In this article, I continue to examine Mr. Fortenberry’s “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era,” in which he proposes forty-eight points that allegedly prove the Constitution was based upon the Bible.
Point #30
“Article 2, Section 1 – ‘The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot…. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President.’ Our Electoral College system is very similar to the election system established in Israel in many aspects. According to II Samuel 5:3, II Chronicles 23:2-3 and many other passages, the kings of Israel were chosen jointly by the elders of Israel and by the congregation as a whole.”
The Constitutional Republic’s Electoral College system is nothing like the election system established in Israel. Israel never elected anyone to anything. Election belongs to Yahweh1 alone:
…unlike Yahweh’s system, which provides for the appointment of the best of the best—the Constitution compels people to (hopefully) elect the best of the worst. It also necessitates political parties that are not only unbiblical but whose platforms are invariably ungodly. Political parties are the mechanism by which Christian constituents are offered up on the altar of WE THE PEOPLE.
After every election, regardless who’s elected, Americans eventually have cause for regret (Proverbs 29:2). And yet, every four years, they march right back to the voting booths with eternal hope (or is it merely short-sightedness?) and do it all over again. Elections provide us with a lose-lose proposition. On the other hand, when we have two or more Biblically qualified candidates [all but made impossible under the Constitution by Article 6], we end up with a servant of God, regardless who’s appointed….
By Yahweh’s means of appointment, man does the selecting and Yahweh does the electing. The term “election” is actually a Biblical expression, referring to Yahweh’s choice of leaders. Man has hijacked the term and replaced Yahweh’s means of election with his own, by which (we hope) the better man, rather than Yahweh’s best man, is chosen.
The Constitutional Republic’s surrogate election process is essentially no different from what occurred in Numbers 14 after the Israelites refused to go in and take possession of the land of Canaan. Verse 4 informs us that they clamored for a leader of their own choosing. Nehemiah 9:17 aptly depicts their substitute plan: “[The Israelites] refused to obey … but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage….” History has demonstrated that the Constitutional Republic’s election process has produced spiritual, political, and economic bondage for Americans.2
Election day is WE THE PEOPLE’s high holy day conducted in veneration to the Constitution, America’s national idol.
Point #33
“Article 2, Section 1 – ‘Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’ The terms of the presidential oath are nearly the same as those outlined for the kings of Israel in Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Those kings, like the President, were required to preserve and protect the law of the land.”
“Nearly the same”?
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…. (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)
The constitutional oath is nothing like what’s found in Deuteronomy 17. Presidents are required to swear an oath to a contract with the people that is antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in nearly every article and amendment.3 Israelite kings were required to write, read, obey, and enforce the law of Yahweh:
“Thou shalt fear Yahweh thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13)
…The lack of any mention of Yahweh in the presidential oath was vehemently contested in the State’s ratifying conventions….. As early as 1796 when oaths still retained an appeal to the Supreme Being, they were already inclusive of gods other than Yahweh, as attested by United States Representative Zephaniah Swift:
“All persons who believe in the existence of a God, let their religion be what it will, may be admitted to be witnesses. An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being that he who takes it will speak the truth, and an imprecation of His vengeance if he swears false.” (Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne, 1796) vol. 2, p. 238.)
…This polytheistic inevitability was the consequence of Amendment 1’s freedom of religion provision…. Because the presidential oath does not appeal to Yahweh, it is essentially atheistic. It contains nothing by which presidents can be held to their word:
“The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mahammedan [sic] as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed, it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions. In these things the minority in our country has hitherto managed to govern the majority. We look on the designed omission of it [reference to the God of the Bible] as an attempt to exclude from civil affairs Him who is the governor among the nations.” (D.X. Junkin, The Oath, quoted in T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Amend the Preamble, “History of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) p. iv.)
…If ever there were an unequal yoking, it is when public officials place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. This no more Christianizes the oath than Aaron’s naming the golden calf “Yahweh” sanctified his idolatry. The Bible offers no precedent for swearing to uphold any other law than Yahweh’s. Swearing in Yahweh’s name, or swearing on the Bible, means nothing to Him if you simultaneously swear to keep the laws of another god [in this instance, WE THE PEOPLE’s]. This is treason and sedition against the God of gods and King of kings.4
Point #36
“Article 3, Section 1 – ‘The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’ The judicial system of America is securely established on the biblical model of the courts of Israel as described in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20.”
“Securely established on”?
Christian Constitutionalists generally believe the provision for a superior and inferior court system was derived from Jethro’s counsel to Moses in Exodus 18 [or Deuteronomy 1:16-17]….
“Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances [statutes] and laws…. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.” (Exodus 18:19-22)
This passage does provide Biblical precedent for a graduated judicial system, but that is where any similarity ends. The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh, as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:
“And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.” (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)
…Unlike the Constitutional Republic, Yahweh’s court system has no litigant appellate process. In Exodus 18, difficult cases were turned over to higher judges (over fifties, hundreds, and thousands) and finally to Moses by lower courts, not for appeal, but for adjudication. Appellate systems such as provided by Article 3 only delay judgments. Without Yahweh’s morality as the standard, higher courts have no better chance of arriving at a just decision than do lower courts.5
Stay tuned for Part 6.
Related posts:
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
5. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
Ted, I am somewhat concerned by your statement that “Israel never elected anyone to anything.” This comment reveals an appalling lack of knowledge of the Old Testament. In reality, there are multiple examples of elections in the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy 1:13 records Moses telling the children of Israel to “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.” I am not sure how you can see this as anything other than an election. Moses told the people to choose their own rulers, and they did so.
Additionally, Moses himself was elected by the people to be their representative before God. We read in Deuteronomy 5:23-27:
“And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders; And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.”
And finally, even the Law of God itself was not foisted upon the people without their consent. The children of Israel were given multiple opportunities to vote on that Law, and they chose to accept it unanimously. The elders gave their consent in Exodus 19:8. The people gave their consent first after hearing the Law recited by Moses in Exodus 24:3. Then, they gave their consent again after hearing the written Law read the next day in Exodus 24:7, and when the next generation had conquered the land, Joshua once again brought the Law of God before the people for a vote, and the people voluntarily chose to accept that Law as recorded in Joshua 24:22.
Now, you previously said that you don’t care about how the word election is defined in the dictionary, so perhaps you mean something other than “to select by vote for an office, position, or membership” when you use that word. If so, then I would certainly appreciate it if you would let us in on your secret. Perhaps then it will be more clear why you do not see these passages of Scripture as indicative of elections in the nation of Israel.
Bill, I’m pleased you’re back and have joined the discussion again.
Let me begin by setting the parameters for our discussion regarding elections. My response was NOT to one of Webster’s Dictionary’s definitions for the word but to YOUR claim that “Our [meaning the U.S. Constitutional Republic’s] Electoral College system is very similar to the election system established in Israel in many aspects.” Consequently, we’re discussing elections as provided and carried out under the U.S. Constitutional Republic. With this understood, please provide me anything in the Bible that resembles the Constitution’s election system, which is nothing more than a popularity contest between unbiblical candidates who nominated themselves:
“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 [who were known personally by those who nominated them and who could attest to their Biblical qualifications] 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.” (Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation.”)
You stated, “Deuteronomy 1:13 records Moses telling the children of Israel to ‘Take
you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.’ I am not sure how you can see this as anything other than an election.” I’m not sure how YOU can justify interpreting this as an election in the same sense as what America participates in every four years. You’re once again straining at gnats!
Even more astonishing is that you read Constitutional type elections into Deuteronomy 5:23-27. This does not describe anything close to an election by the people. It’s instead an acknowledgment by the people of YAHWEH’s election of Moses. The same with Joshua 24:22: election and consent are not the same thing. God does not leave obedience up to a popular vote, majority or otherwise.
