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 #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.
Related Posts:
“Biblical Examination of the Declaration of Independence” (Audio series)
“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”
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 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.
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.
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