judicial problems was that the judges (Judiciary powers) King George had forced upon them were not biblically qualified and were therefore unlawful judges and thus merely usurpers.⁷ Had this been part of the colonials’ grievance, perhaps they wouldn’t have made the same blunder eleven years later when they likewise failed to compel all judges in their new government to be biblically qualified.

The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. The United States Constitution requires no biblical qualifications whatsoever.

Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of God, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for God, 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 Yahweh, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)

America’s Civil “Leaders”

Have you ever wondered how America ended up with the caliber of civil leaders she has today? Could it have something to do with Article 6’s Christian test ban⁸ by which mandatory biblical qualifications were likewise eliminated? Once adopted, it was inevitable that America would be ruled by nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, incompetents, immoral reprobates, and outright criminals.

Take nincompoops, for example. Exodus 18:21’s qualifications include the fear of Yahweh. Kings David and Solomon point out that the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Thus, without the fear of Yahweh, you end up with, at best, nincompoops as your alleged leaders.

Not only did the constitutional framers fail to require biblical qualifications for all judges, they eliminated them. This is the real issue as it pertains to Article 6’s Christian test ban. The extant 18th-century states’ Christian test oaths were mere shells of what they should have been, easily falsified with disingenuous verbal confessions of faith. Although better than the federal constitution, the states’ constitutions also failed to mandate biblical qualifications, such as the following:

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…. And let them judge the people at all seasons. (Exodus 18:21-22)

The first qualification is that judges are to be “able men.” Able in what? In what Moses was to have taught them as related in the previous verse:

And thou shalt teach them ordinances [statutes, per the Hebrew] and laws…. (Exodus 18:20)

These laws and statutes represented God’s law, not Moses,’ nor any other finite man’s capricious man-made law.

Civil leaders are also to be men who are known for their fear (or reverence) of Yahweh. No one, for example, who swears to uphold the biblically seditious United States Constitution⁹ as the law of the land can, by any stretch of the imagination, claim that they reverence Yahweh. Nor can those who help elect such legislative usurpers.¹⁰

Exodus 18’s qualifications likewise require civil leaders to be men of truth, men with whom the truth of God’s law is paramount and who would therefore be unbiased in judgment regardless who is being tried:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shall thou judge thy neighbor. (Leviticus 19:15)

Unbiased judgment is impossible with finite men—that is, except with judges with whom the truth of Yahweh’s unchanging law is preeminent, which, in turn, determines their every judgment.

Such judges are also to be men who hate covetousness and who therefore cannot be bought, or bribed, at any price.

How well do you think Britain’s judges fared when measured against just these few qualifications required in Exodus 18:21? The Constitutional Republics’ judges and other civil “leaders” have fared no better, thanks to Article 6’s Christian test ban.

Additional Qualifications

There are several other passages that provide biblical qualifications for civil leaders,¹¹ all of which demonstrate the utter failure of Britain’s government and the one here in America that replaced it, known, of course, as the United States Constitutional Republic.

For example:

Thou shalt… set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother…. 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… 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: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom…. (Deuteronomy 17:15-20)

Deuteronomy 17’s qualifications begin by declaring that civil leaders are to be chosen/elected by God Himself. God never intended fickle finite men to elect anyone, not by popular election and/or electoral college,¹² nor by any other means devised by man.

Elections of civil leaders are God’s exclusive domain. Man is responsible for nominating biblically qualified men of God. Yahweh elects from those nominated. His choice is revealed via the casting of lots, per Proverbs 16:33, 18:18, Acts 1:23-26, etc.¹³

Civil leaders are furthermore required to be kindred rather than strangers. This, juxtaposed with the Constitutional Republic, some of whose leaders are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., who have introduced their gods and unbiblical laws into American society.

It is also required of civil leaders that they personally write out, daily read, and perform Yahweh’s laws. How many of Britain’s 18th-century leaders, including King George, do you suppose fulfilled these requirements? The exact same number of Americans who were required to do so eleven years later, and ever since, by the United States Constitution.

The result: America has had nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, incompetents, immoral reprobates, and outright criminals (not to mention Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) for her civil leaders since the inception of the biblically seditious Constitution.

The only qualifications for civil leaders in the entire Constitution is found in Article 3¹⁴—that is, that judges are to be men (and, by default, also women¹⁵) of “good behavior.” But what worth is a condition of undefined good behavior?

Good behavior can only be defined by and understood from the parameters of God’s morality. Any standard leaving good behavior to the determination of humans is humanism.

Biblical Justice

Justice is defined as “the quality of being just, righteous, equitableness, or moral rightness.”¹⁶ This is a perfect description of Yahweh and His moral law. All true law, righteousness, equity, morality, truth, and justice originates with and emanates from Him. None of this exists outside God and His moral law. It furthermore existed long before 1776 and 1787.

Because the Constitution does not uphold Yahweh’s righteousness, justice, and lawfulness, it instead established unrighteousness, injustice, and lawlessness as the law of the land.¹⁷ Christians¹⁸ recognize this regarding all other false gods and their edicts. Any unwillingness to apply the same criterion to the document that begins “We the People” is evidence that We the People is a God to them: Vox populi vox Dei: the voice of the people, the voice of God.¹⁹

Justified Outrage

The American colonials’ grievance against King George and his obstruction of the administration of justice was entirely justified, but only from a biblical paradigm. However, this was not the standard from which the Declaration’s signatories’ grievances originated being that a mere eleven years later some of those very same men and the other framers of the Constitution replicated the same biblical violation of obstructing The Administration of Justice as can only be found in Yahweh and His triune and integral moral law.

Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so Yahweh, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment [justice, NASB] in the gate [where court was convened]: it may be that Yahweh God of hosts will be gracious unto [you]…. (Amos 5:14-15)

The 17th-century American colonials had legitimate grievances against King Georg’s judicial abuses. However, those pale in comparison to God’s grievances against the constitutional framers’ legislative and judicial abuses, evidenced in Article 1’s²⁰ and Article 3’s²¹ usurpation of Yahweh’s legislative and judicial authority. Add to those Article 6’s²² Christian test ban, that outlawed mandatory biblical qualifications for America’s civil leaders, and America was doomed to unbiblical despots who would invariably hasten America’s suicidal march to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction.

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 2:13)

See Part 11.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pts. 1-9” (Articles)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

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. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to memorialize His name, per Exodus 3:15, in this article.

For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain, the third in a series of ten free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.

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

4. See Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

5. Listen to audio series “Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence.”

6. See Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

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

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

9. See Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

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

11. For a comprehensive list of biblical qualifications, see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

12. See blog article “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table.’”

13. For more on how the Bible’s One-God/One-Vote election system operates, see blog article “Salvation by Election.”

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

15. See Chapter 28 “Amendment 19: The Curse of Women’s Suffrage” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

16. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “justice,” p. 720

17. See Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

18. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

For a more thorough explanation concerning water immersion and its relationship to salvation, the bookBaptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be requested from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

Additionally, listen to audio series “I Had a Dream: Judgment’s Coming. Are You Under the Blood?” Part 1 can be found here. Or a MP3 CD, containing all ten messages, can be requested from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

19. See Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

See also Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”

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

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

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

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 9

Posted: 1st February 2021 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6–7

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Grievance #7

He [Britain’s King George III] has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The real issue is not that King George was thwarting the immigration to and the naturalization of foreigners in the American colonies, but instead his underlying unbiblical immigration policies.

Had this been the colonial’s chief concern, perhaps they wouldn’t have adopted their own biblically egregious immigration laws a mere twelve and fifteen years later in Article 6³ of the United States Constitution and Amendment 1⁴ of the Bill of Rights.

The Bible’s Principle Border and Immigration Law

Besides the two great commandments (loving Yahweh with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself), what Commandment is foundational to all of the other commandments, statutes, and judgments? The First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other Gods before Yahweh⁵), of course. It’s the First Commandment (along with its statutes and judgment) that’s also the principle border and immigration law for any nation acknowledging Yahweh as its Sovereign and thus His law as supreme. That the First Commandment is nowhere cited in either the Declaration or the Constitution should alone be a red flag to those who have been hoodwinked into believing the two are biblically inspired.

Contrast this with Alexis de Tocqueville’s testimony regarding the 1650 New Haven, Connecticut’s Constitution:

They [the Puritans] 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 [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8, demonstrating the continuing veracity of Yahweh’s law and its accompanying blessings, per Deuteronomy 28:1-14].

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….⁶

Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples

Most of today’s Christians⁷ and patriots are justifiably concerned about the Muslim invasion of America; an invasion that speaks volumes regarding the biblically adverse nature of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If the First Commandment were America’s foundational border and immigration law, all immigrants and visitors would be vetted thereby. In turn, they would be required to leave their gods not Yahweh and cultures and laws not His at the border. This would be under penalty of death if said immigrants or visitors were discovered openly worshiping or proselytizing on behalf of other gods.

No Muslim, for example, would ever agree to such a law and would look elsewhere to do his dirty work, the worst of which is the proselytizing of our posterity to their false god.

Article 6’s Christian Test Ban

Question: Are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and other devotees to gods not Yahweh serving as civil rulers today in America because of the Bible’s mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders, or because those qualifications were eliminated by Article 6’s Christian test ban⁸?

Clue: It’s certainly not because the constitutional framers incorporated those qualifications into American law.

This was a glaring departure from the biblical qualifications required by the early 1600 Puritans—qualifications for civil leaders that, for example, include the following:

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God [Yahweh], men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers over you…. (Exodus 18:21)

States Ratifying Conventions

Not only did the constitutional framers nowhere mandate biblical qualifications for America’s civil leaders, they instead eliminated them with Article 6’s religious test ban.⁸

Article 6’s test ban was the most hotly debated component of the new Constitution in the states’ ratifying conventions. The delegates understood that this ban would open the door to Muslims, Jews,⁹ Hindus, Catholics, and other anti-Christs and non-Christians to full citizenship, including civil leadership:

Amos Singletary, … delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” …Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that “the exclusion of religious tests” was “dangerous and impolitic” and that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us [and the Senators and representatives might all be pagans].” If there is no religious test, he asked, “to whom will they [officeholders] swear support—the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?”¹⁰

In the North Carolina convention a delegate protested that “in a political view, these gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.” James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, conceded that the people might “perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans [might] be admitted into offices.”¹¹

Tragically, the states adopted Article 6¹² as proposed. Consequently, America’s state and federal governments are today inundated with adherents to false gods serving as civil rulers, thereby introducing their cultures and laws into America’s ethos. For example, America’s current legislation concerning capital punishment¹³ and in utero infanticide¹⁴ reflect talmudic law¹⁵ rather than biblical law.

Cursed

America and her posterity are being cursed as a consequence of the 18th-century “founding fathers” umbilical immigration policies:

The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee. (Deuteronomy 28:43-45)

Thanks to the 1787 cadre of polytheistic-promoting Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka constitutional framers) America is today ruled by anti-Christs rather than led by Christians:

For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, Senate, or] house [of Representatives] neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. ( 2 John 1:7-11)

Amendment 1’s Provision For National Polytheism

Question: Is America’s landscape dotted with Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples devoted to gods not Yahweh because of the First Commandment¹⁶ or because of the First Amendment¹⁷?

Clue: It’s certainly not because of the First Commandment.

Had the constitutional framers composed a biblically compatible Constitution, including the First Commandment as its principle border and immigration law, there would be no Mosques, no Synagogues, and no Temples devoted to false gods in America. There would likewise be no adherents of those religions serving as civil leaders, introducing their decadence into American society. Nor would our posterity find themselves being proselytized to their false gods.