Exodus 19:8 is the nation of Israel’s (as Yahweh’s prospective bride) acceptance of Yahweh’s marriage proposal in verses 5 & 6. A prospective bride doesn’t vote on whether she’ll accept the prospective husband’s proposal; she either accepts it or rejects it. There’s no voting on anything in ANY of these passages or anywhere else in the Bible.
As for letting you in on what you describe as “my secret,” there’s no secret to it. It’s merely taking what the Scriptures provide us rather than trying to read the Constitution into the Scriptures and/or the Scriptures into the Constitution.
The last time we discussed elections, I recommended Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” for a more detailed examination of this subject. My apologies, it actually should have been Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.htm. If you will scroll down to the heading “Elections,” you’ll find a very long section on Biblical election versus Constitutional elections. Or, if you prefer something in audio format, you can listen to my two-part audio series “Election: Man’s or Yahweh’s” beginning at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T873.
You are mistaken, Ted. I commented on part 2 of this series and said “let me point out that the word ‘elect’ means: ‘to select by vote for an office, position, or membership’ (Webster).” You responded to that comment by saying: “I’m not interested in Webster’s definition, only in what the Bible teaches.” Now, I have no problem with abandoning Webster’s definition and using some other source, but you have not provided an alternative definition of the word “elect.” If you do not like the definition which I presented then it is your responsibility to suggest another one. Until you do so, I will assume that Webster’s definition is valid.
In regards to your comments about Deuteronomy 1:13, let me point out that we have a New Testament example of this same style of election which provides us with more insight into how it was accomplished. In Acts 6:2-6, we read:
“Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.”
Notice that this passage contains the same format as that given by Moses in Deuteronomy. Moses said, “Take you wise men … and I will make them rulers over you.” The apostles said, “Look ye out among you seven men … whom we may appoint over this business.” In both cases, the people were instructed to do the choosing and the leaders promised to appoint whomever the people chose. Now, in Deuteronomy, all we are told is that Moses took the men that the people chose and made them rulers. You have taken this limited amount of information, and added the implication that the people brought to Moses every man in the nation that met the qualifications, and Moses chose a certain limited number out of those men to be the rulers. This, however, is not the pattern that we find emulated in the book of Acts.
In the book of Acts, we do not read that the people brought every man in the church who met the qualifications so that the apostles could choose seven of them to be the deacons. Rather, we find that it was the people themselves who sifted through all of the men who were qualified and chose seven of them to be their deacons. The appointment by the apostles consisted of nothing more than an official recognition of the decision of the people. Thus, the pattern of popular election followed by an official appointment revealed in the book of Acts establishes that the process described in Deuteronomy 1:13 was not solely an appointment of rulers by Moses. The description in Deuteronomy follows the same pattern as that in Acts, and there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that these two elections differed in the manner in which they were carried out.
In regards to Deuteronomy 5, you claimed that this was not an election of Moses, but rather an acknowledgment of God’s election. I find it interesting that you have offered no evidence to support this claim. What do you see in the text of Scripture to indicate that God told the people that He wanted to speak only to Moses and not to the congregation as a whole. The very reason that the people chose Moses was that God had been speaking with the entire congregation, and they became afraid. Moses even tried to encourage them to continue listening to God directly, but they insisted that he go to God as their representative. There is nothing in the Bible which indicates that God told the people to send Moses to Him alone.
In regards to Exodus 19:8, you said that this was merely the nation’s acceptance of a marriage proposal from God. You then claimed that this could not be an example of an election because a bride does not vote on whether or not to accept a marriage proposal. Setting aside the fact that the words “bride,” “groom” and “marriage” do not appear anywhere in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, let me point out that you seem to be ignorant of the definition of the word “vote.” To vote does not mean to fill in a circle on a ballot. A vote is simply “a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue” (Webster). By this definition, it is quite clear that when a bride is asked if she will allow a particular suitor to fill the office of husband, she is in fact voting. She is either choosing a candidate to be her husband, or she is choosing to resolve the issue by remaining single. In either case, her statement of her decision meets the definition of a vote.
Let me also mention that I have read chapter 5 of your book, and I noticed your statement that: “Any government that fails to promote Yahweh’s kingdom is a rival, and even hostile, kingdom that Yahweh intends to abolish.” The implication that you seem to be making is that American Christians should refrain from aiding and abetting the American government. I am curious, however, as to how you would apply that logic to the Babylonian captivity. How do you think that the Jews should have acted under the rule of Babylon? Should they have refrained from any participation in the Babylonian government?
Bill, you’re still ignoring the principle and most important point in all of this. Let’s stay focused on what we’re dealing with here. How Webster’s Dictionary or how I define the word “election” is essentially unimportant. What we’re dealing with is YOUR attempt to read constitutional elections into certain Bible passages,(which you have utterly failed to accomplish). You then attempt to employ those same passages to prove that constitutional elections were inspired by the Bible. Your arguments and definitions for elections and voting and all of the passages you’ve cited as alleged proof are just more examples of you straining at gnats.
Moreover, let’s also not overlook that you have no quotations from any of the founders stating that the constitutional election process was inspired by the Bible. If you do, please produce them.
Now to some specifics: In citing Acts 6:2-6 as a New Testament example of how leaders were selected, I’m wondering why you didn’t instead cite Acts 1:20-26, which is very specific in its process (something Acts 6 is not), and which also reveals how Yahweh’s choice/election (Deuteronomy 17:10, 15) is determined–that is, by means of throwing lots.
In Acts 6, lots could have been used in the process. We simply do not know because the means by which these seven men were chosen is not specified. Since they were looking for a fair number of deacons in this instance, it may very be that there were only seven qualified candidates who aspired to the position and therefore lots weren’t required. Either way, constitutional elections look nothing like the choice of Biblically qualified men in Acts 6.
In you’re desire to make the Constitution Biblical, you’ve chosen to read the word “elect” into the statement that the disciples chose these men from among themselves. In light of Deuteronomy 17:10, 15, 1 Samuel 10:17-24, Acts 1:20-26, and others, I believe the word “select” is much more appropriate.
I don’t know even know what to say about your statements regarding Deuteronomy 5. To me, they are such a stretch that I have a difficult time believing you would attempt to use this instance to prove your contentions regarding constitutional elections. Ditto for your attempt at using Exodus 19:8 as support for Constitutional elections.
Regarding your last paragraph: In fact, I do believe American Christians should refrain from aiding and abetting the American government ANYWHERE it is found enacting laws hostile or antithetical to Yahweh’s law. Don’t you?
Regarding you question about Jews serving in the Babylonian government, for a brief answer, I’ll quote from Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”:
“To swear to uphold WE THE PEOPLE’s Constitution as the supreme law of the land is the same as swearing to WE THE PEOPLE as god. How could any Christian take such an oath? People argue that we need Christian men in government to keep non-Christians honest or, at least, to check moral decay. But this hasn’t worked to date. What if, instead, Christians had never compromised and had insisted on Yahweh’s government and law?
‘Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.’ (Acts 5:29)
“The Patriarch Joseph (who served in Egypt’s government) and the Prophet Daniel (who served in Babylon’s government) are raised as objections. However, Joseph and Daniel, unlike today’s so-called Christian politicians, never compromised Yahweh’s law in their official capacities. When Daniel’s contemporaries Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were commanded to commit a Second Commandment
transgression by demonstrating obeisance to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol
(representing his government), they chose instead to be thrown into the
fiery furnace.”
That is a very interesting response, Ted. Before I respond in turn, I would like to ask a few questions to make sure that I understand you correctly.
