When I wrote last week’s article, I had no intentions of its being a multi-part series. That was before I read Bill Fortenberry’s “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era.” His article proposes forty-eight points intended to prove the Constitution was based upon the Bible. In actuality, his article is a case study in straining at gnats, per Matthew 23:24. More than that, it is a classic case of eisegesis (reading into the Constitution what you desire it to be) rather than exegeting (taking from the text only what was intended by the authors), while at the same time completely disregarding the numerous instances where the two are antithetical and sometimes hostile to each other.
In introducing his forty-eight points, Mr. Fortenberry stated, “The following list [provides] several points in which the principles of the Constitution agree with doctrines of the Bible.” I agree there are Constitutional principles that agree with the doctrines of the Bible, as there are in nearly all government constitutions. For example, any government that forbids murder is in agreement with a doctrine of the Bible (the Sixth Commandment). However, this or any other place where the two are in agreement does not prove a government is Biblical or Christian, particularly when the same government is antagonistic to Yahweh1 and His morality in numerous other locations.
In this and following articles, I’ll be examining the bulk of Mr. Fortenberry’s points to determine whether they prove what he says they do. (The only reason I’m not addressing all of his points is because it would be redundant to do so. There is not one legitimate point in the forty-eight.)
Point #1: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years.’ The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 … against a nation that is ruled by children.”
Elsewhere on his website, Mr. Fortenberry claimed “a strong distaste for those who, through either ignorance or intent, twist the writings of antiquity to say things that the original authors never would have condoned.” Mr. Fortenberry must find himself distasteful because nowhere did the framers attribute this or any of their age limitations to Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 or any other verse in the Bible. This is just wishful thinking on the part of someone who desperately wants the Constitution to be a Christian document. The same wishful speculations are found throughout Mr. Fortenberry’s forty-eight points.
More important than the age requirement is the entire concept of representatives of the people as opposed to representatives of Yahweh:
Some Constitutionalists argue that the concept of representative government originated with Moses [in Exodus 18:25]….
Nowhere in the framers’ copious convention notes, the Federalist Papers, or anywhere else in their writings, do we find any indication that the idea for the House of Representatives was inspired by Exodus 18:25. Christian Constitutionalists apply Exodus 18:25 to this section of the Constitution to give it an aura of Biblical authority. But Moses’ charge has nothing to do with representatives of the people. As proven by its context, it is a provision for judges – representatives of Yahweh:
“…thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge…. So Moses … chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons….” (Exodus 18:21-26)
It is, in fact, a violation of Yahweh’s law for rulers to respect (represent) the people, regardless their numbers, rank, or for any other reason:
“And I [Moses] charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s….” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)
“And [King Jehoshaphat] said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH….” (2 Chronicles 19:6)2
Point #2: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘No person shall be a representative who shall not have … been seven years a citizen of the United States.’ Under this law all members of the House of Representatives must be American citizens. This concept of limiting government positions solely to the citizens of a country is based on the example of the nation of Israel. In Exodus 18:21 as well as in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, it is stated that the elders of Israel were elected from among the people.”
The framers never credited Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13-15, or anything else in the Bible as their inspiration for their concept of limited government. That they provided America with a limited government is itself false:
Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and even Republicans are often heard discussing the idea that limited government was an objective of the framers. It is true that government was much more limited in the late 1700s than it is today. But do not believe for a minute that the Constitution provided us with limited government, even in the late 1700s. A government consisting of a president, vice president, House of Representatives, Senate, and judiciary can hardly be described as limited. When the framers threw away America’s Christian theocracy in exchange for the United States’ secular theocracy,3 they also cast aside limited government.
With some rare exceptions, Yahweh’s government consists of only one King and Legislator—Yahweh—and a judiciary to litigate His commandments and statutes and enforce His judgments. That is limited government. Yahweh’s government has no need for a president and his cabinet, no need for the House of Representatives or the Senate and their glutted bureaucracy, no need for a prison complex, no need for a parasitical welfare system, no need for the Federal Reserve, no need for the Internal Revenue Service, and no need for a tax-subsidized standing army. Constitutionalists want to abolish nearly everything enumerated here, but they would have us “return” to the very document that permitted these excesses and robbed us of a truly limited government.4
Elections not only cannot be found in Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1, they are in fact completely unbiblical:
In addition to the continual brainwashing about how fortunate we are to have free elections, one of the reasons most Christians believe so strongly about protecting their right to vote is few of them have ever challenged elections from a Biblical paradigm. Some people attempt to use Jethro’s counsel to his son-in-law Moses as the Biblical precedent for elections….