In other words, had the First Commandment¹⁶ not been replaced with the First Commandment violating, polytheistic-enabling First Amendment,¹⁷ America would still be a predominantly Christian nation.

Had the Declaration’s signatories been biblically inclined,¹⁸ they would have been much more incensed over Great Britain’s immigration violations against Yahweh than they were King George’s immigration violations against the colonies. Eleven years later, the constitutional framers would have furthermore established the First Commandment as America’s foundational law.

Had this been the case, what an entirely different nation America would be today. The number of abuses today from their failure in doing so are incalculable and only compounding with each passing year:

[B]ecause they have … trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. (Hosea 8:1, 7)

Today’s America is tragically reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers. Its wind is being fanned by today’s hoodwinked Christians and patriots who have been bamboozled into believing today’s whirlwind can be dissipated by appealing to the Declaration and the Constitution responsible for spawning the whirlwind.

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 2:13)

See Part 10.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pts. 1-8” (Articles)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

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

4. See Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. See Thou shalt have no other gods before me, the first in a series of ten free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.

6. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37

7. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

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

9. Some people will invariably claim that today’s Jews’ god is one and the same as the Christian God. The following passages puts this false assertion to rest:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your

[personal, State, White, Senate, or]

house [of Representatives] neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11)

10. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966) p. 32

11. Leo Pfeffer, “Shaping Our Legal History: Jews, Jewry and the American Constitution,” Jewish Digest, condensed from American Jewish Archives Pamphlet Series (Cincinnati, OH: American Jewish Archives, June 1983) p. 5

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

13. See Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst?.

14. Abortion is not always an act of violence. Sometimes it delivers a live baby.

The battle against this atrocity begins with identifying it correctly. By calling it “abortion,” we’re acquiescing to the opposition’s terminology. Look up “miscarriage” in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. So is a term baby. Why? Because term babies are aborted by natural means.

What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is in utero infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the court room. In fact, by employing the word “abortion,” Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court.

The Greek word brephos employed in the New Testament for infants already born is the same word used for infants in the womb (Luke 2:12 and Luke 1:41), without specifying the precise moment they became a brephos. Therefore, our only option is to then accept that they became such at conception. Thus, intentionally killing a brephos at any point is brephocide or, more properly, infanticide.

The same is true for one of the Hebrew words translated “child” in the Old Testament.

Christians need to stop using the non-Christians’ watered-down, politically correct terms such as “abortion” and “gay.” It’s infanticide and sodomy. There is no power in the former terms against evil and our first mistake is in acquiescing to the ungodly’s terminology.

15. “If young, by which is meant a new-born infant, it must be proved that it was not of premature birth; if prematurely born, it must be at least thirty days old to be considered a human being (Sifra, l.c.; Niddah 44b; “Yad,” Rozeah, ii. 2). But the unborn child is considered as part of its mother (Sanh. 80b); killing it in its mother’s womb is therefore a finable offense only (Mek., Nez. 8; B. K. 42b).” (“Homicide,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume VI, p. 453)

“The talmudic scholars … maintained that the word ‘harm’ [“hurt” in KJV in Exodus 21:20-25] refers to the woman and not to the foetus…. In talmudic times, as in ancient halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the foetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh., Mishpatim, 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.)…. In the view of R. [Rabbi] Ishmael, only a Gentile [non-Jew], to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the foetus (Sanh. 57b)…. Abortion is permitted if the foetus endangers the mother’s life. Thus, ‘if a woman travails to give birth (and it is feared she may die), one may sever the foetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his’ (Oho. 7:6). …when the mother’s life is endangered, she herself may destroy the foetus—even if its greater part has emerged—‘for even if in the eyes of others the law of a foetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the foetus as pursing her’ (Meiri, ibid.). …the majority of the later [Jewish] authorities (aharonim) maintain that abortion should be permitted if it is necessary for the recuperation of the mother, even if there is no mortal danger attaching to the pregnancy and even if the mother’s illness has not been directly caused by the foetus (Maharit, Resp. no. 99)…. A similar view was adopted by Benzion Meir Hai Uziel, namely that abortion is … permitted ‘if intended to serve the mother’s needs … even if not vital;’ and who accordingly decided that abortion was permissible to save the mother from the deafness which would result, according to medical opinion, from her continued pregnancy (Mishpetei Uziel, loc. cit.).” (“Abortion,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Volume 2, pp. 98-100)

16. See Thou shalt have no other gods before me, the first in a series of ten free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.

17. See Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

18. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant. See also A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 8

Posted: 31st December 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

When you contrast what’s depicted above derived from Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty and what ultimately comes from substituting it with man’s own works, why would anyone choose the latter as depicted in Psalm 106?

Thus were they defiled with their own works [e.g. the Declaration of Independence³], and went a whoring with their own inventions [e.g., the United States Constitution⁴]. Therefore was the wrath of Yahweh kindled against his people…. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. (Psalm 106:39-42)

One only needs to open his eyes to where America finds herself today to know that what’s depicted in Psalm 106 is just applicable today as it was the day it was penned.

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6–7

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

As we continue to biblically examine the twenty-seven Facts (grievances), take note again how many of these same abuses can be leveled at both the Declaration’s signatories and the Constitution’s framers.

Grievance #4

He [Britain’s King George III] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Legislative Bodies

Grievances #4 and #5 are, for the most part, continuations of Grievance #3. As such, they are as biblically seditious as is Grievance #3 for the same reason.⁵

The problem with King George’s legislative bodies was not their location but rather their existence. They were seditious against God as the exclusive Lawgiver per Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12. In like manner, so was the constitutional framers’ creation of the Constitutional Republic’s legislative branch,⁶ following America’s secession from Great Britain.

Grievance #5

He [Britain’s King George III] has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

Representative Houses

The real concern was not that the colonials had lost their representation in Britain’s government but that Britain’s government did not represent Yahweh and His law. Just as grievous was the colonials’ replication of Britain’s biblical sedition when they created a legislative branch⁶ representing the people rather than God. This is often aptly depicted as government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made law, juxtaposed with government of, by, and for God established upon His immutable moral law.⁷

The former is continually hyped as the alleged epitome of good government by the bulk of today’s Christians⁸ and patriots. Why would Christians want anything to do with government representing the people and their wishes—the majority of whom are in the broad way leading to destruction, per Christ in Matthew 7:13?

That’s the kind of government that invariably ends up financing in utero infanticide,⁹ legalizing sodomite and lesbian “marriages,” and any other number of abominations imagined by mankind.

Rights of the People

Rather than being troubled over King George’s abuse of their alleged rights,¹⁰ the colonials should have been outraged at King George’s usurpation of Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty and legislative authority.

Imaginary human rights¹⁰ only produce whimsical castles in the sky whereas God’s exclusive legislative authority produces government that’s a continual blessing to the righteous and perpetual terror to the wicked,¹¹ and, in turn, a righteous, peaceful, and prosperous society beyond our wildest dreams:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

See also Deuteronomy 28:1-14 and Romans 13:1-7.¹¹

Grievance #6

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Human vs. Divine Elections

King George refused to acknowledge colonial elections. But that’s not the issue. Instead, both Britain’s election system and what was to become the Constitutional Republic’s election system were and are entirely unbiblical.¹²

Although there are differences between Britain’s and the United States’ election systems, both are equally unbiblical, as are all government election systems that entitle humans with the authority to elect others to positions of civil leadership.

And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they [judges] … which Yahweh shall choose shall shew thee…. Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose…. (Deuteronomy 17:10, 15)

As with the individual election of God’s chosen remnant, elections of civil leaders are also Yahweh’s exclusive domain—the only one who not only knows which biblically qualified candidate is best suited for the job and the times, but also the only one who knows the heart of man, per 1 Samuel 16:7 and Acts 1:24.

God never intended man to elect anyone. The dangers of fickle finite men electing other fickle finite men, especially when biblically unqualified,¹³ should be self evident.

Dumb and Dumber

One of the dumbest things the constitutional framers did was to usurp Yahweh’s One-Vote election system thereby turning election “discretion” over to the people, the majority of whom, according to Christ in Matthew 7:13, are in the broad way leading to destruction.

Where do you suppose the broad-way, destruction bunch are going to take America? Perhaps to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction, precisely where America finds herself following 230-plus years of popular elections (which, in fact, amount to nothing more than popularity contests). With each and every election, regardless who’s been elected, America has only found herself further along on the suicidal trek that commenced in 1787.

Add to this Article 6’s Christian test ban¹³ by which mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated, leaving America with nothing but biblically unqualified men and women, the best of whom are like a briar and the most upright like a thorn hedge, per Micah 7:4. Talk about a perfect recipe for disaster.

You only need to look at what America has today for civil rulers to discern what an insane idea it was for the framers to usurp God’s exclusive election authority, compounded by eliminating the Bible’s mandatory qualifications for civil leaders.¹³ And yet every two and four years, alleged Christians and patriots clamor for their constitutional right to elect another nincompoop, scoundrel, and/or criminal to rule over them.

Helen Keller succinctly depicted this as a choice between Twiddledee and Twiddledumb:

We vote, what does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.¹⁴

Otherwise known as the lesser of two evils, at best. Often, under such an election system, it’s the worst of two evils, and always the evil of two lessers.

Under the Bible’s One-God election system, it’s the best of the best of two or more biblically qualified candidates every single time.

One–Vote Election System

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose…. (Deuteronomy 17:15)

The Bible’s One-God, One-Vote election system is quite simple, provided we have the faith to follow through with it:

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh. (Proverbs 16:33)

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. (Proverbs 18:18)

We can see these Proverbs in action when the remaining eleven Apostles desired to determine Yahweh’s replacement for Judas:

…Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said,… Men and brethren, …. it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate … and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed [NASB put forward, i.e., nominated] two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)

The Apostles were responsible for nominating biblically qualified candidates. Yahweh was responsible for electing His choice between the two, determined by throwing lots.¹⁵

The American colonials should not have been distraught that they were being excluded from Britain’s elections, but rather outraged that the British had usurped Yahweh’s exclusive election authority and had thereby turned their elections over to the “discretion” of fickle finite men.

Regrettably that was not the case, and the colonials instead simply replicated what was essentially the same usurpation.

This would have never occurred had the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers been less interested in a declaration of independence from Great Britain and more interested in a declaration of liberty under Yahweh, as can only be accomplished individually via the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, and societally via the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.

See Part 9.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pts. 1-7” (Articles)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. “Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)

4. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

5. See Part 7.

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

7. For more regarding these two polar opposite forms of government, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

8. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

9. Abortion is not always an act of violence. Sometimes it delivers a live baby.

The same is true for one of the Hebrew words translated “child” in the Old Testament.

10. See “Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 4” (Blog article)

Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

“Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity” (Blog article)

“Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” (Blog article)

“America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights” (Blog article)

11. See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

12. See “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table.’”

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

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

14. Helen Keller, Ellen Bilofsky, ed., “Letter to Mrs. Grindon, January 12, 1911 published in the Manchester Advertiser, March 3, 1911,” To Love This Life: Quotations by Helen Keller (New York, NY: AFB Press, 2000) p. 79

15. For more on how the Bible’s One-God, One-Vote civil election system operates, see blog article “Salvation by Election.”

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 7

Posted: 9th December 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

The tragic two-fold consequence of replacing biblical liberty with Declaration and Constitution independence is summed up in the following warning:

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 2:13)

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6-7

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

As we proceed to biblically examine each of the twenty-seven Facts (grievances), take note of how many of these same abuses can be leveled at the both the Declaration’s signatories and the Constitution’s framers.