You said that how we define the word “election” is “essentially unimportant.” This seems very odd to me, especially since you make a distinction between the word “elect” and the word “select.” It seems to me that in order to make a distinction between two words, you would have to establish that those two words have two different definitions. What if, for example, I were to claim that “elect” and “select” are actually two forms of the same word which was brought into English at two different points in history and from two different Latin dialects? What if I were to claim that the example usage given in the dictionary for “select” is “the difficult task of selecting a presidential candidate”? It seems to me that in order to refute either of these two claims, you would have to provide definitions for the words “elect” and “select” in order to demonstrate the difference between them. Wouldn’t this mean that these definitions are vitally important to your argument?
I’m also very curious about your claim that Acts 1:20-26 should be used to explain Deuteronomy 1:13-15. What are the similarities that you see between these two passages? Additionally, you said that this passage from acts “reveals how Yahweh’s choice/election is determined–that is, by means of throwing lots.” This is very confusing to me. If I remember correctly, the word “lots” only occurs 21 times in the entire Bible, and one set of three of those are made in reference to the same event while another set of four are all made in reference to another single event. That leaves only 16 times in the entire Bible that lots were cast in order to make a decision. Of course, there are a whole lot more than 16 instances of God revealing His choices to men, and this is where my confusion lies. Are you claiming that God only revealed His choice in those 16 instances in which lots were cast and not in any other case at all, or are you claiming that, in all of those other cases, lots actually were cast in order to determine God’s choice, and the Bible simply did not record that fact?
My next question is very similar. You claimed that lots could have been used in the election recorded in Acts 6 simply because “the means by which these seven men were chosen is not specified.” This seems like quite a stretch to me. If you can insert the casting of lots into this passage as a means by which the seven deacons were chosen, then couldn’t you just as easily assert that maybe the people made all the candidates drink hemlock and the seven who survived became the deacons of the church. After all, Jesus did say that those who follow Him would be able to drink poison and not die. Wouldn’t that indicate that the drinking of poison could be used as a test to determine which seven men really were full of the Holy Ghost? If you’re going to insert things not found in the text itself, then why should preference be given to the insertion of casting lots over the insertion of drinking poison?
In regards to Deuteronomy 5, I am not sure which of my statements you find so confusing. I listed four facts which were pulled directly from the biblical account. They were: 1) God spoke to the entire congregation. 2) The people became afraid. 3) Moses tried to encourage the people to listen to God. 4) The people insisted that Moses be their representative before God. Would you mind pointing out exactly which of these four facts you think is a “stretch”?
I’m still not sure about the distinction which you make between Daniel aiding and abetting the wicked, pagan kingdom of Babylon and Christians aiding and abetting the American government. You said in your book that:
“If you are a Christian who participates in unbiblical elections, the best thing you can do for Yahweh’s kingdom is to vote the worst candidate into office. The quicker this government falls, the quicker Yahweh’s government can be reinstated.”
This sure seems that you are saying that Christians should work towards the downfall of the American government. I don’t see how you can praise Daniel for aiding the Babylonian government and condemn Christians who seek to aid America. Do you really think that we should be seeking the destruction of the American government?
As for you first paragraph, you and I can have a discussion of definitions at another time. What we’re debating is YOUR attempt to read CONSTITUTIONAL elections into the Scripture selection process by employing Webster’s Dictionary’s definition. You should be coming at this from the opposite paradigm–that is, you should be examining Webster’s (or your own) definition from what the Bible teaches.
Regarding Deuteronomy 1:13-15 and Acts 1:20-26: First, keep in mind that it’s “the sum of God’s Word [on any given subject] that is truth….” (Psalm 119:169, NASB)
Deuteronomy 1:13-15 addresses judges. Deuteronomy 17:9 also addresses judges (along with priests and Levites, who, more often than not, served as judges). Deuteronomy 17:15 addresses kings of whom Yahweh Himself chooses. How does one determine who Yahweh chooses? Turn to 1 Samuel 10:17-24: Although Yahweh had already revealed to Samuel His choice of Saul, we find that He does so by means of lots–note verse 24 in particular and the phrase “whom Yahweh hath chosen.”
The same phraseology is used in Acts 1:24, accomplished by the same means, by casting lots. In this instance, it’s not a king that’s being chosen but an apostle. Obviously, Deuteronomy 17:15’s statement regarding Yahweh’s choice of men is applicable to more than merely kings. Ours is always to find the man or men YAHWEH has chosen. Biblical precedent (and the only means I know that can reveal His choice of men to us when they are required) is by lots.
Tie all of this together (the sum of God’s Word) and Deuteronomy 1, 17, and Acts 1 fit quite nicely together.
Are lots always required? No. For example, if you have only one position to fill and only one candidate, lots obviously would not be necessary.
As for Acts 6, neither one of us can say how the Deacons were chosen because the method of choice is not provided. Consequently, we need to go to passages (as I have above) that provide specifics on the method of choice. But, as I pointed out, lots may not have been necessary in this instance. Yahweh’s choice may have been revealed in that there were seven positions and only seven qualified men who aspired to the position.
As for Deuteronomy 5: I think your attempt to use your four accurate points of the account as evidence of an election (particularly anything that resembles constitutional elections) to be an unbelievable stretch–except for the fact, that this seems to be your usual modus oprendi, as demonstrated time and again with your 48 points under discussion in my articles.
Regarding your question “Do you really think that we should be seeking the destruction of the American government?” What we should be seeking is Yahweh’s kingdom and righteousness (as codified in His moral laws) here on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10, 33)–don’t you agree? Therefore, we should be looking to replace WHATEVER does not reflect Yahweh’s righteousness (for example, man-made edicts which finance and promote infanticide and sodomy) with laws that reflect His righteousness–don’t you agree?
I am amazed at your constant refusal to define your terms. I am more than willing to discuss this issue further, but I simply cannot understand your position unless I know how your terms are defined. What definitions are you using for the terms “elect,” “select” and “vote”? If you cannot demonstrate that you know what these words mean, then why should anyone believe you when you say that elections are never found in the Scriptures?
I am likewise amazed at what appears to be an attempt on your part to circumvent the principle point of this discussion: Constitutional elections (that is, man’s election process as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, which I have no problem with as it concerns constitutional elections) and Yahweh’s election of men as found in the Bible. The former entails self-nomination, requires no Biblical qualifications, and no accountability to anyone. The latter requires Biblical qualifications, direct accountability to those who personally can attest to your qualifications, and lots when required.
Thank you, Ted. I am glad that you have agreed to accept the dictionary definitions. Now, the dictionary defines the word “elect” as “to select by vote for an office, position, or membership,” and the word “vote” is defined as “a formal expression for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue.” When we read in Acts 6 that the people chose seven men to be the deacons of the church, we are reading of an event that matches that dictionary definition exactly. The people selected Stephen, Philip and the rest by formally expressing their desire to have them fulfill that office. Therefore, without any consideration of the Constitution and relying solely upon the accepted definitions of the words “elect” and “vote,” we can demonstrate that the event in Acts 6 was an election.
Now, you have argued that, since we are not told how the people made their choice, the people may have chosen these seven by casting lots. Your only evidence in support of this suggestion is that there are passages in the Bible in which lots were used in that manner. However, the casting of lots is not the only manner in which God has indicated His choice for a particular leader. In Numbers 17, God had all the princes of Israel place their rods in the tabernacle, and He caused the rod of Aaron to blossom in order to show the people that He had chosen Aaron and his family to minister before the Lord in the tabernacle. Would it be acceptable to claim that, since we don’t know how the people made their choice of the deacons, they may have done so by having all of the qualified candidates place their rods in the church overnight to see which seven rods would develop blossoms? Of course not, but why not? Because to do so would be to read into the passage something which is not there. This is exactly what you are doing. You are reading into the passage the casting of lots when that concept is not there. This is a classic example of the very eisegesis that you accused me of doing.