“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:21)
What is described here was not a popular election; it was a nomination of qualified men for Moses to appoint. An election is not necessary to select Biblically qualified men. Men either are Biblically qualified or they are not. Popularity determines elections; Biblical qualifications determine appointments. To assume Jethro’s instructions called for elections is just that—an assumption. Jethro’s counsel called for the appointment of rulers (elders) who would be judges, not the election of men or women who would be presidents.5
Point #3: “Article 1, Section 2 – ‘The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” The Great Compromise which led to the bicameral legislature of America is foreshadowed by Israel’s own bicameral system. In their system, the elders of Israel stood in the place of the House of Representatives and were likewise apportioned according to the populations of the tribes. Deuteronomy 1:15 reveals that the appointment of the elders of Israel was based upon an enumeration of the members of each tribe.”
The only two-house system in the Bible is that of the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Their split was the consequence of Israel’s disobedience to Yahweh’s law. The framers had enough sense not to claim Israel’s bicameral system as the prototype of the one they instituted.
The phrase “not [to] exceed one for every thirty thousand” is an unequivocal violation of Deuteronomy 1:15’s “captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens.”
Stay tuned for Part 3.
Related posts:
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2.Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
4.Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
5. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
“This concept of limiting government positions solely to the **citizens of a country** is based on the example of the nation of Israel.”
The highlighted portion above brings up a point of hypocracy by the vast majority of “Christians”, “Christian Constitutionalists”, and “Constitutionalists”.The Bible NO WHERE advocates “citizenship” as a requirement for civil government. It advocates racial homogeny, segregation, and explicitly spells out that a ruler shall be a kinsman not a forienger :
“Thou shalt in any wise 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.*** -Deu 17:15 KJV
“No [mamzer] shall enter the assembly of Yahweh; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of Yahweh.” Deu 23:2 NASB
“So when they heard the law, they excluded all foreigners from Israel.” – Neh 13:3
Likewise, the Constitutional framer’s definition of who they intended a “citizen” of this country to be is never spelled out by those who make the “citizen” argument. The proper Biblical law and teaching concerning kinsman and our relationship to strangers is a truth most will not touch with a 10 foot pole or outright deny and the same is true for those who claim to stand for “going back” to the Constitution.
“Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” -Matt 15:14 NASB
Amen! The best way to limit our government is to limit the (G,g)ods we worship–to just One, Yahweh.
Go for it, Ted! No compromise.
God intended His people would govern and control themselves under His Authority and Law. Self-control under God is the base of all human government. A person who lives this way has no need of outside forces telling him what he can or cannot do and punishing or rewarding him appropriately.
It’s only when people refuse to exercise Godly self-control, that tyrants and dictators arise. People who do not control themselves will have someone else do it for them. A very large number of Christians are in that camp, eating “Egypt’s food” without any real desire for freedom.
Ted, thank you for taking the time to review the concluding chapter of my book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era. I am honored that you would take such a detailed look into my writings, and I hope that I can aid you in better understanding my position.
To begin, let me address your claim that there are points of agreement between the doctrines of the Bible and “nearly all government constitutions.” I am curious as to which constitutions you considered before making this statement. In my studies, I have not found a single written constitution which agrees with the Bible in as many points as our own, but perhaps you have studied this more than I have. Maybe you could point to some of the constitutions of the Muslim countries and show how similar they are to the Bible, or perhaps, you could list the similarities between God’s Word and the 25 points of the Nazi program or some other equally atheistic government. Being able to do so would go a long way toward proving your point, and I am sure that your readers will find your discoveries to be of great interest.