Grievance #1

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Talk about an indictment against those in rebellion to King George.

Eleven years later, did the Constitution’s framers (some of whom also signed the Declaration of Independence) respond to this charge against Britain’s oppressive dictatorship by enacting wholesome laws for the public good, or did they merely enact a different set of unwholesome laws that also contributed to the public’s ruin?

Patrick Henry’s strident warning to his fellow Virginians at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 answers this question (again) arguably better than any other, if for no other reason than because of his notoriety. Although the following speech is nowhere near as renowned as his “Give me liberty” speech, I would argue it’s many times more important. Tragically, it wasn’t heeded, and America’s been fulfilling Patrick Henry’s warning ever since:

…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.³

Patrick Henry not only recognized the immediate dangers of the newly proposed Constitution but also its future disastrous repercussions, which America is suffering today (even after the Bill of Rights was added), as is evident to anyone who’s honest about America’s present state of affairs.

Justified Hypocrites

The Declaration’s signatories were entirely justified in this first grievance against King George. Tragically, the Constitution’s framers turned around eleven years later to become hypocrites, guilty of the very same injustice.

Just as there’s only one law of liberty (Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty), there’s likewise only one wholesome and good law—identified as good (i.e., righteous) seven times by the Apostle Paul alone.⁴

There’s only one good and wholesome law if for no other reason than because there’s only One who’s good—the one and only Lawgiver per Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12:

[T]here is none good but one, that is, God…. (Matthew 19:17)

Any edict contrary to the Lawgiver’s law is merely man making legal what Yahweh has dictated unlawful and making illegal what He has deemed lawful.

Case in point: the Unites States Constitution in which there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical if not seditious to the Lawgiver’s law.⁵ Thus, the framers’ Constitution is just as much, if not more, an unwholesome set of laws as were King George’s against which they and their fellow “founding fathers” revolted.

Many Times Worse

I maintain that the American framer’s unwholesome Constitution is multiplied times worse than Britain’s unwholesome laws. The abuses endured by America’s colonials under King George III don’t hold a candle to the abuses Americans have suffered and continue to suffer under the biblically seditious Constitution. Taxation alone demonstrates this to be true.

When you take into account the Constitutional Republic’s graduated income tax, property tax, sales taxes, and all the other sundry taxes Americans are shackled with—all of which are unbiblical—the average American is taxed from 35-40% of their annual income. This compared to a mere 6% taxation by Britain in 1775.

Grievance #2

He [Britain’s King George III] has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Which of the following is worse?

1) The suppression of the colonials’ immediate and pressing demands?

2) The usurpation and abolition of Yahweh’s moral law as supreme?

The latter was first accomplished with Article 6’s claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and then firmly fixed in place by Marbury v. Madison and Reynolds v. United States, arguably the two most biblically consequential Supreme Court decisions of all time.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) declares “[A] law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Per Article 6,⁶ this includes any biblical law incongruent or opposed to either the Constitution or it’s supplementary laws, including treaties with other nations.

This was made especially clear with Reynolds v. United States (1879). Reynolds addressed the Mormon Church’s claim that polygamy was a right afforded them under Amendment 1. Because most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the consequential magnitude of Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them. In fact, very few people are even aware of this decision and its impact upon Christendom.⁷

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?… So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.⁸

Contrary to Matthew 7:21-27 and James 1:22-25, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States ruled that a man’s actions can be severed and isolated from his faith and judged illegal according to the Constitution and its supplementary edicts. This legal precedent paved the way for any Christian⁹ action¹⁰ based upon a biblical conviction—such as preaching against sodomy—to be arbitrarily outlawed in the same fashion. Had the framers instead established Yahweh’s immutable law and its predetermined morality as the supreme law of the land, polygamy and human sacrifice (and all other issues) would have fallen under its jurisdiction and thereby determined to be either lawful or unlawful.¹¹

The suppression of the colonials’ immediate and pressing demands by King George doesn’t begin to compare with the grievous consequences incurred from the usurpation and abolition of Yahweh’s moral law as supreme by the constitutional framers.

Grievance #3

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Because the grievances cited here are themselves biblically seditious, they contributed nothing toward eliminating the American colonies’ overall government problems. Instead, they assisted in recreating what’s at the heart of the colonials’ grievances against Great Britain.

For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22)

There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy…. (James 4:12)

There are no vacuums when it comes to legislated morality (or immorality as the case may be). Law is inherently a moral issue—the means for determining what constitutes good (what’s lawful) and what constitutes evil (what’s unlawful).

Consequently, because there’s only One with the authority to determine what constitutes good and evil, there is likewise only One lawgiver. Thus, only the Lawgiver’s law is true law. Anything to the contrary is calling good evil and evil good, per Isaiah 5:20. Anything to the contrary is lawlessness, especially establishing legislators given the alleged authority to create law in addition to the Lawgiver’s law. It’s biblical sedition at its worst.

Administrators vs. Legislators

Biblical government requires administrators of Yahweh’s triune moral law (the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments), contrasted with legislators who create (add to or take away) from Yahweh’s completed law:

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live…. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Juxtaposed with “legislators” who add to or take away from Yahweh’s law, administrators assist in implementing Yahweh’s law (government) here on earth. This is accomplished on three levels: individual, domestic, and societal. Every Christian man should be an administrator of God’s law on at least the first two levels.

Administrators represent Yahweh not the people or any one person.

And [King Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but Yahweh…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of Yahweh faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:6-9)

The same for husbands and fathers. Your administration over your family should represent Yahweh who entrusted them to your care.

Yahweh our God is one Yahweh: And thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. (Deuteronomy 6:4-8)

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

As representatives of God and administrators of His law, it’s therefore our duty to search His law as it applies to any particular situation and then to teach and implement the law(s) applicable to that situation or need.

For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments. (Ezra 7:10)

And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people…. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:4-8)

These men were administrators, not legislators. However, this does not mean that supplementary stipulations cannot be implemented, provided they’re consonant with Yahweh’s prescribed law. For example, a father who governs his family under God’s authority and by His law has the liberty to implement house rules, such as hygienic and household chores.

The same is true for administrators on all other levels of society. Biblical precedent can be found in Nehemiah’s lots per Nehemiah 10:34, Jeremiah’s land deeds per Jeremiah 32:9-14, Rachab’s patriarchal requisites per Jeremiah 35:5-19, and Mordechai’s Purim celebration per Esther 9. None of these are directly provided for in the Ten Commandments or their statutes, but all of them are in harmony with Yahweh’s commandments and statutes.

Back to Grievance #3

He [Britain’s King George III] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Formidable to tyrants or subversive to the One and Only Lawgiver?

The colonials’ problem with King George was not that he needed to pass additional laws on America’s behalf but rather that he and his parliament had usurped Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority and created “laws” incompatible with God’s moral law. These unbiblical edicts were consequently injurious to both the American colonials and Britains alike.

Compounding the Problem

The American colonials’ demand to an alleged right of representation in Britain’s legislature only compounded the problem and made them complicit in King George’s legislative usurpation. Compounding the problem even further, once secession from Britain was realized, the colonials simply replicated Britain’s biblical sedition.

This was first accomplished with the original 18^th-century state Constitutions and then with the federal Constitution created in 1787, none of which acknowledged God as the exclusive Lawgiver and thus His law as the only true law. Instead, they replaced Yahweh with We the People as America’s Sovereign and His law with their man-made constitutions as the supreme law of the land.¹²

In so doing, the 18th-century founding fathers replicated King George’s real sin against both God and the people of the American colonies. Against the people being that what all nations are looking for from their governments can only be found in Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty, resulting in government that’s a continual blessing to the righteous and perpetual terror to the wicked, per Romans 13:1-7.¹³

In other words, it wasn’t so much a Declaration of Independence that America needed in 1776 as it was a Declaration of Liberty, as can only be attained individually via Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave and socially via the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.

Different Versions of the Same Sin

King George’s sin was not so much his oppression of the American colonials but his sedition against Yahweh. In replacing the Lawmaker’s law with his own edicts, King George replaced the Lawgiver with himself.

The 18th-century founding fathers’ sin, as particularly reflected in the Constitution’s Article 1¹⁴ and its legislative branch, was merely a different version of the same thing. Instead of replacing the Lawgiver’s law with another King’s “law,” they replaced the Lawgiver’s law with We the People’s surrogate—the “law” of those who are allegedly supposed to represent We the People.

Vox Populi Vox Dei

In so doing, the founding fathers also replaced the Lawgiver, not with another King, but with a plurality of alleged Sovereigns. In Latin, this is expressed as Vox Populi Vox Dei, that is, the Voice of the People, the Voice of God. Vox Populi Vox Dei is especially demonstrated in both the Constitution’s unbiblical election process¹⁵ and unbiblical jury system.¹⁶

Republicanism is just another form of humanism expressed through its unbiblical majority vote in its elections and the jury system in the Constitutional Republic’s courtrooms.

Vox Populi Vox Dei is the rallying cry of Constitutionalism, Republicanism, Democracy, and all other forms of humanistic government. This is juxtaposed against the rallying cry of the early American Scottish Covenanters “No King but Jesus!”

Divine Right of the People

Constitutionalists often contrast the Right of Kings with the Right of the People. The only difference between the two is the number of people futilely clamoring to be Divine or Sovereign. Regardless whether ruled by one or many, it remains humanism—that is, man doing what is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.

The “divine right” of the people, as expressed, among other things, in the Constitutional Republic’s elections¹⁵ and its courtrooms¹⁶ not only replaces the “divine right” of the English Kings and their Parliaments, but the Divine Right of Yahweh as God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver!

See Part 8.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pts. 1-7” (Articles)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003, 2nd ed.) pp. 200-08

4. See Romans 7:12-16 & 1 Timothy 1:8.

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

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

7. Reynolds v. United States helped turn what was Christendom (Christians dominionizing society on behalf of their King) in early 1600s America into today’s mere four-walled, stain-glassed Christianity, aka Churchianity. For more regarding the stark difference between biblical Christendom and today’s Christianity, see Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future.

8. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

9. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

10. This is not to say the cult known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints (aka the Mormon Church) is Christian. It is not.

11. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

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

13. See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

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

15. See “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table.’”

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

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 6

Posted: 9th November 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

Why would anyone sacrifice what’s perfect, sure, right, pure, true, and altogether righteous for any substandard man-made replacement, such as provided via the Declaration of Independence and its brain-child the United States Constitution³?

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 2:13)

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—That has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Paragraph #2, Sentences 1-3

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note again Thomas Jefferson’s claim that governments are instituted for the alleged purpose of securing mankind’s rights. Not only is such a concept entirely foreign to the Bible, it’s impossible to secure what doesn’t exist.⁴

If ever there was a government that might have accomplished this, it would have been the United States Constitutional Republic. Its utter failure to do so only goes to prove it is utterly impossible to secure what was nothing but wells without water, guaranteed by swelling words of vanity, by men promising liberty who were themselves enslaved by their own corruption, per 2 Peter 2:17-19.

Consent of the Governed or Ordained by God?

[T]here is no authority but of God: the authorities that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)

The biblical civil government depicted in Romans 13:1-7 is not instituted by man but ordained by Yahweh, not for securing alleged rights, but in order to accomplish His perfect will as provided in His commandments, statutes, and judgments,⁵ thereby providing government that continually blesses the righteous and perpetually punishes the wicked.⁶

Biblical Secular Governments

Secular civil governments are also biblical. However, their purpose is for an entirely different reason than what’s depicted in Romans 13 by the Apostle Paul.