But let me take this one step further. I am sure that you are aware that the word “elect” only occurs in the noun form in most English Bibles, but did you know that the Greek word which is translated as elect occurs in the verb form in several passages? The Greek word for “elect” is “eklektos,” and the verb form of this word is “eklegomai.” When we read in Acts 6 that the people chose the seven deacons, the Greek word translated as “chose” is the verb form “eklogomai” of the Greek word for “elect.” Therefore, even without turning to the dictionary, I can demonstrate that the event recorded in Acts 6 was an election by the people. The only way to get any other meaning from this passage is to read into the text something which is not there.
Our English word “elect” is not derived from Greek but from Latin. Additionally, the only Bible that translates (?) the Greek word “eklegomai” in Acts 6:5 as “elect” is the Living Bible. All other versions translate it as “chosen” or “select,” which, once again, leaves the PROCESS a matter of speculation, despite Webster’s Dictionary’s definition.
But, first and foremost, your explanations here do nothing to justify your
reading constitutional elections into the Biblical process, which remains the principle point of this discussion. The former entails self-nomination, requires no Biblical qualifications, and no accountability to anyone. The latter requires Biblical qualifications, direct accountability to those who personally can attest to your qualifications, and lots when required.
You guys are great…and straining at gnats.
I appreciate that this conversation has progressed so far without any perceptible ill feelings on either part. This suggests to me that everyone involved wants to know the truth and everyone is operating out of a spirit of love, which only God can give.
Roger, thank you for your question. Here’s an excerpt from “Article 5: Executive Usurpation” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.html.
“…’When thou art come unto the land which YHWH thy God giveth
thee, and shalt possess it … and shalt say, I will set a king over me …
thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall
choose….’ (Deuteronomy 17:14-15)
“In verse 15, the Israelites were instructed to select leaders predicated upon ‘whom YHWH thy God shall choose.’ Verses 9 and 10 specify the same for judges. But how do we determine Yahweh’s choice? This is accomplished by casting lots, just as the eleven apostles did in Acts 1:
‘And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas … and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.’ (Acts 1:23-26)
“Although Yahweh had revealed to Samuel His choice of Saul as Israel’s first king, in 1 Samuel 10, He used lots to make known His choice to the people:
‘And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken [by lots]. When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken… And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom YHWH hath chosen….’ (1 Samuel 10:20-24)
“By praying and casting lots, we put the decision in the hands of Yahweh, who looks to the heart of each man:
‘…YHWH seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but YHWH looketh on the heart.’ (1 Samuel 16:7)
“Before lots are thrown, a man must first aspire to the position of judge (1 Timothy 3:1). An opportunity would then be presented to the brethren [men who personally know and can vouch for the candidates Biblical qualifications) to raise objections regarding his Biblical qualifications. If
no one raises legitimate objections, the man’s name is put forward with
other qualified candidates, and, following prayer, lots are thrown so
Yahweh’s choice may be determined.
‘The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of YHWH.’ (Proverbs 16:33)
‘The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth [decides, NASB] between the mighty.’ (Proverbs 18:18)…”
I hope this helps.
How is this going to be applied in modern-day America? We have no apostles. There is no “prophet-leader” like Moses or Samuel. Who is going to do the “appointing” to decide who the lots will be cast in favor of or against? Are these appointed ones themselves going to chosen by multiple, myriad lots cast, starting from a vast pool of candidates?
Allow me to bring the concept of choosing a king, ala Samuel, up to the present. Each of the fifty states will be represented by a black number on a small white ball. These balls will be placed into a drum and agitated by a stream of air. One of these balls will be sucked up into a vent at random. The state represented by this ball will then hold another lot(tery) in the same fashion, except it will be broken down into the number of counties in that particular state. Etc, etc, smaller and smaller until one man out of all America is chosen purely by lot. This man will then be our leader until he dies, becomes incapable of leading, resigns, or is deposed by some other person or persons.
As far as I know, Saul had no qualifications for being king except that he was taller than everyone else in the crowd. Yet he was chosen, you say, by God and by lot. Is this the system you want to see in America to pick our president?
The apostles were far more familiar with their choices, all of them being from a small, closely knit group. The apostles could easily pick two men out of the following who they KNEW would be good leaders and then depend on the lot to decide which one would succeed to the postition. Perfectly fine, for small intimate groups, but how would this type of selection apply to a society as large and diverse as the United States?
I can only think of one other scenario, something similar to the Miss America pageant. Each local district would pick (somehow?) a candidate who would then be “chosen” by lot to represent a larger district, all the way to the end where only one man was left.
Out of these three hypotheticals, this last would probably be the most preferred. At the least, some ground rules for qualification could be established and enforced at the local level, guaranteeing that the eventual winner might have some degree of integrity, honor, and godliness. On the other hand, we might end up with someone like Saul.
Details, details!! There’s a saying, though, that if you take care of the little things, the big picture will take care of itself.
Roger, thank you for the great questions. Let me begin by saying that I think your opening question should not be “How is this going to be applied in modern-day America?” but instead “How is this going to be applied in post-judgment and decentralized America?” Until Yahweh judges this nation for her apostasy, there is no applying any of this and very little of Yahweh’s other moral laws, except on an individual basis.
Christians have got to stop staring off into heaven looking to be saved out the mess we’ve created here on earth, when instead we’re supposed to have been the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). We also must realize that we’re in this battle for the long haul and that what we’re doing today toward better establishing–that is, seeking Yahweh’s kingdom and righteousness here on earth as it is in heaven, is for probably two or three generations of our posterity down the road. With this in mind, exactly how it will look then is difficult, if not impossible, to predict.
When finally a generation returns to Yahweh, establishing HIS law as the supreme law of the land, who appoints what will mostly be judges (no presidents or legislators) is the easy part. Provided we’re talking about Biblically qualified men (whether lots are required or not), who cares who does the actual appointments? However, obviously, it would be someone (probably a spiritual leader) who himself is Biblically qualified and who would anoint the prospective judges with oil and the laying on of hands, witnessed by whatever community (very small and localized) they would be serving. This will likely be accompanied with a sermon to both judges and people alike and their respective responsibilities to Yahweh and to each other.
It is also my opinion that along with Yahweh’s judgment (what I believe will be multifaceted and extremely severe) on this nation, which will eliminate much of America’s population, that secession of much smaller land areas will be part and parcel of establishing Yahweh’s law over any given geographical area. Now, that’s how I envision it occurring at some point in the future. That said, I’m no prophet and Yahweh may have a completely different plan in mind. The only thing I know, regardless Yahweh’s implementation plan, THIS generation of Christians need to be doing whatever they can to hopefully make it possible for a future remnant of our posterity to finally do it right(eous) the next time around.
We’re (hopefully) at the VERY BEGINNING of what is the most exciting paradigm shift in America’s history, except perhaps what took place in early 1600 America when they established governments of, by, and for Yahweh instead of, by, and for the people. How exciting to be living when we do in the service of the KING of kings!
Great! Thanks for replying. This is well along the track of what I’ve been looking for.
I am in agreement with you on the near future of this society and culture. I think that America is going to go through the “meat grinder”. I think we’re going to find out what the unsanitized, unscripted, brutal, bloody, and devastating side of war is. We’re going to be paid in kind for what we have visited on so much of the rest of the world, in addition to reaping the judgments of our own personal sins. It’s going to hurt…badly.