I would also like to address your claim that some of the points on my list are no more than “wishful thinking” because I did not include in the list (or at least in the first 48) any statement from the founding fathers attributing their ideas to the Bible. I agree that I did not do so. That does not, however, prove that I could not do so nor that I have not done so in other places. You are, of course, already aware of the fact that I quoted Benjamin Franklin in another place as stating in the Constitutional Convention that “We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness.” In addition to this, I would also like to bring to your attention the following statements:
“I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Straitened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have Seen: and Such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future Investigation.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 85]
“It can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg xv]
“This at the least is certain, that the government of the Hebrews instituted by God, had a judge, the great Sanhedrim, and general assemblies of the people.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg 149]
“This kind of law, fixing the balance in lands, is called Agrarian, and was first introduced by God himself, who divided the land of Canaan to his people by lot.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg 163]
“In the year 1257 a transaction was completed which alone ought to be sufficient to immortalise the republic of Bologna. There is among the records of that city a book, intitled “The Paradise of pleasure,” which contains the decree fo the 3d of June, 1257, by which all the slaves and villains were manumitted … The record is in substance — ‘In the beginning God Almighty planted a paradise of pleasure, in which he placed man, whom he had created and cloathed with a white robe of innocence, giving him a perfect and perpetual liberty; but the wretch, unmindful of his own dignity and the divine munificence, tasted of the apple forbidden him by the commandment of Heaven, and thereby dragged himself and all his posterity down into this valley of misery, poisoned the human race, and most miserably bound it in the chains of diabolical servitude: and thus from incorruptable it was made corruptable, from immortal, mortal, subjected to continual vicissitudes and most grievous slavery. God, however, beholding that the whole world had perished, had compassion on the human race, and sent his only begotten son, born of the virgin Mary, who, co-operating with the grace of the Holy Ghost, to the glory of his own dignity, breaking the bonds with which we were held captive, restored us to our primitive liberty: and therefore it is very justly questioned, whether men, whom nature from the beginning produced and created free, and the law of nations only subjected to the yoke servitude, ought not to be restored to the blessing of manumission; — these men, who are the disgrace of the cause of liberty! In consideration of which the noble city of Bologna, which has always contended and fought for liberty, recollecting the past and providing for the future, in honour of Jesus Christ our Lord and Redeemer, has redeemed, by a price in money, all those who, in the city of Bologna and its bishopric, were found confined in a servile condition, and decreed them to be free …’ Amidst the melancholy gloom of factions and licentiousness, of injustice and cruelty, of fraud and violence, such a gleam of humanity, equity, and magnanimity, is refreshing. It shall be left to your own reflections, the first of which shall undoubtedly be a wish to see a paradise of pleasure in each of the United States of America.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 2, H. Sweitzer, Philadelphia, 1797, pg 411-413]
“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and publich justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 217]
“To expect self-denial from men, when they have a majority in their favour, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience; it is to disbelieve Revelation and the Word of God, which informs us, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 289]
“In the institution of government it must be remembered, that although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 363]
“It is not the fault of the ten commandments, but of themselves, that Jews or Christians are ever known to steal, murder, covet, or blaspheme.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 398]
“The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.” [Madison, James, A Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man, S. C. Ustick, Washington, 1828, pg 6]
“This hour of distress will come. It comes to all, and the moment of affliction is known to Him alone, whose divine providence exalts or depresses states and kingdoms. Not by the blind dictates of arbitrary will. Not by a tyrannous and despotic mandate. But in proportion to their obedience or disobedience of his just and holy laws. It is he who commands us that we abstain from wrong. It is he who tells us, ‘do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 465]
“Lastly, it is a duty to God. It is to his high Tribunal, that the monarchs of the earth must render a solemn account of their conduct; and he requires of them, that it be regulated by the principles of truth and justice, which alone endure forever, and which forever establish the peace and prosperity of empires.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 2, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 523]
“Let humble reverence attend us as we proceed. The great and incomprehensible Author, and Preserver, and Ruler of all things — he himself works not without an eternal decree.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 56]
“What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfection of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 103-105]
“In this immense ocean of intelligence and action, are we left without a compass and without a chart? Is there no pole star, by which we may regulate our course? Has the all-gracious and all-wise Author of our existence formed us for such great and such good ends; and has he left us without a conductor to lead us in the way, by which those ends may be attained? Has he made us capable of observing a rule, and has he furnished us with no rule, which we oght to observe? Let us examine these questions — for they are important ones — with patience and with attention. Our labours will, in all probability, be amply repaid. We shall probably find that, to direct the more important parts of our conduct, the bountiful Governour of the universe has been graciously pleased to provide us with a law; and that , to direct the less important parts of it, he has made us capable of providing a law for ourselves.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 107-108]
“That our Creator has a supreme right to prescribe a law for our conduct, and that we are under the most perfect obligation to obey that law, are truths established on the clearest and most solid principles.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 108]
“With regard to laws which are divine, they truly come from a superior — from Him who is supreme.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 108]
“But princes, and the flatterers of princes, are guilty, in two respects, of the grossest errour and presumption. they claim to govern by divine institution and right. The principles of their government are repugnant to the principles of that government, which is divine.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 112-113]
“Having thus stated the question — what is the efficient cause of moral obligation? — I give it this answer — the will of God. This is the supreme law. His just and full right of imposing laws, and our duty in obeying them, are the sources of our moral obligations.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 118-119]
“How shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is — to discover the will of God — and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 120]
“Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, 137-138]
“One superiour advantage the precepts delivered in the sacred oracles clearly possess. They are, of all, the most explicit and the most certain.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 138]
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 139]
“In every period of his existence, the law, which the divine wisdom has approved for man, will not only be fitted, to the contemporary degree, but will be calculated to produce, in future, a still higher degree of perfection.” [Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 143]
I apologize for the lengthy list of quotes, but I doubted that you would find anything shorter to be sufficient to prove that the founders actually did give consideration to the teachings of God’s Word in the formation of our government.