There are two different types of civil governments with polar opposite purposes:

1) Governments that are a blessing to nations that look to Yahweh as their Sovereign and His moral law as supreme.

2) Governments that are a curse (or judgment) upon nations who reject Yahweh as their Sovereign and His law as society’s standard.

The results of these two polar opposite forms of government are enumerated in Deuteronomy 28. The first fourteen verses enumerate the blessings upon godly nations. The last fifty-four verses enumerate the curses upon ungodly nations.

Good and Bad Laws

Depending upon the character of the people, God provides both good and bad laws:

Then said I [Yahweh] unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am Yahweh your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me … then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them to accomplish my anger against them…. Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them…. Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness. (Ezekiel 20:7-17)

Yet even in his anger Yahweh was longsuffering and initially gave the Israelites His law to be administered by godly men and good government. But His loving-kindness does not always reap obedience and, therefore, has its limits:

Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me [again]: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them…. Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. (Ezekiel 20:21-25)

Bad laws to be administered by wicked men and evil government:

[T]o the intent that living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He wills, and setteth up over it the basest of men. (Daniel 4:17)

The best of them is like a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge…. (Micah 7:4)

Righteous leaders are God-ordained authorities, per Romans 13:1-6. Unrighteous rulers are God-established powers, per Daniel 4:17.⁷

Case in point: the biblically egregious Constitutional Republic, born of the biblically adverse Declaration of Independence, ruled by wicked men and women, precisely as depicted by the Prophets Daniel and Micah. Whereas 1600s America was governed by godly leaders governing by God’s good laws (His perfect law of liberty),⁸ the United States of America is ruled by wicked rulers ruling by bad laws that have only proved to be a curse to her.

Righteous Government

Romans 13 has nothing to do with secular civil government. It is instead a mandate for Christians⁹ to take dominion over society by establishing local biblical governments,¹⁰ aka as ecclesias.¹¹

The Apostle Paul provides therein the two-fold reason for biblical government:

1) For blessing the righteous.

2) For judging the wicked.

This can only be accomplished by means of the Bible’s perfect law of liberty. What’s righteous and what’s wicked can only be determined by Yahweh’s morality as reflected, codified, and defined by His commandments, statutes, and judgments.¹²

If only this had been the intent of the Declaration’s signatories and the design of the Constitution’s framers and America had remained faithful to the same. Were this true, today’s America would not be teetering on the precipice, cursed by God rather than blessed.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 4

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Very true and very evident in today’s America. Talk about suffering abuses! However, regardless how much suffering the unregenerate, blinded masses are willing to endure, as Christians, we’re commissioned to overcome all evil with good, per Romans 12:21—including evil government with good government.

Overcoming Evil With Good Now!

As Christians we’re not to wait until things have become insufferable. We’ve been commissioned to immediately work toward establishing fully functioning biblical communities,¹³ established upon the Bible’s triune moral law,¹⁴ and governed by godly elders, some of whom function as judges on behalf of Yahweh:

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

He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. (2 Samuel 23:3)

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

It’s this very same civil government New Covenant Christians are commissioned with in Matthew 6:10 & 33, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, and 1 Peter 2:13-15.¹⁵

In other words, as subjects of the King of kings, we’re not to procrastinate until things have gotten so bad they are no longer tolerable. We are to ever be about our heavenly Father’s business and, therefore, always looking to overcome evil with good regardless the extent of evil. In fact, the sooner the better!

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them…. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time [making the most of your time, NASB], because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. (Ephesians 5:11-17)

Hell’s Gates

If only the previous generations had been diligent to do so. America’s suffering could have been halted long ago. As it is presently, the job before us is much more daunting than it would have been before the gates of hell were swung wide open. Hell’s gates are wide open because past generations of Christians have failed to be the salt of the earth and are now instead being trampled under the feet of the heathen, per Matthew 5:13.

Presently we find ourselves once again at the very beginning of restoring the righteous foundations, putting us right back at our 2 Corinthians 10 mandate, an expanded form of Romans 12:21:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6, NASB)

The objective of this charge from the Apostle Paul is the biblical government Paul commissions Christians with in Romans 13.¹⁵

Taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ includes identifying and addressing America’s two greatest icons—the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution¹⁶—for the national idols they are. These two strongholds must eventually come down in order for Christians to establish local biblical ecclesias¹⁷ in their place. Only in doing so will America again experience the blessings of God rather than His curses.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 5

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

As Kingdom ambassadors, it’s our responsibility to do so, for our posterity’s security, by the only means possible, per Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty.

Paragraph #2, Sentences 6-7

That has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Lord willing, in Part 7 and those to follow, we’ll begin biblically examining each of twenty-seven grievances (Facts) cataloged in what follows these opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

See Part 7.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pts. 1-5” (Blog article)

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

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

4. See Part 4 for more regarding the Declaration’s and Constitution’s alleged rights.

5. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

6. See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

7. See Chapter 2 “The Apostle Paul is Not Addressing God-Established Powers but God-Ordained Authorities” of The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

8. See Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

10. See A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government.

11. See Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future.

12. See Part 1 for evidence that the perfect law of liberty equates to the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.

13. See Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future.

14. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

15. See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

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

17. See Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 5

Posted: 30th October 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

What more could we ask for? And yet all of this was rejected by the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers and replaced with their own man-made surrogates:

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 2:13)

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—That has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 1

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Is Liberty a Right?

Even life is not a right, except to the Creator. If otherwise, then God was obligated to create us, making Him subservient to us.³ What about liberty?

Americans are noted for their gullibility. Their unfounded confidence in the United States Constitution is no exception. Because the Preamble tells them the Constitution was ordained to secure their liberty, most Americans take it at its word, despite the fact that the first three articles of the Constitution enslave us to an ungodly congress,⁴ president,⁵ and judicial⁶ system—something the 17th- and early 18th-century Christians⁷ flourished without.

The constitutional framers could not provide their fellow Americans with liberty for the simple reason that slaves are never able to grant freedom to fellow slaves:

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption…. (2 Peter 2:19)

Liberty is only attainable individually via the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ⁸ and as society via the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.⁹

Neither of these means of liberty was the goal of either the Declaration’s signatories or that of the Constitution’s framers. Instead, liberty was officially lost (incrementally thereafter) when the eighteenth-century founding fathers replaced Yahweh’s immutable and perfect law of liberty with their own man-made, capricious Constitution—when liberty was made a goal instead of a corollary of implementing the Bible’s liberty laws (the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments¹⁰) as supreme over society.

America’s Greatest Liberty

Except for the British kings’ occasional meddling from across the Atlantic, Americans experienced their greatest liberty in the 1600s and early 1700s. From the ratification of the Constitution until now, liberty has been whittled away. At present, we would be hard-pressed to find a nation with less liberty than the United States of America. As Pastor Mather Byles purportedly put it prior to the American War for Independence: “Which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?”

Fat and Happy Slaves

It is extremely difficult to convince well-fed, content, and happy Americans they are not free. But contentment has nothing to do with freedom. A slave is a slave even if he’s fat and happy. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”¹¹

2 Corinthians 3:17 states, “…where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.” The Spirit of the Lord cannot be found in the Constitution because Yahweh and His perfect laws of liberty were flagrantly disregarded therein.

Instead of liberty, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it birthed eleven years later yoked Americans with bondage: reprobate and dishonest legislators, ever-expanding debt, an ungodly court system, an unnecessary and inept prison system, corruption, licenses, permits, countless registrations, ungodly wars, in addition to ever-increasing taxes on nearly everything. None of these atrocities can occur under Yahweh’s system of liberty established upon His triune moral law.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Matthew 7:16-18)

What has been the fruit of the Declaration and the Constitution it sired? We have only to look at the historical record of the last 200-plus years to know the Constitution shackled us with slavery instead of liberty. Man-made surrogates never have and never will provide liberty. Only Yahweh, by way of Jesus’¹² blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection, can free us as individuals, and only His perfect laws of liberty can free us as a nation.

Yes, America has been a blessed nation in many ways for many years—a residuum from the early 1600 governments of, by, and for God established upon His laws of liberty, per Deuteronomy 28:1-14. Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified, those blessings have been gradually replaced by the curses for disobedience to Yahweh’s laws, per Deuteronomy 28:15-68.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 2

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

“Securing” the Impossible

It’s impossible for man-made humanistic secular governments to secure anything, other than what they line their pockets with. It’s likewise impossible for them to secure rights to which man has no claim in the first place. On the other hand, futilely striving to secure the impossible helps to further enslave those so engaged.

Powers Derived From the Consent of the Governed

Do Christians even pause to consider such statements in light of the Bible? Can such a declaration—what amounts to saying that government comes from the approval or permission of the majority—be justified by anything found in the Bible? Or, does the Bible condemn this overtly humanistic claim to divinity from anti-Christ Thomas Jefferson?¹³

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 is humanism of the rankest sort. God doesn’t look to the consent of the governed for permission to establish government or anything else. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to find anything good accomplished by the consent of the governed, the majority of whom are in the broad way leading to destruction:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The consent of the governed is what banished the Israelites to the wilderness for forty years.

Thomas Jefferson Not Alone

Such claims as in Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 were not at all unique to Thomas Jefferson. Such unbiblical assertions were common fare with Jefferson’s contemporary theistic rationalist founding fathers. For example, 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 several branches of government … is derived.¹⁴

Is it any wonder the Constitutional Republic has been dubbed a government of, by, and for the people?

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.¹⁵

Such an emphasis on the people cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.

Freemason George Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Convention) confirmed this self-originating authority in his “Farewell Address”:

This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and support.¹⁶

Talk about metaphorically slapping God’s sovereign face! And these are men who constitutionalists promote as Christians?

The Constitutional Republic’s fifth president, James Monroe, concurred:

The people, the highest authority known in our system, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend, formed it.¹⁷

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….¹⁸

No surprise that it was John Adams who, as President, signed the Treaty with Tripoli in which the following is found:

[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…. (Treaty with Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11)

While it’s true that the original states’ Constitutions were more biblical then the federal Constitution in some of their components, they were nonetheless mirror images of the federal Constitution as it pertains to their humanistic promotion of man as Sovereign. Following are samplings from some of the state Constitutions:

…all political power is vested in and derived from the people only. (North Carolina, 1776, “Declaration of Rights,” Article I)

…no authority shall, on any pretense whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them [the people]. (New York, 1777, Article I)

All power residing originally in the people and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority – whether Legislative, Executive, or Judicial – are their substitutes and agents and are at all times accountable to them. (Massachusetts, 1789, part I, Article V)

…all power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority. (Pennsylvania, 1790, Article IX, Section II)

…power is inherent in them [the people], and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people. (Delaware, 1792, Preamble)

Consequently, a return to the States’ Constitutions (or the federal Constitution’s Tenth Amendment¹⁹) will not solve America’s propensity for humanism or save her from her present national woes created by the federal and states’ humanistic constitutions alike. Both were born of Jefferson’s audacious declaration that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, which is just another way of declaring the unbiblical sovereignty of man over himself. This, in turn, is a blatant rejection of Yahweh’s exclusive authority over man, government, and society with or without the consent of the governed.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 3

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Right or Responsibility

As Christians, subjects of the King of kings, it’s not our right but our obligation to work toward replacing any biblically incompatible government with local governments of, by, and for God²⁰ (aka ecclesias²¹) exclusively established upon His moral law,²² per Matthew 6:10, 33; Romans 12:21; 13:1-7; 1 Corinthians 6:1-6; and 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.