That said, I don’t have any illusions (maybe just a few small ones, dying daily) about the effect I am having in my own efforts to influence my world. I realize that most of what I write to my blog (http://christianusa.us/gideonproject) will not be read by very many people and most of those who do read it will, in all likelihood, not pay it much mind. However, there may be someone, somewhere, who will read it, think about it, and begin to apply some of that (at least the good parts) to his or her own life. I don’t expect, as I’m sure you don’t, to turn the world upside down, but God expects both of us to do our part–even if we never see any results.
Ultimately, I believe that the vast majority of mankind will come to the point of living as self-controlled individuals under the power and Spirit of Jesus Christ. In such a situation, politicians, legislators, presidents, and kings would be totally unnecessary. Judges, of course, would still be needed to settle personal disputes and enforce penalties on criminal behavior.
Christians could begin to work toward this scenario by submitting themselves to their own local body whenever they have a disagreement with one of their fellow believers. This would be completely in line with what the apostle Paul encouraged in 1 Corinthians 6. (See this webpage for an easily understood exposition of this scripture.)
http://allanturner.com/magazine/archives/rm0805/Blackaby001.html
One thing which holds Christians from actually doing this is the idea that there is no accountability within churches today. If I have a dispute with anyone in one particular local body, all I have to do is pull up stakes and start attending the one on the next street over. Churches and pastors encourage this because they refuse to teach covenantal discipline of members. Either they are focused on numerical growth or they are afraid of losing what they already have, which simply means that no hard message will be taught or enforced.
Nevertheless, this too will pass. If it is true (as we believe it is) that God (Yahweh) burns out the impurities through the fires of tribulation, then we can look forward to seeing better things in the future. For certain, the heat is being turned up.
We are, as you say, at a major paradigm shift. It is my opinion that we are seeing the end of the national socialist State and the beginning of a kind of freedom and liberty that the world has never known. We may experience an international socialist State first, however, but there is no question in my mind about its eventual demise. “The kingdoms of this world HAVE BECOME (past tense) the kingdoms of our LORD and HE shall reign forever and ever.”
Keep up the good work.
Amen to everything you wrote, Roger. I’m very pleased we’re in this battle together!!!
“How is this going to be applied in modern-day America?…It will do no good to simply resort to quoting scripture.”
OK, here is my Scriptureless idea of how things will be:
Proclaiming that “God so loved the world…” won’t get you in much trouble as long as you don’t elaborate on what it was–His treasure hidden in the world–that He so loved about the world.. The politically powerful won’t feel threatened of losing both their nation and their place as long as the identity of that treasure is not revealed. But when such truths come to light, when His people begin to choose Him as their King, any opposing kings will declare war on the secessionists. After all, who would be in favor of cancelling debts every seven years when all of the money in the world, plus interest, is owed to the money changers? Certainly not the money changers. And the money changers are violent.
I’m betting that, out of this group of secessionists, you know, the let’s-come-out-of-Babylon bunch, the ones who believe Yahweh’s law should be the supreme law of the land, that two of them will develop the ability to turn waters into blood, stop the rain, and breathe fire upon anyone who might cause them hurt. This will go on long enough to let everyone know that it will be time to choose which (M,m)aster will be served.
My guess then is that after 3 ½ days of these two secessionists lying dead in the street, after 3 ½ years of their turning the world upside down, after 3 ½ millennia (70 Jubilees) since the Exodus, that the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
David, you are correct in your statement that the politically powerful won’t feel threatened as long as Christians don’t make any effort to reveal the Truth. I think that Truth is being revealed, however, and one very good sign of that is that the politically powerful are turning their big guns on the Church.
Jesus said that “the servant is not greater than the master” and it is virtually certain that we (modern day America) is going to go through some very painful, convulsive times. Out of these, I believe a radically changed Church will emerge, far more consistent with the Truth as found in the Holy Bible than the one we see today.
See also my reply to Ted above. Thanks for your response to my questions.
That is correct, Ted. Our English word “elect” does come from the Latin. (If you recall, I mentioned that when I demonstrated why you were wrong to suggest that using the word “select” would be significantly different from using the word “elect.”) However, the Greek words “ἐκ” and “λέγω” which are the two roots that combine to form the words translated as either “elect” or “choose” in English and the Latin words “ex” and “lego” which combine to form the predecessor to our English “elect” all come from the same Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language. The words “ἐκ” and “ex” are both derived from the PIE root “*eḱs,” and the words “λέγω” and “lego” both come the PIE root “*leǵ-.” This is one reason why it is acceptable to translate the Greek word “ἐκλεκτός” and all of its derivatives into the various English forms of the word “elect.”
Having established this, let me say that you do have a valid point in your claim that this passage does not describe the exact process in which this election was made. However, you should note that in every case in which I compared the elections in the Bible with the elections described in the Constitution, I never once focused on the process of the election but rather on the identity of the electors. Throughout this discussion you have repeatedly claimed that you can identify the process by which the elections in the Bible were carried out and that this process proves that my statements are false. I have taken the time to indulge your claim, and I have demonstrated that you are simply reading your preference for casting lots into passages such as Acts 6:5. You have not presented a single reason why casting lots would have been used instead of any number of other methods that could have been utilized. Nevertheless, your claim to have identified the process by which the election was carried out does not even address the statements which I have made about elections. The position which I have consistently presented is that the Bible describes elections in which the people were identified as the electors who chose their own rulers.
This idea that the people chose their own rulers is the idea to which you originally objected when you made comments such as “Elections … are in fact completely unbiblical.” As we have progressed through the discussion, you seem to have abandoned this position and to have taken the new position that the elections in the Bible were carried out by a different process than that which was mentioned in the Constitution. I am more than willing to discuss the process by which the elections in the Bible were conducted, but I would like to verify whether you now agree with my original statement. Do you now recognize that there are passages in Scripture which describe elections in which the people chose — by some process or another — the individuals which would lead them in various capacities?
Bill, once again, thank you participating in this discussion. However, as Roger pointed out, I think “we’re going around the same tree again.” Your intention appears to be to employ Webster’s definition to catch me in some inconsistency. As I’ve tried to explain, in my opinion, this is merely more “straining at gnats” on your part to avoid what is central to this discussion: that is, regardless what terms or what definitions or even what process we believe was used in any particular instance, the question at hand is “Are CONSTITUTIONAL elections Biblical?” Until you answer this question, to discuss the Biblical process of Yahweh’s election process is premature.
My statement that elections are unbiblical is referring to man’s choice, selection, or election of other men OUTSIDE BIBLICAL PARAMETERS (such as has been the case here in America since the inception of the Constitution). Instead of recognizing (or admitting) that this is my intent (which everyone else seems to understand), you’ve attempted to reduce this to a discussion of definitions. Sorry, I’m not going there.
I do look forward to your answer to Roger, however.
Please take a moment and think about what you just said, Ted. You said that we should answer the question “Are CONSTITUTIONAL elections Biblical?” before we discuss the biblical process of elections. This is the wrong sequence. In order to determine whether the elections prescribed by the constitution agree with the elections recorded in the Bible, we have to actually know what the Bible says about elections. To follow your sequence would be like saying that we have to answer the question “Is going to church on Sunday biblical?” before we discuss what the Bible says about going to church on Sunday. How can we possibly know whether going to church on Sunday is biblical if we do not study Bible first? And how can we know whether the elections in the Constitution are biblical without first studying what the Bible says about elections?