I regards to elections, let me point out that the word “elect” means: “to select by vote for an office, position, or membership” (Webster). Deuteronomy 1:13 records Moses directing the people to choose wise men from among themselves so that he could make them rulers over the people. The people themselves chose the men who would be placed over them as rulers. This fits the definition of election. Therefore, Deuteronomy 1:13-15 does speak of elections, and consequently, elections cannot be said to be unbiblical.
I’m not interested in Webster’s definition, only in what the Bible teaches, and it does not teach anything close to the Constitution’s popular elections. For more, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.
Bill, I’m pleased you’ve joined us in this discussed. After replying to your review of Dr. Gregg Frazer’s book “The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders,” I thought you might.
You state that “To begin, let me address your claim that there are points of agreement between the doctrines of the Bible and ‘nearly all government constitutions.’ I am curious as to which constitutions you considered before making this statement. In my studies, I have not found a single written constitution which agrees with the Bible in as many points as our own, but perhaps you have studied this more than I have. Maybe you could point to some of the constitutions of the Muslim countries and show how similar they are to the Bible, or perhaps, you could list the similarities between God’s Word and the 25 points of the Nazi program or
some other equally atheistic government. Being able to do so would go a long way toward proving your point, and I am sure that your readers will find your discoveries to be of great interest.”
You’ve seemed to have missed my point. The point is not who’s constitution has more points agreeable with the Bible. Instead, the point is that most anyone, using the same methods of eisegetics you’ve employed, can do the same with just about any nation’s constitution. In fact, with a good knowledge of the Bible and more imagination than you excercised, there may very well be another nation’s constitution that can be made (allegedly) more Biblically compatible than the United States Constitution. Hopefully, after you’ve read the five follow up articles to this one (four of which have yet to be posted), you will see the U.S. Constitution is not anywhere near as Biblically compatible as you have tried to make it.
You next stated, “I would also like to address your claim that some of the points on my list are no more than “wishful thinking” because I did not include in the list (or at least in the first 48) any statement from the founding fathers attributing their ideas to the Bible. I agree that I did not do so. That does not, however, prove that I could not do so nor that I have not done so in other places.”
If you have or can provide quotes from the framers demonstrating that they intended their legislation to reflect the Bible in the fashion you’ve suggested, I will be pleased to retract my statements on any or all of your points to the contrary.
You next stated, “You are, of course, already aware of the fact that I quoted Benjamin Franklin in another place as stating in the Constitutional Convention
that ‘We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness.'”
Yes, I am aware that you quoted this from Franklin and also of your other similar quotations from Madison’s “Journal of the Constitutional Convention.” However, I do not agree that they prove what you would like them to. In the late 18th-century, it was fairly common to hear Bible terminology used in everyday speech in what was often nothing more than idiomatic expressions. Although, not to the same degree, the same remains true today. This was done then and is done today, in many instances, with no intended Biblical APPLICATION whatsoever. Even Franklin’s reference to Exodus 18:21 didn’t make it into the Constitution. Along with the other indispensable Biblical qualifications, I wish it had. The best the framers could come up with was undefined “good behavior” in Article 6.
Even if a few of the framers employed scriptural phraseology with Biblical intent, what is lost in your endorsement of these phrases is that NONE of them indicate the framers had intentions to construct a Constitution or erect a government based upon the Bible or, more specifically, upon Yahweh’s righteousness as codified in His
perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11). To employ these quotations to this end is merely more wishful thinking.
As for the followup quotations you provided from Adams, Wilson, and Morris, they can only be understood from a balanced evaluation of the sum total of these mens’ religious beliefs. For this, I highly recommend to our readers Dr. Frazer’s “The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders” (http://www.amazon.com/The-Religious-Beliefs-Americas-Founders/dp/0700618457/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364771133&sr=8-1&keywords=the+religious+beliefs+of+america%27s+founders), with this caveat: I do not agree with all of Mr. Frazer’s conclusions (particularly those regarding Romans 13:1-7).
More importantly, ultimately what the framers said (and sometimes did) does not matter any more than the words and actions of those described in Matthew 7:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia, lawlessness].” (Matthew 7:21-23)
To date, the battle between Christians and secularists over the Constitution has been one of quotations, and there are plenty to go around for both sides. But, here’s the bottom line: There is only ONE standard by which everything (including the framers and the Constitution) stands or falls-that is, Yahweh’s immutable righteousness as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. When the Constitution is examined by this standard, it falls flat on its face as a Biblically compatible document. There is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. Therefore, even if the framers had intended to write a Biblically compatible constitution, they failed miserably.
For anyone new to this discussion and who is interested in pursuing a Biblical examination of the Constitution, I devote a chapter in “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” (on our home site at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html) to examining every article and amendment, demonstrating it is ANYTHING but Biblically compatible.
Great discussion. Thank you fellows for engaging. There are few topics more important.