For example, when Romans 13 is interpreted as intended by the Apostle Paul (as dictated by its context), we don’t find an optional right but instead a mandate for establishing biblical governments over society.²³

Thus, it’s our duty to replace any form of government of, by, and for the people that’s invariably opposed—yea, destructive—to government of, by, and for God.

Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome [literally subdue] evil with good. (Romans 12:21)

This commission doesn’t end at the doorsteps of government. In fact, Romans 12:21 is strategically located at the scriptural doorstep of Romans 13:1-7. Romans 12:21 is the verse immediately preceding Romans 13:1-7 in which Paul depicts a biblical government established upon the Bible’s triune and integral moral law and adjudicated by biblically qualified men of God (Verses 4 & 6), who are continual (Verse 6) blessing to the righteous and perpetual terror to the wicked (Verses 3-4).²³

What’s this then say about our responsibility to work toward replacing the biblically seditious Constitutional Republic, born of the biblically adverse Declaration of Independence? Rather than vainly attempting to save what can never be saved—the Republic built on sand,²⁴ a house divided from its inception²⁵—we’re commissioned to overcome evil government with good government. Not by the consent of the governed but rather by the command of Yahweh.

Never–Ending Futility

Do not overlook that Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 of the Declaration is as much an endorsement for any man-made government as it was for what eleven years later became the United States Constitutional Republic. According to Thomas Jefferson, regardless the nation in which you reside, if the present form of government of, by, and for the people is in your opinion (or anyone else’s opinion) abusive, you have the right to replace it with what you hope will be a better form of government of, by, and for the people.

Because all forms of government of, by, and for the people are built on sand²⁴ and ultimately houses divided,²⁵ they are thus inherently self-destructive. Thus, that which was promoted by Thomas Jefferson and the other signatories to the Declaration is inevitably a never-ending experiment in trying to find a better form of man-made government. In other words, an experiment of perpetual futility—that is, until each nation recognizes that what they’re looking for can only be realized in government of, by, and for God.

As to Them

Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 ends by saying, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The three words “as to them” is unabashed humanism. Where in the Bible do we find anything whereby God leaves it to the people to decide their own form of government as to what they determine will make them most happy?

Talk about a recipe for disaster!

Case in point: The biblically contrary Constitutional Republic that’s destroyed man’s happiness in multifarious ways (including the lives of millions of infants slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs)—as with all governments of man’s own creation. This, juxtaposed with what’s perfect, sure, right, pure, true, and altogether righteous, resulting in conversions, wisdom, joy, true enlightenment, better than fine gold, sweeter than honey, and providing a great reward, per Psalm 19:7-11.

Man is incapable of fixing his own problems, either individually or collectively. Yet, that’s what many of today’s blinded Christians and patriots laud as allegedly occurring in the late 18th-century at the behest of men in rebellion to their God and Creator.

See Part 6.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 2” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 3” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt.4” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

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

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. See Part 4 for more regarding the Declaration’s and Constitution’s alleged rights.

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

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

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

8. See John 8:32, 36; 2 Corinthians 3:17; etc.

9. See James 1:25, 2:12; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 119:44-45; etc.

10. See Part 1 for evidence that the perfect law of liberty equates to the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments.

11. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Otto Wenckstern, trans., Goethe’s Opinions on the World, Mankind, Literature, Science and Art (London, UK: John W. Parker and Son, 1853) p. 3

12. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to the Apostle Paul in Acts 26:14-15. (Jesus is a twice-removed transliteration: the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua.) Because many people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Yeshua, I have chosen to use the more familiar name Jesus in this article in order to remove what might otherwise be a stumbling block.

13. See Part 2 for evidence that Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ.

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

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

16. George Washington, Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols. (New York; NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892) vol. 13, p. 297

17. 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

18. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865) vol. 4, pp. 292-93

19. See Chapter 19 “Amendment 10: Counterfeit Powers” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

20. See A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government.

21. See Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future.

22. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

23. See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

24. See Matthew 7:26-27

25. See Matthew 12:25

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 4

Posted: 6th September 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

If only this had been the intent of the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers, six of whom signed both documents. What a different nation we would have become contrasted with what we are today.

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—That has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Paragraph #2, Sentence 1

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Self–Evident

Self-evident is not enough to prove anything—except in the minds of those with whom something’s claimed to be self-evident. What’s self-evident to one man is often a contradiction or an incongruity to others. For example, there are many people to whom it’s self-evident that Thomas Jefferson’s God and Creator is one and the same as the God of the Bible. However, when examined by the Bible, it’s biblically apparent that Jefferson’s God and Creator is one of his own making.³

There are, furthermore, a great number of people to whom it’s self-evident that all men are not created equal under the Constitution and its Criminal Justice System, especially when compared with the Bible’s Criminal Justice System.⁴

Created Equal

Is it true that all men are created equal? It all depends upon what’s meant by “equal.”

If by “equal,” it’s meant to say that all finite humans come into this world as naked babies, it’s of course a true statement. However, anything beyond this is simply a figment of man’s fertile imagination, especially regarding alleged unalienable rights, often depicted as God-given rights.

Self-evident is not enough. But how many Christians⁵ when hearing or reciting the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence (or any part of the Declaration for that matter) stop and ask themselves, “Is this biblical?”

God–Given Rights

The Declaration’s alleged rights might be god-given by anti-Christ⁶ Jefferson’s god, but they are not God-given by Yahweh God of the Bible. If they are, they must be validated by the Bible. The Bible is devoid of human rights of any kind.

If they are biblical, they’re guaranteed by Yahweh. If they are not biblical, they’re “guaranteed” by someone else who can and has incrementally taken them away.

In Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land, David Gibbs, Jr., and David Gibbs III argue for unalienable God-given rights:

Our rights come from God, not from the state. Therefore, the state cannot take them away. What Uncle Sam gives, Uncle Sam can take away. But our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our rights are unalienable because they come from God.⁷

This oft-parroted claim sounds wonderful, but is it true? The State has certainly taken away and even helps finance unwanted infants’ right to life. The State has incrementally taken away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.⁸ The State has taken away the right to own property.⁹ Because rights come from the State, the State can take them away at its pleasure, and it has done just that.

Not only are rights an entirely non-biblical Enlightenment concept, there is not even a Hebrew word for rights in the Hebrew language.¹⁰

America was sold down the river when the 18^th-century “founding fathers” replaced the Bible’s non-optional responsibilities (based upon the Bible’s explicit moral laws¹¹) with optional Enlightenment rights based upon the whims and wishes of anti-Christ Jefferson and his fellow contemporary Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka constitutional framers and “founding fathers”). This was done in a futile attempt to make man his own Sovereign:

But thou, O man of God…. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called…. I give thee charge in the sight of God … and before Christ Jesus … that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … who is the blessed and only Potentate [NASB Sovereign], the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:11-16)

Human sovereignty is what Enlightenment rights are all about: the rights of man versus the authority of Yahweh.

The Only One With Rights

Jefferson’s Declaration claims it’s self-evident that every man has a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Are life, liberty, and happiness your right? Or are life, liberty, and happiness meant to be corollaries—in fact, blessings—of knowing Yahweh as our Sovereign, Christ as our Savior, and His perfect law of liberty as society’s standard and rule of life?

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that Yahweh thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Yahweh thy God…. (Deuteronomy 28:1-14)

In other words, the blessings—what amount to life, liberty, and happiness—enumerated in Deuteronomy 28:1-14 are not provided us because of any self-evident alleged rights, but instead because of obedience to the Sovereign’s law.

Even life isn’t a right except to God. It’s inherent in who He is as Creator. The right to life belongs exclusively to the great and only I Am That I Am.¹²

For the rest of us, life (and everything that comes with it) is a gift from and responsibility to the One who granted us life. It’s inherent in who we are as the created.

If, in fact, life is our right, God was then obligated to create us, making Him subservient to us. In turn, He would have no authority to judge us for what’s our right to do with as we please.

Whirlwind Rights

[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…. (Hosea 8:1, 7)

A familiar proverb declares, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” America’s “hell” has been paved with rights,¹³ including:

Natural rights
Human rights
Civil rights
Political rights
Religious rights (including the right for all non-Christian religions to proliferate)
Educational rights
Women’s rights (including the right to murder one’s unborn baby)
Children’s rights
Health care rights
Welfare rights
Homosexual rights
Transgender rights

And this is the short list.

Former United States Attorney General Stephen J. Markman confirmed that the unbiblical rights above are included in the Ninth Amendment’s¹⁴ unidentified enumeration of rights:

[T]he Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers [sic] to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment.¹⁵

Because the framers failed to expressly establish the Constitution on biblical ethics, the Ninth Amendment has been invariably interpreted to include the above list, as well as other biblical infractions, including a woman’s alleged right to murder her unborn infant:

The Ninth Amendment was employed in Roe v. Wade in legalizing in utero infanticide. [Supreme Court Associate] Justice William O. Douglas … joined the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe, which stated that a federally enforceable right to privacy, “whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”¹⁶

Had the framers provided a government established upon Yahweh’s moral laws, the constitutional “rights” claimed by so many people today would be recognized and punished as moral aberrations.

These “whirlwind” rights are the consequence of the “wind” rights established by the framers in the Bill of Rights. Most Christians believe the rights found in the first Ten Amendments are God-given and thus irrevocable. But there are two problems with this cherished idea:

1. The Constitution knows nothing of God (except perhaps as the Document’s timekeeper in Article 7¹⁷).

2. God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with non-optional responsibilities.

Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights

Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including sodomites, lesbians and infant murderers, demand their rights. Few people, however, are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.¹⁸

America was sold a bill of goods when the “founding fathers” replaced non-optional God-expected responsibilities with optional Enlightenment rights, which are easily suppressed by whatever government is in power at the time. There’s no better example than the Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven.¹⁹

In theory, the Bill of Rights protects the alleged unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” among other things. But have life, liberty, and happiness been advanced or protected since the first Ten Amendments were ratified? Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, have we had less government intrusion or has the Constitutional Republic grown into the behemoth it inevitably has become and merely licensed and limited those rights?

Rights vs. Righteousness

The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the constitutional framers had in mind:

John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Constitution’s Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty.²⁰

R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.²¹

Rights have contributed to an irresponsible and, in turn, pompously cavalier public that is more interested in exercising its “rights” than in living responsibly, especially in obedience to a Sovereign God.

People who demand their rights are like children, focused only on themselves. People who pursue righteousness are focused on Yahweh and their fellow man. The former promote a government of, by, and for the people; the latter promote a government of, by, and for Yahweh.

In theory, rights are one of the “holy grails” of American Republicanism. In reality, they’re just another example of the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers’ apostasy, which continues to reap an ever-intensifying whirlwind.

Nothing New About Alleged Rights

There is nothing new about Enlightenment rights. Adam and Eve felt so enlightened they thought they were justified in rebelling against their Maker. They began claiming their alleged right to make themselves their own Sovereign God and it was for this reason they were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

In other words, not only are rights an entirely non-biblical Enlightenment concept, worse to claim what belongs exclusively to our God and Creator is a sacrilegious usurpation of Yahweh’s divine nature.²²

The one thing Jefferson got right was that rights are, in fact, unalienable. They are unalienable because Yahweh holds sole possession of all rights, from whom they cannot be usurped by finite man.