You have accused me of using Webster’s definitions to trap you with your own words, but I can assure you that this was never my intent. I gave you multiple opportunities to provide alternate definitions, and you refused to do so. Instead, you have consistently accused me of “straining at gnats” for daring to challenge your understanding of the terms being discussed. I entered this discussion with the assumption that you had at least a basic understanding of the definitions of the words that you were using. That this assumption has proven to be false is not my fault but yours. I have not trapped you with your own words; I have simply presented the truth and you have trapped yourself in your error.
Now, I find it very revealing that you did not answer my question, and unless you can provide an answer I am going to assume that your silence is indicative of a reluctant agreement. I would much rather rely on a direct answer, however, so let me ask the question again. Do you now recognize that there are passages in Scripture which describe elections in which the people chose — by some process or another — the individuals which would lead them in various capacities?
I will post my answer to Roger below his question.
I attempted to reply below Roger’s question, but disqus apparently does not want to allow that post to come through, so I’ll just repeat it here. To answer Roger’s question, let me say that I have never advocated voting for the lesser of two evils. In fact, during the last presidential campaign, I wrote over 30 pages of text and engaged in more than 50 pages of written debate advocating that Christians not vote for the lesser of two evils. You can read my articles on this topic at the following links:
http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-lesser-of-two-evils.html
http://www.increasinglearning.com/biblical-voting.html
http://www.increasinglearning.com/a-duty-to-principle.html
http://www.increasinglearning.com/pragmatism-or-principles.html
http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-real-mitt-romney.html
http://www.increasinglearning.com/voting-perspectives.html
Bill, thank you for your response.
I have spent some time reviewing your articles and am pleased to see what you have written. I was especially delighted to read that Christians should not allow the economy to be the deciding factor in their vote. This is good stuff.
[“Verse eight then presents us with what is probably the most significant guide we can have for this particular election. “Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right.” According to this verse, no Christian should ever base his vote on matters of economy when doing so would have a negative impact on the righteousness of our nation. We should vote for righteousness first, and let God worry about the economy. Our God owns the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Psalm 50:10) He can command rivers of water to flow out of a rock in the desert, (Psalm 114:7-8) and He can feed thousands with a single meal. (Mark 6:44) Surely if He asks us to be willing to suffer economic loss in order to cast a righteous vote, then we can trust Him to meet our needs in spite of that loss. “How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!”
http://www.increasinglearning.com/biblical-voting.html%5D
I believe all of us engaged in this conversation desire the same goal, but we have differing opinions as to the means of achieving that end. This is not necessarily wrong because none of us have a lock on the Truth. All of us can learn from each other. As the scripture say, “Iron sharpens iron” and sometimes the sparks fly.
I intend to go back and look at your articles again. I may use some of that, if I may, in my own writings (always with reference and links). If you wish, you can see the way I think at my blogs–
http://christianusa.us/gideonproject (active)
http://poorrogersalmanac.wordpress.com (retired, but still accesible)
You and Ted have some great ideas. Both of you are honest, forthright, and articulate in the way you promote them. I encourage each of you to continue, but be careful to keep the ultimate goal in sight and not get bogged down in the petty differences.
May the Spirit of the Lord be with you.
Thank you, Roger. You’re always level-headed and you help me to try to do the same.
Bill, I have not had the time to review your articles. However, I can say that I agree with all that Roger has written above.
Bill, the question at hand is not my definition of elections but whether YOU believe Constitutional elections are Biblical. Regardless, my definition for elections, you yourself know enough about what the Bible teaches and about constitutional elections to answer the question. So, what say ye: are they Biblical or non-Biblical?
Ted, I think it’s fairly obvious by now that I think that the elections prescribed in the Constitution are consistent with the teachings of God’s Word and that you disagree with that conclusion. I also think that your disagreement stems from a flawed understanding of both the elections in the Constitution and the elections in the Bible. You insisted that I focus on the Bible first, and I have complied by demonstrating several errors in your claim that “Elections … are in fact completely unbiblical.” If you would like, we can now shift the conversation to the elections prescribed by the Constitution. To do so, let me ask you to provide two or three quotes about elections from the Constitution along with an explanation of why you think that each of those statements is in violation of a particular passage in the Scriptures.
Bill, it’s for a combination of reasons that I do not believe constitutional elections are Biblical, which I provide in Chapter 5 “Article
2: Executive Usurpation” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.html and in my two-part audio series “Election: Man’s or Yahweh’s?” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T873 and T 874. I do not have the time to repeat that information here.
I would, instead, pose to you the following questions: Without Biblical qualifications, how can constitutional elections be Biblical? There is not even one Biblical qualification hinted at in the Constitution. (For example, those expressed in Deuteronomy 17:15?) How could there be when the framers banned Christian tests (and thereby Biblical qualifications) for federal officials?
In your response to Roger you stated you you have “never advocated voting for the lesser of two evils.” Since there has not been a Biblically
qualified candidate in our lifetime, should I conclude from this that you have not participated in any elections and have advised your audience not to either? If not, how can you claim that you do not endorse voting for the lesser of two evils?
In light of Deuteronomy 17:15, as just one example, do you know of any candidate who ran his campaign promising, if elected, to write out his own copy of Yahweh’s law, read it daily, obey it, and implement it? I sure
don’t. In fact, I don’t know of one candidate in the entire 225 years of
constitutional elections who has done so? Hmm! I wonder why that is? Being that you claim constitutional elections are Biblical, perhaps you could explain how this could be.
Thank you, Ted. Your response provides an excellent demonstration of some of the flaws in your position. Let’s start with chapter 5 of your book. In the segment of that chapter dealing with elections, you did not list a single passage of Scripture which is violated by the elections prescribed in the Constitution. Instead, you argued from silence by claiming that “The Bible offers no record of Yahweh ever using a majority vote to establish His government.” I have already demonstrated that this claim is false by presenting multiple instances of the use of majority vote in the Bible, but let’s take a moment to review the evidence once more.
As I mentioned previously, Deuteronomy 5:23-27 describes the election of Moses to represent the Children of Israel before the Lord. When I presented this fact, you claimed that this passage was just “an acknowledgment by the people of YAHWEH’s election of Moses.” I then explained that “The very reason that the people chose Moses was that God had been speaking with the entire congregation, and they became afraid. Moses even tried to encourage them to continue listening to God directly, but they insisted that he go to God as their representative.” An astute observer would notice that I did not include any citations of Scripture in this explanation, and I must confess that I intentionally refrained from including such citations. My goal was to test your knowledge of this event in Scripture, and you demonstrated your lack of that knowledge when you said, “I don’t know even know what to say about your statements regarding Deuteronomy 5. To me, they are such a stretch that I have a difficult time believing you would attempt to use this instance to prove your contentions regarding constitutional elections.” If you had actually studied this issue as thoroughly as you claim, then you should have immediately recognized that my explanation of Deuteronomy 5:23-27 was drawn from the parallel passage found in Exodus 20:18-21. In that passage, we read:
“And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.”
When these two passages are compared we find the very same sequence of events which I presented and which you found to be too much of a stretch for your comprehension. Here are my statements along with the verse references:
1) The very reason that the people chose Moses was that God had been speaking with the entire congregation. (Exodus 20:18; Deuteronomy 5:22-23)
2) They became afraid. (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:25-26)
3) Moses tried to encourage them to continue listening to God directly. (Exodus 20:20)
4) They insisted that he go to God as their representative. (Deuteronomy 5:27)
This biblical sequence reveals to us that God gave Israel the opportunity to receive His Law directly without any intermediary, and that it was only after they elected Moses to represent them that the Lord submitted to their request and gave the Law through Moses rather than to the people directly. This establishes the fact that Moses was chosen by a unanimous vote to be the nation’s legal representative.