No One Can Take Away What You Don’t Possess

Demanding rights is an admission of slavery to the one from whom those rights are petitioned. Every United States citizen who looks to the Constitutional Republic to grant or recognize his rights (the only place rights “exist”) acknowledges that the government is his Sovereign:

The emphasis on human rights demands the rejection of Divine Revelation in favor of human legislation. Man thinks he is capable of legislating rights. Human legislation seeks to supplant God and make statutes in areas that only God can regulate. And the rule of iniquity is framed into law. The actual trade that is made in this deal is the exchange of true freedom for human bondage…. The end result is the rule of rights rather than the rule of law.²³

It’s often declared that today’s government has taken away Americans’ rights. This is untrue. No one can take from you what you never possessed in the first place. However, you can better enslave and control a people duped into believing in and ever-trying to protect non-existent rights and who have, in turn, renounced their non-optional responsibilities.

That’s the legacy the 18^th-century “founding fathers” left America when they replaced biblical responsibilities (based upon the immutable/unchanging moral law of Yahweh, aka as the perfect law of liberty) for Enlightenment rights.

See Part 5.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 2” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 3” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

“Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity” (Blog article)

“Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” (Blog article)

“America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights” (Blog article)

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. For more regarding Thomas Jefferson’s God and Creator, see Part 2 and Part 3.

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

5. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

6. See Part 2 for evidence that Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ.

7. David Gibbs, Jr., David Gibbs III, Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land (Seminole, FL: Christian Law Association, 2006) p. 21

8. Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight (Audio)

9. Thanks to Amendment 5’s provision for government-confiscation of private property (via eminent domain, property taxes, and public lands) there’s not one square inch of private property left in America. All of America is owned by federal and state governments alike.

Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

10. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, per David Barton, 2018 speech in Torrington, Wyoming.

11. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

12. “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:14-15)

13. “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights.”

14. Chapter 18 “Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

15. Stephen J. Markham, “The Coming Constitutional Debate,” Imprimis (Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College, 2010) vol. 39, num. 4, p. 5

16. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, quoted in “Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

17. Chapter 10 “Article 7: More of the Same” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

18. “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights.”

19. Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight (Audio)

20. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19

21. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581

22. “Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity.”

23. Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg, Foreword (21 February 1998) to Dr. Robert L. Dabney, Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights, which first appeared in the Presbyterian Quarterly, July 1888, (Hueytown, AL: Society for Biblical and Southern Studies, 1998) pp. 4-5

A Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 3

Posted: 22nd July 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

Is this what anti-Christ Thomas Jefferson³ and the other men who put their names to the Declaration of Independence had in mind when it was penned and signed? Hardly!

Is this what the Declaration of Independence and the government it birthed eleven years later brought to America? Not even close!

At best, those men and their assurances were:

[W]ells without water … speak[ing] swelling words of vanity … promising liberty while slaves of their own corruption. (2 Peter 2:17-19)

If ever there were someone in America’s history who fit 2 Peter 2:17-19, it was Thomas Jefferson and the other Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists of his day, aka constitutional framers and founding fathers.

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

In Part 2 of this blog series, I addressed both the author and purpose of the Declaration of Independence. Let’s now look at the Declaration itself.

The Declaration of Independence is one of America’s greatest icons, upon which many patriots, Christians, and non-Christians alike hang their hats. But if you claim to be a Christian,⁴ you need to divorce yourself from any fanciful notion that the Declaration is either biblical or Christian, or that the Declaration has the capacity to make the biblically seditious Constitution⁵ biblically compatible.

Do you really think an anti-Christ, devoid of both the Spirit of God and His perfect law of liberty, and with no such intent, had the wherewithal to create a biblically compatible document? This was neither the design of nor within the spiritual wheelhouse of Thomas Jefferson—as further evidenced in the Declaration he created.

With Bibles in hand, let’s begin our examination of the Declaration of Independence, paragraph by paragraph, line by line:

Paragraph #1

Declaration of Independence (Unanimously Adopted by Congress, July 4, 1776, at Philadelphia)

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Secession

The Declaration’s opening paragraph is a declaration of secession from Great Britain. Not only does secession have biblical precedent, it was, in one instance, commanded by God:

[I]t came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment…. And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith Yahweh, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon [via Solomon’s sons Rehoboam], and will give ten tribes to thee…. Because that they [Rehoboam and what was to become the two-tribed house of Judah] have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments…. (1 Kings 11:29-33)

In Chapter 12, we find God’s command for secession being executed. Jeroboam and the ten northern tribes secede from King Rehoboam and the two southern tribes, dividing the united nation of Israel into two houses.

It’s important to note that although the house of Israel’s secession was by Yahweh’s determination, the house of Israel fared no better under King Jeroboam than the house of Judah did under King Rehoboam. In fact, a case can be made that the house of Israel fared much worse than did the house of Judah.

In other words, secession from a wicked nation does not necessarily equate with a righteous result—not if those seceding don’t themselves submit to Yahweh as their Sovereign to thereby establish a government of, by, and for Him with His triune moral law (the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) as supreme.⁶

Christendom’s Need for Secession

America has progressively devolved into a more and more unrighteous nation, much like the united kingdom of Israel under King Rehoboam and similar to England in the late 1700s—which precipitated the 1776 Declaration of Independence. In fact, it’s much worse now than it was in late 18^th-century America when the Declaration of Independence was sent to King George III. Consequently, the eloquent, impassioned words of the Declaration of Independence resonate with a lot of folks today. It’s therefore not uncommon to hear people once again promoting secession.

For today’s dominion-minded Christians this is a very pertinent discussion. One day, reestablishing biblical, self-sustaining communities (ecclesias⁷) for the purpose of dominionizing society on behalf of the King of kings⁸ will invariably entail both God’s austere judgment upon our sinful nation and biblical secession for Christians who are serious about their kingdom calling and obligations.

Any secession movement not based upon Yahweh as Sovereign and His moral law as the basis and foundation of its government will only prove to be but another contemporary instance of man doing what’s right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25. It will likewise be doomed to failure.

Case in point: the 1776 American secession movement from Great Britain, which eleven years later culminated in a government of, by, and for the people, created by a cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists. This is sometimes described as the Grand Experiment in Self-Government.

Grand Experiment / Grand Failure

Self-government! What could go wrong? Everything!

Self-government is merely a cover for what’s otherwise known as secular humanism, and secular humanism (regardless the form of government in which it manifests itself) is destined for failure. A Grand Failure is precisely what the Grand Experiment here in America has proven to be.

Everything gone wrong nationally in America can be traced back to the founding fathers’ Grand Experiment. Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists of his day had the foresight to predict its failure. Henry stridently warned his fellow Virginians at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.⁹

Without the parameters of the Bible’s moral law, even the First Amendment has proven to be a toxic brew. For example, Amendment 1 condemns the prohibition of speech, whether spoken or written. Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech? What about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns Yahweh Himself? Does God grant us freedom to curse Him or blaspheme His name?

On the other hand, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, in utero infanticide,¹⁰ sodomy, drug abuse, violence, obscenities, and other abominations condemned by Yahweh.

The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also champion the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.

Homosexuals and infant assassins claim freedom of speech and the right to assemble to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people and their brazen debauchery. By labeling what Christians do as hate crimes, these immoral people are able to employ Amendment 1 against Christians speaking and/or assembling against these atrocities. According to the Bill of Rights, it is the alleged religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians.¹¹

Long Enough!

Regardless whether we’re counting from 1776 and the Declaration of Independence or 1787 and the United States Constitution, it’s been long enough—the experiment has failed. It was destined to do so—that is, if you believe our Lord and Savior:

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)

[E]very kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Matthew 12:25)

Built on Sand

The House known as the Constitutional Republic (sired by the Declaration of Independence and born of the Godless, Christless, biblically seditious Constitution) was not, by any stretch of the imagination, built upon the rock of Yahweh’s holy word but instead upon Enlightenment and Masonic traditions¹²:

[Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites … in vain … do [you] worship me, teaching for doctrines [or enacting as laws] the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9)

Divided House

Furthermore, the Constitutional Republic began and continues a divided house.

If some of the constitutional framers were Christians, as some claim, what were they doing yoking themselves with Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists?

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

That we are not to invite anti-Christs into our political houses also eliminates forming governments with them:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge … [the] things that pertain to this life? … But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)

The Apostle Paul denounces Christians going to the courts of the unregenerate to settle legal issues between themselves. How much more so contracting with non-Christians to form a government—a government in which the Christians would invariably be forced to compromise on its form and foundations.

Unless based exclusively upon Yahweh as its Sovereign and His law as supreme, secession merely replaces one form of government of, by, and for the people with another form of the same thing, even when alleged Christians are involved in its formation. Case in point: America’s secession from Great Britain.

Nature’s God

Paragraph 1 of the Declaration refers to “nature’s God.” Paragraph 2 begins “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….” There you have it: the Declaration acknowledges both God and Creator, making it not only biblically compatible but a biblically-inspired document.

That claim has been parroted countless times. But does this make it true?

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” [or proclaims “God and Creator”] will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23, NASB)

Do you think this might apply to Thomas Jefferson (the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence) who identified Jesus’ virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension to heaven as a “dung hill”?¹³

For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)

To denounce Jesus’¹⁴ virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension is to denounce Yeshua Immanuel (Yah who Saves, God with Us¹⁵) as the incarnate God—that is, God in the flesh. According to the Apostle John, to denounce Jesus Christ is to likewise denounce Yahweh, the one and only Creator.

Consequently, Thomas Jefferson’s and his Enlightenment and Masonic compatriots’ generic God and Creator (sometimes referred to with the Masonic terms “Great” or “Grand Architect” of the universe) was not the God of the Bible. Instead, Jefferson’s God and Creator was one of his own making, “created” in his own “image,” resulting from Jefferson’s rejection of the God and Creator of the Bible.

Yahweh is the God over nature, not nature’s God. Jefferson’s God was Nature’s God—not the God of the Bible, nor the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

What exactly is meant by “Nature’s God”? Because it’s not a designation for Yahweh found anywhere in the Bible, it’s anyone’s guess what’s meant by “Nature’s God.”

One might argue that Nature’s God is tantamount to saying Creator. However, even if the term “Nature’s God” is equivalent with Creator and had come from the Bible, it’s apparent from 2 John 1:7-11 and Jefferson’s rejection of the Christ of the Bible that Jefferson’s nature’s god was merely the generic god of the 18^th-century founding fathers, who were predominantly Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists.¹⁶

That Jefferson’s God and Creator is not the God of the Bible is further evidence that the government Jefferson and his buddies established was not a government of, by, and for God (i.e., Yahweh) but merely another version of a government of, by, and for the people, not all that different from the one they were seceding from.

Laws of Nature

Hand in hand with anti-Christ Jefferson’s generic god is Jefferson’s generic laws of nature: a non-descript generic law for a non-descript generic god.

Many Christians have bought into both Jefferson’s Nature’s God and his laws of nature. Some of these people insist a case can be made for the laws of nature from Romans 2:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles [ethne, nations], which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. (Romans 2:12-15)

The Apostle Paul says nothing about laws of nature in this passage but rather nations doing what was “by nature”—that is, what would come natural to them because of the law written in their hearts.

Furthermore, the law Paul describes was not some non-descript law that people were left to speculate as to its stipulations, but instead one that, if transgressed, resulted in sin. This can only be referring to the very explicit moral laws of God:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

Had this been the law Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence, there wouldn’t be so many biblical anomalies found throughout the Declaration. No, the ambiguous laws Jefferson cited were, once again, the generic laws of a generic god that anyone can interpret to mean anything they want it to. This was especially true for the theistic rationalists of Jefferson’s day, many of whom, esteemed finite man’s reason as much a moral authority as the Word of God.

For example, Benjamin Rush, one the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, is often lauded as one of America’s great Christian founding fathers. Yet in “An Enquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals, and Upon Society,” which promotes the unbiblical prison system and rejects the Bible’s punitive system of public executions and restitution as valid,¹⁷ Rush lauded capricious reason as the means for determining what is right:

Reason, tho’ deposed and oppressed, is the only just sovereign of the human mind. Discoveries … have derived their credit and usefulness only from their according with the decisions of reason…. These things are … the secret voice of God himself, speaking in the human heart….¹⁸

No two finite men reason identically on anything. Consequently, to such men as Jefferson and Rush, the Declaration’s nondescript “laws of nature” would prove very appealing. The same for many of today’s non-Christians and alleged Christians alike who have rejected the Bible’s explicit triune and integral moral law as supreme and, as such, government and society’s standard.

Anyone who promotes the Declaration’s ambiguous “laws of nature” is almost surely an antinomian¹⁹ who’s rejected Yahweh’s moral law as supreme and, in turn, Jesus Christ as Master and Lord:

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness²⁰ and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4, NASB)

See Part 4.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence, Pt. 2” (Blog article)

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

“Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future”

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

Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism” (Audio series)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. See Part 2 for evidence that Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ.

4. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

5. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism.”

6. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

7. See “Ecclesia vs. Church: Why Understanding the Difference is Critical to Our Future.”

8. Per Romans 12:21, 13:1-7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, etc.

See The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

9. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003, 2nd ed.) pp. 200-08

10. Abortion is not always an act of violence. Sometimes it delivers a live baby.

The same is true for one of the Hebrew words translated “child” in the Old Testament.

11. See Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

12. For evidence that the Constitution was based upon Enlightenment and Masonic traditions rather than the Bible, see Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism.”

13. Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384

14. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to the Apostle Paul in Acts 26:14-15. (Jesus is a twice-removed transliteration: the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua.) Because many people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Yeshua, I have chosen to use the more familiar name Jesus in this article in order to remove what might otherwise be a stumbling block.

15. See Part 2 for more regarding the names “Yeshua” and “Immanuel” and their import as it pertains to the deity of Christ and how they reflect upon the spurious claim that Thomas Jefferson’s God in the Declaration of Independence was Yahweh.

16. For more regarding the true religious beliefs of the 18^th-century founding fathers, see The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution by Gregg L. Frazer.

17. See Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

18. Benjamin Rush, “An Enquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals, and Upon Society,” read in the Society for Promoting Political Inquiries, convened at the house of His Excellency, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, in Philadelphia, March 9, 1787, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N16141.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext.

19. Antinomianism: The teaching that Yahweh’s triune and integral moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) as society’s standard has been replaced by Yahweh’s grace and is no longer applicable under the New Covenant. This, despite such passages as Romans 3:31 and Jude 1:3-4.

Salvation, justification, forgiveness, and all things comparable are provided us exclusively by God’s grace via the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Praise Yahweh! This fact, however, does not mean Jesus abolished His Father’s morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments as society’s standard. God forbid!

These are two entirely different issues. The first has to do with the remnant’s individual salvation, the second with whose ethics God intends for us to govern our lives.

For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

20. Noah Webster defined “licentiousness” as “excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law….”

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

A Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 2

Posted: 11th June 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

The law of Yahweh² is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

Incredibly, all of the above would be eliminated under the New Covenant if today’s antinomians³ had their way. In fact, most of this was officially eliminated here in America in 1787 (and incrementally thereafter) when the constitutional framers replaced the Bible’s perfect law of liberty with the biblically seditious Constitution⁴ as the supreme law of the land.⁵

As was pointed out in Part 1, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are inseparable—two peas in the same Isaiah 5:20 pod. The Declaration is what’s sometimes correctly depicted as the United States of America’s⁶ birth certificate.

Lord willing, it’s my intention to biblically examine the Declaration of Independence line by line, paragraph by paragraph, in much the same way I did the United States Constitution.⁷ However, before getting to the Declaration itself, it’s important we first discuss both the author and purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson: The Declaration’s Chief Architect

To many Christians⁸ and patriots, Thomas Jefferson is an American icon, based upon legend, lore, and his renowned quotations. But there’s more to Thomas Jefferson than what most people have been told, some of which has serious scriptural implications not only for Jefferson himself but also for those who laud and endorse him. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson also speaks to the Declaration and its alleged biblical affinity.

Let me, however, first address what amounts to a false accusation concerning Thomas Jefferson—that Jefferson was a Deist. With the exception of Benjamin Franklin, who appears to have left his earlier Deism behind him by the time of the Constitutional Convention, none of the key founding fathers were Deists in the purest sense of the word. Neither were they Christians in the biblical sense of the Word. They are best depicted as theistic rationalists.

No, Thomas Jefferson was not a Deist. Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ, per 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 John 1:7-9:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…. (1 Timothy 3:16)

According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, there’s only one God. And because there is only one God, there is likewise only one Yahweh:

Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that Yahweh he is God; there is none else beside him…. Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that Yahweh he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39)

Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

According to 1 Timothy 3:16, Yahweh God was manifest in the flesh. As who? As Yeshua Immanuel.

Yeshua⁹—which means Yah¹⁰ who saves—is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to the Apostle Paul in Acts 26:14-15. His secondary name Immanuel means God with us:

[T]he angel of the Lord appeared unto … Joseph [saying], … fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus [Yeshua, i.e., Yah Who Saves]: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet [Isaiah], saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:20-23)

Yeshua’s virgin birth is integral to who He is—that is, to the One whom the Apostle Paul depicts in Philippians 2:5-9 as having poured out Himself to become flesh and die on our behalf. With this in mind, consider the serious implications for anyone who rejects Yahweh’s incarnation via the virgin birth of Yah Who Saves:

For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

The Apostle John is the only New Testament author to employ the term “antichrist.” Thus, to biblically understand the term “antichrist,” we must look to John’s writings to understand who it is John depicts as anti-Christ.

It’s evident from 2 John 1:7 alone that the teaching about a one-man, individual future Antichrist did not originate with John. Such a man is found nowhere in the Bible. He is the figment of the fertile imaginations of a group of eschatological¹¹ false prophets.¹²

According to John and because there’s only one Yahweh God, anyone who denies that Yah Who Saves, that is, God With Us, was manifest in the flesh is anti-Christ:

For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)

To bid someone “God speed” was tantamount to blessing them in their endeavors. In this instance, those endeavors amounted to a proliferation of an anti-Christ world view. This prohibition would certainly include electing an anti-Christ into a position of civil leadership.

John’s commandment not to bring an anti-Christ into our house does not specify the house. Thus, we’re not to bring any anti-Christ into any of our houses—into our personal house, State House, White House, Senate House, or House of Representatives.

Hopefully, you haven’t invited any anti-Christs into your personal house. But how many anti-Christs do you think America has today in the Constitutional Republic’s political houses? This is thanks to Article 6’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders (including what’s found in 2 John 1:7-9) were eliminated,¹³ and also thanks to Christians participating in the Constitutional Republic’s unbiblical election process by which they have assisted in electing biblically unqualified candidates.¹⁴

I don’t know the exact number, but there are hundreds of anti-Christs not only inhabiting but ruling from America’s political houses today. Consequently, when you consider the atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.—all anti-Christs per 2 John 1:7-9—that have been invited into nearly every political house in America, is it any wonder America finds herself teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction?

While today’s false prophets are pathetically all worked up over a non-existent, never-going-to-exist, singular, one-person Antichrist, the real anti-Christs are left to destroy America and our posterity’s future. In fact, many alleged Christians have helped elect anti-Christs, making them complicit in their wicked deeds while in office:

Do not lay hands upon anyone [elect in contemporary America’s case] too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others…. (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB)

Thomas Jefferson: An Anti-Christ

Although I don’t know the exact number of anti-Christs in public office today, I do know of one unapologetic anti-Christ who made it into the White House.

Because Christ’s virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension is intrinsic and therefore essential to the belief that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, anyone who repudiates the same must therefore be an anti-Christ.

What’s this say about a man who not only cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ out of his cut-and-paste New Testament but who, in a letter to John Adams in 1814, depicted those same attributes as a dunghill?¹⁵

This would be none other than Thomas Jefferson, the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, later to be invited to rule over America from the Unites States of America’s highest political house.

Today, you’ll win no popularity contests identifying Thomas Jefferson as an anti-Christ, but what else would you call a man who identified Christ as a “dunghill”? If this doesn’t give you pause, not only regarding Jefferson but also the Declaration of Independence he authored, it may say something about your relationship with the One whom Thomas Jefferson blasphemed.

According to 2 John 1:7-9, Jefferson’s God was not the God of the Bible. Consequently, neither was the generic God and Creator of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and therefore that god cannot be used to make the Constitution a biblically compatible document.

New Testament For Indians

But wait! The Bible out of which Thomas Jefferson cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ was a New Testament allegedly meant only for missionary work among the Indians. This makes it okay—at least according to those determined to make the 18^th-century founding fathers Christians and their Declaration and Constitution biblically compatible:

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Yahweh God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

This is true unless, of course, you’re crafting a New Testament meant for missionary work among the Indians. If this were the case, God would have included this exception with His instructions in Deuteronomy 4. Oh, the lengths some men will go to in order to protect their idols!

The Purpose of the Declaration of Independence

Idols die hard, including the icon known as the Declaration of Independence, composed by an anti-Christ. And for what purpose did he compose it?

It’s common knowledge that the Declaration of Independence was written as the American colonials’ declaration of independence from Great Britain. It was written as a declaration of independence, not as a declaration of liberty—by which it would have created a government of, by, and for God¹⁶—a government expressly established upon His triune and integral moral law as the supreme law of the land,¹⁷ otherwise known as the perfect law of liberty.¹⁸

That this is true is perhaps best demonstrated by the striking theological differences between the worldviews of the early 17^th-century Puritans and that of the late 18^th-century theistic rationalists:

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…. 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 … for the execution of the laws of God…. In Puritan political theory the magistrate derived his powers from God and not from the people….¹⁹

The whole conception of government that would later be proclaimed by John Locke and others [e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, etc.], 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 [of,] by [and for] the people ….²⁰

[Richard] Mosier has well observed that this [late 18^th-century] revolutionary age demanded that both the absolute God and the absolute king must “henceforth rule by the consent of the governed. The God of Puritanism, stripped of His antique powers, had no recourse but to enter as a weakened prince into the temple of the individualism [merely individual salvation] and there to seek refuge.” This socreignty which he once claimed, and was accorded by the Puritans, was now claimed by man himself. This was the philosophical and theological outlook of many of the leaders of the [American] Revolution.²¹

That’s what the 18th-century founding fathers were looking to establish with their Declaration of Independence, as evident in the document it birthed a mere eleven years later, which instead created just another government of, by, and for the people.

All governments not governments of, by, and for God (including Great Britain’s) are merely different expressions of governments of, by, and for the people. That’s right! Government of, by, and for the people is not unique to the Constitutional Republic. Some are of, by, and for the many. Some are of, by, and for the few. And some are of, by, and for one—such as King George III.

Regardless the number, all governments of, by, and for the people are merely humanistic manifestations of man doing what is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25. Judges 21:25 is what is commonly known as humanism, aka We the Peoplism.

Conclusion

It should be beginning to become apparent that there’s more to the Declaration of Independence than initially meets the eye, just as there is with the biblically seditious Constitution it birthed eleven years later.

See Part 3.