Now, immediately preceding this election of Moses, we find that God told the elders of Israel that He would give them a covenant to keep and that, if they kept that covenant, He would bless them. It was only after they gave unanimous consent to be bound by that covenant that God came and delivered the Law first to the people directly and then through Moses as an elected representative. This first agreement of the people to be bound by their covenant with God is recorded in Exodus 19:1-8.
After God delivered all of the terms of the covenant to Moses, Moses told all the people what the Lord had said, and all the people again gave unanimous assent to the terms of the covenant. (Exodus 24:3) Then Moses committed the entire covenant to writing and read what he had written before all the people, and they once again gave unanimous consent to the terms of the covenant. (Exodus 24:4-7) This was repeated by Joshua after the Israelites had conquered the land of Canaan, and the people again gave unanimous consent to their covenant with God. (Joshua 24) I presented these facts to you, and you responded by saying that “election and consent are not the same thing. God does not leave obedience up to a popular vote, majority or otherwise.”
At the time that you wrote this, we had not yet established the validity of the dictionary definition of the word “elect,” and I shifted the focus of the conversation more toward that end. Now that we have established that definition, however, it is obvious that this term applies to the decision of the people to accept the covenant of the Lord. It is very clear in Joshua 24:22 that the decision to submit to the terms of the covenant was, in fact, left up to the choice of the people. They were given a choice, and they chose to serve the Lord. This act of choosing to serve the Lord fits the established definition of an election.
To further demonstrate the validity of the popular vote, let me point out that this covenant is widely recognized to have been written in the form of a suzerainty treaty. These treaties were common in that region during the time of the exodus, and they consisted of agreements between a greater king and a lesser king in which the lesser king would agree to serve the greater. This means that the covenant recorded in Exodus 20-24 is a recognized treaty of submission between two sovereigns. Of course, the identity of the greater sovereign in this treaty is immediately recognized as God, but who is the lesser sovereign? The lesser sovereign can only be the one who agreed to submit to the greater, and in Exodus 24:3-7, we find that the lesser sovereign in this treaty was the audience of the people who “answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.” Thus, this passage not only establishes the presence of popular elections in the Bible but also the validity of recognizing the sovereignty of “we the people.”
This recognition of the sovereignty of the people leads naturally to the consideration of Deuteronomy 1:13-15 which I have already demonstrated to be similar in format to the election of deacons in Acts 6. You claimed that these could not be descriptions of elections because they may have cast lots to reach their decision, and you said that the task of the people is only “to find the man or men YAHWEH has chosen.” I have provided ample evidence to prove that the statements in Acts 6 and Deuteronomy 1:13-15 do, in fact, describe elections by the people, and such elections follow naturally from God’s recognition of the sovereignty of the audience of the people.
You seem to have been forced into a reluctant agreement with me on this point, for in your past several comments, you have abandoned your insistence that elections themselves are unbiblical and have argued instead that the elections in the Constitution do not share the same qualification requirements as the elections to similar offices that are described in the Bible. It is important to note, however, that the qualification requirements have nothing to do with the nature of the elections themselves. All they do is narrow the field of candidates from which the election is to take place. Nonetheless, I would like to address the two qualifications that you specifically mentioned.
The second of these qualifications is the easiest to dismiss, for the Scripture does not say that the king of Israel must promise before he is made king to write out a copy of the Law and to read it daily. This is a requirement that was placed upon him after his ascension to the throne. It was not a qualification requirement.
The other qualification that you listed is actually a negative one. The Constitution states that no candidate for a federal office can be required to pass a religious test in order to run for that office. You have objected to this requirement by claiming that this prevents the Constitution from instituting any of the biblical qualifications for office. I find it very interesting that you would make this objection when item number 31 in my list states that the Constitution implements the same requirement of natural born citizenship for Presidential candidates that the Bible required for kings. If the forbidding of religious tests really prevented the Constitution from implementing biblical requirements, then the Constitution would not require the President to be a natural born citizen. Additionally, it was Benjamin Franklin’s reference to the scriptural qualification that the elders of Israel not be men given to covetousness which ended the debate in the Constitutional convention over whether to require representatives to maintain a certain level of wealth in order to be eligible for office. Clearly, the religious test clause in the Constitution is not a prohibition against biblical qualifications.
To understand the true purpose of this clause, we must hearken back to the Corporation Act of 1661. This was the first of three Test Acts which were implemented in England and which remained in effect until 1828. Under these acts, no one could hold office in England unless he swore an oath of fealty not to God but rather to the doctrines of the Church of England. This was the kind of religious test which the founders prohibited. They had no objection to biblical qualifications. What they objected to was the requirement that all government officials be forced to swear allegiance to the codified doctrines of an established church.
The wisdom of this objection can be illustrated by your own statements. According to your book Baptism by the Scriptures, you believe that baptism by a particular method is necessary for salvation, but there are many individuals in America who claim to be Christians and yet have not been baptized according to the method that you proclaim to be necessary. In your view, therefore, these individuals are not Christians regardless of what they may believe. I am fairly certain that you would also claim that it is impossible for non-Christians to fulfill the statement in II Samuel 23:3 that anyone who rules over men must rule in the fear of God. Therefore, it would seem from your writings that you would want to implement a religious test that would prevent these people from holding office. To do this it would be necessary that you implement a test requiring those who hold office in the government to swear fealty not just to God but also to your particular view of baptism. There are many people in America that would thus be disqualified from holding office not because they were atheists or Muslims or Hindus but solely because they dare to disagree with you on a particular point of Christian doctrine. Do you see how such a stipulation could be used to oppress anyone who disagrees with you? Since it is only those who agree with you who would be permitted to hold office, there would be very little incentive to prevent your followers from enacting heavy taxes or some other burden on those who hold to a different opinion, and it would not be long before your ideal government would look just like the governments of Europe that persecuted our forefathers and forced them into exile. The best way to prevent such persecution is to eliminate the religious test requirements.
Perhaps you would argue that you would not require those holding office to agree with you on the issue of baptism but would only stipulate that they swear a particular oath of fealty to God. You would, of course, stipulate that this oath be one that “necessitates that only those who fear, serve, and cling to Yahweh are qualified to hold leadership positions in Yahweh’s government.” As you are well aware, this same argument was put forth during the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, and I think that the answer given by Mr. Parsons in the Massachusetts debates is very apropos to this discussion. Here is what Mr. Parsons said:
“It has been objected that the Constitution provides no religious test oath, and we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists and pagans. No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security. An oath will not do it. Will an unprincipled man be entangled by an oath? Will an atheist or a pagan dread the vengeance of the Christian’s God, a being, in his opinion, the creature of fancy and credulity? It is a solecism in expression. No man is so illiberal as to wish the confining places of honor or profit to any one sect or Christians; but what security is it to government, that every public officer shall swear that he is a Christian? For what will then be called Christianity? One man will declare that the Christian religion is only an illumination of natural religion, and that he is a Christian; another Christian will assert that all men must be happy hereafter in spite of themselves; a third Christian reverses the image, and declares that, let a man do all he can, he will certainly be punished in another world; and, a fourth will tell us that, if a man use any force for the common defence, he violates every principle of Christianity.”
According to Mr. Parsons, a simple oath of fealty to God or to the Christian religion is insufficient to ensure that only Christians are qualified to hold offices in the government. To accomplish this, the oath must be to accept and uphold a particular view of Christianity, and even then, there is no guarantee that a group of atheists might lie about their beliefs in order to obtain positions of power and bring the people under their subjection. It is impossible to guarantee Christian leadership through the requirement of a simple oath of allegiance to God. In order for any religious test to be effective, it must be of sufficient specificity to eliminate all of those who do not agree with a particular view of Christian doctrine.