“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)

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

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

“Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table’”

“Salvation by Election”

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

3. Antinomianism: The teaching that Yahweh’s triune and integral moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) as society’s standard has been replaced by Yahweh’s grace and is no longer applicable under the New Covenant. This, despite such passages as Romans 3:31 and Jude 1:3-4.

These are two entirely different issues. The first has to do with the remnant’s individual salvation, the second with whose ethics God intends for us to govern our lives.

For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see free online book Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

4. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism.”

5. See Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

6. America and the United States of America are not the same thing. America existed long before the creation of the United States of America, aka the Constitutional Republic. The former was colonized by the Pilgrims and Puritans upon the Bible’s immutable moral law. The latter was created by Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists based upon capricious man-made traditions.

For more regarding these two polar opposite forms of government, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

7. See free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism.”

9. Jesus is a twice-removed transliteration: the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. Because many people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Yeshua, I have chosen to use the more familiar name Jesus in the bulk of this series of articles in order to remove what might otherwise be a stumbling block.

10. Yah is the abbreviation of Yahweh, found forty-eight times in the Old Testament. This does not account for the plethora of times it’s found in Old Testament names such as Isaiah—that is, YeshaYah, meaning Yah has saved.

11. Eschatology: The study of end-time events.

12. Whenever you hear people speaking of a future, individual, one-man Antichrist, you should run for your eschatological life. Not only is their Antichrist a fabrication of their own making, so is everything else prophetically associated with their bogus Antichrist.

13. For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

14. See blog article “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table.’”

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 1

Posted: 10th May 2020 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized

The Perfect Law of Liberty

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror, NASB]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:22-25)¹

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:12)

Who doesn’t want liberty?

James references the law of liberty twice in his epistle. He not only identifies it as the law of liberty but as the perfect law of liberty.

Tragically, the bulk of today’s antinomian² Christians³ not only misidentify the law of liberty, they generally want nothing to with it, despite a plethora of New Testament passages declaring it’s integral to the New Covenant.⁴

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Romans 7:12)

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 7:19)

And hereby we do know that we know him [the heavenly Father], if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3)

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3)

Salvation, justification, forgiveness, and all things comparable are provided us exclusively by God’s grace via the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Praise Yahweh!⁵ This fact, however, does not mean Jesus⁶ abolished His Father’s morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments⁷ as society’s standard. God forbid!

These are two entirely different issues. The first has to do with the remnant’s individual salvation, the second with whose ethics God intends for us to govern our lives.

One Good Law

In Romans 7:12, the Apostle Paul depicts God’s moral law under the New Covenant as not only holy and just but also good. In fact, Paul describes the law as good seven different times—six times in Romans 7 and a seventh time in 1 Timothy 1. Cited once ought to be enough to get our attention. Cited seven times, we best look to discover what it is that makes God’s law good. Perhaps it has something to do with it being the perfect law of liberty.

Can there be more than one law that’s good—good as in righteous? Because there’s only One who’s perfectly righteous, there’s likewise only one law that’s perfectly righteous. Consequently, if we find a law depicted as good anywhere else in the Bible, it would have to be one and the same as the good law depicted by Paul in Romans 7 and 1 Timothy 1:

Thou [Yahweh] camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments. (Nehemiah 9:13)

The triune law Yahweh provided Moses on Mt. Sinai consisted of these same Ten Commandments, the statutes that explain each of the Commandments, and judgments that enforce the Commandments and their statutes:

[T]hese are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which Yahweh your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them…. (Deuteronomy 6:1)

The Commandments are incomplete without the respective statutes that clarify them, and they’re merely good suggestions without the respective judgments that enforce them.

The Apostle Paul’s “good law” is one and the same as the triune and integral moral law of God referred to by both Moses and Nehemiah.

One Perfect Law

Can there be more than one law that’s perfect?

Perfection demands both singularity and exclusivity. Consequently, if we were to find a law depicted as perfect anywhere else in the Bible, it would have to be one and same as the perfect law of liberty depicted by James:

The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

Perfect, sure, right, pure, true, and altogether righteous—resulting in conversions, wisdom, joy, and enlightenment. Moreover, the commandments, statutes, and judgments are better than fine gold, sweeter than honey, and provide a great reward. It’s this same triune moral law (all three components cited again by King David) by which government and society functions at optimum prosperity, protection, and liberty—aka the “perfect law of liberty.”

Someone might argue that liberty is not cited in Psalm 19. This is true. But it’s certainly depicted in Psalm 19, as well as in Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 28:1-14, and numerous other passages.

Liberty is not mentioned in Psalm 19 regarding God’s law but it is in Psalm 119, consisting of 176 verses, the bulk of which refer to Yahweh’s triune law:

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty…. (Psalm 119:44-45)

Not Without the Judgments

David’s perfect law of liberty is one and the same as James’ perfect law of liberty—that is, the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments:

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2:11-12)

James warns us to live our lives so as not to be judged by the law of liberty. Many Christians would find this depiction a contradiction of terms: “Judgment and liberty don’t go together!”

To the contrary. They fit together perfectly. Yahweh’s civil sanctions are not only for the punishment of the wicked, but perhaps even more so as a deterrent to others who without them would also be criminals, making life in general less safe.

The potent deterrent effect of these judgments in the hands of biblical judges is what the Apostle Paul refers to in Romans 13 as a terror to evil:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)⁸

The deterrent effect of this one component of the Bible’s triune moral law alone all but eliminates the criminal element in society. The result is a society that functions at optimum protection and therefore optimum liberty.

Wells Without Water

Consequently, any law not Yahweh’s moral law, or opposed to the same, can never provide liberty but will instead only produce bondage. Furthermore, it only stands to reason that anyone who has rejected and substituted the Bible’s perfect law of liberty with something else can never provide others the alleged liberty they claim to have themselves:

These are wells without water … they speak great swelling words of vanity…. While they promise … liberty, they themselves are the servants [slaves, NASB] of corruption…. (2 Peter 2:17-19)

Such false teachers are akin to the false prophets depicted in Jeremiah 6:14, who cried, “Peace, peace: when there [was] no peace.” Those depicted in 2 Peter 2 were crying, “Liberty, liberty; when there was no liberty.” No liberty, either individually, as can only be realized via Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave, per John 8:36 and 2 Corinthians 3:17,⁹ and as a society per Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty.¹⁰

Liberty, Liberty; When There Is No Liberty!

Here in America, this harks back to the constitutional framers who foisted their idle claims of liberty upon America. If ever anyone fit the description of wells without water, speaking swelling words of vanity, who were themselves slaves of their own corruption, it’s the 18^th-century founding fathers.

“Liberty!” is perhaps the greatest propaganda tool ever created. Incredibly, it’s still in play today, despite the fact that America’s witnessed what liberty she had in the early 1600s dwindle away with each and every succeeding generation since the inception of the biblically adverse Constitutional Republic born of the biblically seditious Constitution.¹¹

This was forecast by none other than Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the Constitutional Convention as one of Virginia’s delegates, declaring, “I smelt a rat!” Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.¹²

In contrast to the federalists’ failed predictions, this and nearly everything the anti-federalists forecast about the Constitution has become reality, even after the Bill of Rights was added.

Christians and patriots often laud the grand experiment of the founding fathers. But the grand experiment has been a grand failure. Today’s America is not teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction because of Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty. Instead, it’s because the perfect law of liberty was rejected by the 18^th-century founding fathers who replaced it with the biblically incompatible United States Constitution as the law of the land.¹³

Nonetheless, liberty is still claimed to have been provided to America by means of the Constitution, despite just the opposite being true. America is arguably the most enslaved, indebted, imprisoned, not to mention immoral, nation in existence today. Yet those with liberty blinders pasted over their eyes persist in crying, “Liberty, liberty; when there is no liberty!”

Liberty was officially lost in America when the 18th-century founding fathers made liberty a goal instead of a corollary of implementing Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty as the supreme law of the land.¹⁴

Conclusion

Consequently, here’s what we have in America today: a biblically hostile Constitutional Republic, born of the biblically seditious Constitution, allegedly providing liberty via a cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists, who were themselves enslaved with their own corruption.

It was, for the most part, these same men who eleven years earlier put their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. Today’s constitutional Christians are determined to conjoin the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, believing that doing so can make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.

The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the two. Therefore, because of the Declaration’s promotion of God and Creator it’s maintained that it allegedly transforms the biblically seditious Constitution into a biblically compatible document, despite the fact there’s hardly an Article or Amendment in the Constitution that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.¹⁵

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are, in fact, inseparable: two proverbial peas in the same pod. But is the pod righteous or wicked?

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter … because they have cast away the law of Yahweh of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 5:20, 24)

Tragically, just as with the biblically seditious Constitution, many contemporary Christians hang their hat on the Declaration of Independence as if it’s something biblical and/or Christian. In fact, it’s just another instance of Isaiah 5:20, calling evil good and bitter sweet.

In the end, will it be the Declaration of Independence or a Declaration of Liberty that we proclaim to the world?

Lord willing, in the articles to follow we’ll biblically scrutinize the iconic but unbiblical Declaration of Independence.

See Part 2.

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

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government

The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government

End Notes

1. All scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.

2. Antinomianism: The teaching that Yahweh’s triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) has been replaced by Yahweh’s grace and is no longer applicable under the New Covenant. This, despite such passages as Romans 3:31 and Jude 1:3-4.

3. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins.

For a more thorough explanation concerning water immersion and its relationship to salvation, the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be requested from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

4. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see free online book Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

5. 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 scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to memorialize His name, per Exodus 3:15, in this article.

6. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to the Apostle Paul in Acts 26:14-15. (Jesus is a twice-removed transliteration: the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua.) Because many people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Yeshua, I have chosen to use the more familiar name Jesus in this article in order to remove what might otherwise be a stumbling block.

7. See series of free ten online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, beginning with Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

8. Romans 13:1-7 has nothing to do with secular civil government. Rather everything therein depicts a biblical civil government. The one word “continually” or “devoted” (depending upon your Bible version) in Verse 6 (amplifying Verses 3 & 4) alone proves the point.

Unless someone’s prepared to claim the Roman Empire (one of the most notorious for murdering Christians) was a government that continually blessed Christians and terrorized/punished the wicked, they should rethink their theology regarding this extremely important passage of Scripture.

See free online book The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government.

10. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies and should be implemented today as the law of the land, see free online book Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

11. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

12. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003, 2nd ed.) pp. 200-08

13. The typical response to this by today’s constitutionalists is that “It’s not the Constitution’s fault but today’s criminal legislators and judges who are to blame.” But how did America end up with such criminals as her civil “leaders”? Look no further than Article 6’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders were also eliminated.

For more regarding Article 6’s religious test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

14. For more regarding how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies and should be implemented today as the law of the land, see free online book Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

15. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see free online book Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible.

CONSTITUTION MYTHBUSTERS

For More on This Subject

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

Popular Tags

Post Archives

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 10

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 9

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 8

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 7

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 6

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 5

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Liberty vs. Declaration of Independence, Part 4

A Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 3

The Perfect Law of Liberty

The Declaration Speaks for Itself

Paragraph #1

Secession

Christendom’s Need for Secession

Grand Experiment / Grand Failure

Long Enough!

Built on Sand

Divided House

Nature’s God

Laws of Nature

A Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 2

Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence: A Declaration of Liberty vs. The Declaration of Independence, Part 1

The Perfect Law of Liberty

One Good Law

One Perfect Law

Not Without the Judgments

Wells Without Water

Liberty, Liberty; When There Is No Liberty!

Conclusion

Related Posts

End Notes

Social Connections