In addition to all of this, the most significant argument against the requirement of a religious test for holding office is the simple fact that none of the biblical passages on election contain such a requirement. Neither the king nor the elders nor the princes were required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Jewish religion as a prerequisite to their qualification for holding office.
Tragically, the only thing this proves is how hard you’ll work to protect your idol. Idols are never surrendered easily. Like the Ephesians in Acts 19 who cried out for two hours, “Great is Diana of Ephesians!,” most Americans have been crying out for over two centuries, “Great is the Constitution of the United States!” This idol and its proponents are especially tenacious.
Time permitting, I’ll come back and answer your post more specifically, at least that which isn’t merely a parrot of previous posts. Your last paragraph will be addressed in Part 7 of this series, which I find the most fantastic of your forty-eight claims. Your contention above that there was no prior requirement for Kings to follow Yahweh’s law is quite a doozie as well.
I’m glad that you are planning to respond again later. I would hate to think that calling me an idolater is the best response that you can make. Argumentum ad hominem would be such a cheesy way to end this discussion.
Not to worry, I do NOT intend to leave it here. My schedule is tighter right now than usual. Lord willing, I’ll get back to this the first opportunity I have. Be patient with me. Because of a health issue I’m dealing with presently, it could be two or three weeks. I have other projects that right now take priority. There are several issues here that need addressed; I may deal with it in a piecemeal fashion.
Mr. Fortenberry, I understand that you have a compelling interest in this topic,due to the intellectual and sweat equity thus far invested. However, you have shown repeatedly that you believe Yahweh and We the People to be one and the same. You continually point to Deuteronomy 1:13, which states: “Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.” Then you make the claim that this indicates they chose their own rulers, at the direction of Moses. If Yahweh tells Israel that HE “will make them rulers over you”, and you claim the people made them rulers over themselves, Yawheh and the people must be one and the same. Therefore, the serpent must have told the truth, when he said to Eve “and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
When you take the same passage, Deuteronomy 1:13, from the NASB, you will find “Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads.”
This CLEARLY shows that Yahweh, and He alone, APPOINTED those whom Israel had merely nominated. We don’t have to know the particulars of this nomination process, for Yahweh would have only allowed those He had already approved. When looking at the big picture, this is more proof of God’s law being in existence even in the garden, and still with us today under the grace of the New Covenant. The process in Deuteronomy 1:13 is an example of faith and works working together, for we know that “faith without works is dead.” Israel put their faith into action by nominating from among those whom Yahweh had already approved. His APPOINTMENT of them was a foregone conclusion, since He had already elected them.
I disagree somewhat with Mr. Weiland in this regard. When one is “straining at gnats”, one is still attending to the lesser matters of the law, although the weightier issues are ignored. As Roger Mitchell says, “details, details!” Be that as it may, for you to assert that Yahweh’s appointment is analogous to Israel as “elector”, is far beyond “straining at gnats”, and is a prime case of gerrymandering Scripture to fit the Constitution. If you can’t make a Biblical argument on this one point alone, your not “straining at gnats, but instead, straining at genetically engineered viruses that are to be found nowhere in nature, let alone in Holy Writ.
See my reply to Ted Weiland below.
There is one additional question that I’ve been wanting to ask, and I guess this is as good a time as any. You have often accused me of “straining at gnats,” and I assume that you are making that statement in reference to Matthew 23:24. The only problem is that I can’t quite figure out if you are attempting to condemn me or to praise me. You see Matthew 23:24 which says “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” follows Matthew 23:23 which states:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”
Now, it seems obvious to me that the gnat and the camel mentioned in verse 24 are a reference to the lesser and weightier matters of the law mentioned in verse 23. The only problem is that, at the end of verse 23, Jesus said that the Pharisees should not leave the lesser matters undone. This seems to indicate that their “straining at a gnat” was a good thing. (After all, who wants to go around swallowing a bunch of gnats?) Therefore, I am honored that you praise me for straining at gnats just as Christ commanded, but I am still curious. Did you really mean to accuse me of swallowing camels instead?
Bill, let me quote the first several paragraphs of my first article of this series, and I think it should be clear that I’m using the phrase “straining at gnats” not in a strict Biblical sense but as it is usually employed in today’s vernacular:
“When Christ accused the scribes and Pharisees of straining out gnats
and swallowing camels, He was reprimanding them for putting greater
emphasis upon the minor issues of Yahweh’s1 law to the exclusion of the weightier matters. This inversion was born from their emphasis upon outward obedience over inward motivation:
‘Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at [literally out] a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.’ (Matthew 23:23-26)
“Our relationship with Yahweh and His law must begin with our hearts,
by way of Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. Without a heart change (what Paul described to the Colossian
Christians as circumcision of the heart—Colossians 2:11-13) our
obedience becomes nothing more than a rote exercise, not that much
different from the scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s day.
“Constitutional Gnat Strainers: With this understood, allow me to borrow this phrase and apply it to what amounts to an exercise of futility employed by many Constitutionalists in their attempt to Christianize the Constitution. Christians so desperately want the framers to be “our” guys that they cherry pick the framers’ writings in order to present them as
Christians.”
That you would ask this question in the fashion you did would seem to regrettably infer that you have yet to recognize or admit your misuse of Scripture in your forty-eight points. I hope the day comes when you will repent of promoting what is a seditious document to Yahweh (which is responsible for putting America on the precipice upon which she presently teeters) and join others of us in seeking Yahweh’s righteousness and kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven.
Yes, those who strain at gnats do indeed swallow camels. You said, “In regards [sic] to Exodus 19:8, you [Ted] said that this was merely the nation’s acceptance of a marriage proposal from God. You then claimed that this could not be an example of an election because a bride does not vote on whether or not to accept a marriage proposal. Setting aside the fact that the words ‘bride,’ ‘groom’ and ‘marriage’ do not appear anywhere in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, let me point out that you seem to be ignorant of the definition of the word ‘vote.'” Instead of swallowing the camel that Yahweh traded his chosen people in for a bunch of heathens, I prefer to recognize the greatest love story NEVER told, rather than the greatest non-story continually told. Yahweh was a husband to Israel (Jeremiah 31: 32). He divorced her (Jeremiah 3: 8). He said He would remarry her (Hosea 2: 19). He did (2 Corinthians 11: 2).
Excellent point, David.
Bill, welcome back, and thank you for your contribution to this vital topic. I respectfully take exception with your remark that, “‘Deuteronomy 1:13 records Moses telling the children of Israel to ‘Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.’ I am not sure how you can see this as anything other than an election. Moses told the people to choose their own rulers, and they did so.'”
For starters, the parameters were already set by Yahweh. They were REQUIRED to be Biblically qualified, well known, and obedient to God’s law. You will find no such requirement for Constitutional qualification. And, more importantly, Yahweh said HE would make them rulers, NOT Israel. You are correct that this was an election, but with God, and God alone, being the elector. One could make the argument that the people were tasked to NOMINATE leaders who had already been pre-qualified by Yahweh, but we see His complete sovereignty in the process. You said: “Moses told the people to choose their own rulers, and they did so.” Yahweh said: “I will make them rulers over you.” Your comment contradicts your quote. Nowhere did Yahweh EVER sanction the election of those defiant to His perfect, immutable law. Nor did He ever abandon His throne. The only choice Israel was ever given, was to obey or disobey. The election belongs to Yahweh (God), and Him alone!
For me, the complete absence of any sort of Christian test for leadership in the Constitution is glaring proof of the intent of those men to dethrone Christ and enthrone ‘we the people’.
What a robust dialogue! Keep it up, fellows. And may Yahweh bless the eventual conclusions.