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. The secularists do the same in order to present them as Deists.
The framers were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Instead, they were theistic rationalists. Dr. Gregg Frazer demonstrates this in his balanced assessment of their writings. See his book The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution.2 For an abbreviated presentation of the key framers’ and founders’ religious beliefs, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer.3
Because Christians want the Constitution to be “our” document, they “strain at gnats” and “swallow camels” to avoid having to condemn the entire document as seditious against Yahweh. What I mean by straining at gnats is the attempt to force Christianity into certain aspects of the Constitution—particularly the phrases “Sundays excepted” in Article 1 and “in the year of our Lord” in Article 7.
Sundays Excepted
That Sundays are an exception in the Constitution’s legislative ratification process does not prove the Constitution is a Christian document. It merely recognizes that presidents were not likely to do business as usual on Sundays because the nation predominately refrained from business on Sundays. Sundays were exempted in the ten-day count to provide presidents (regardless their religious persuasion) a full ten days to consider any bill put before them:
Some have found the “Sundays excepted” phrase … to be evidence that the framers intended to have a Christian constitution. That may, indeed, be the case. If that were the purpose, however, it seems strange that they did not include a more overt and clear statement to that effect. The burden of proof would seem to rest on those ascribing such significant meaning and purpose to such a mundane phrase. It would have been much simpler and certainly much clearer to simply acknowledge Jesus Christ and their intent to design a government on the basis of his principles…. There was no discussion of the phrase at the Constitutional Convention and no discussion of it in the state ratifying conventions. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that it was intended to make a statement in support of the creation of a Christian constitution or nation.4
Year of Our Lord
As for the phrase “in the year of our Lord” (which dated the signatures of the thirty-nine state delegates and the Convention secretary), consider how much Archie Jones read into this phrase:
…the plain implications of the reference [“in the year of our Lord”] are …: The Bible is true. Christ is the Savior. Christ, risen from the grave, ascended into heaven, and seated at the right hand of God the Father, is also the Lord, the sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. The people of these United States are under the authority of Christ, whom they collectively acknowledge to be Lord. They have a special, covenantal relationship with Him, and that relationship, premised on His providential intervention in and rule of history, involves His blessings on the nation which has faith in Him and keep His commandments, and curses on the nation which collectively turns from faith in Him and so violates His holy laws. Hence, the nation must look to Him, and it and its civil governments must obey His laws.5
Moreover, since Christ’s lordship is recognized in the Constitution, the American nation has a covenantal relationship to him. This covenantal relationship recognizes his lordship, his providential rule over history, his providential relationship to the American civil government and people.6
If what Jones claims is true, certainly somewhere in the Constitutional Convention minutes, the copious Federalists Papers, or the constitutional framers’ personal correspondence, one of them would have remarked that this was their intent.
Nothing Christian can be proven by the use of the term “in the year of our Lord” anymore than the declaration “God bless America” proves a politician’s Christianity. The only thing we know unequivocally about the use of “in the year of our Lord” is that it was a means of dating.
Such Flimsy “Evidence”
During the ratification debates, Christians who were opposed to the Constitution because it failed to mention God and Christianity were not reassured by the phrase “in the year of our Lord.” In fact, the opposition knew better than to attempt to persuade them with such flimsy evidence.
Even if each and every one of the signatories had agreed with Jones, their rejection and replacement of Yahweh’s laws with their own traditions eradicated any Christian implications. The phrase “in the year of our Lord” does not make the Constitution a Christian document, nor does it exonerate the framers of the sedition and treason against Yahweh found throughout the document. What proves the Constitution is not a Christian but a secular, humanistic contract are its “laws,” not its terminology.
The test of lordship is not found in mere words, but instead in doing the will (the law – Psalm 40:8) of the Heavenly Father and fulfilling the words of His Son:
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 [anomian, lawlessness]. (Matthew 7:21-23)
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luke 6:46-49)
Would Jones accept “in the year of our Lord” as a genuine profession of Christian faith from someone wanting to place membership in the church he attends? The previous passages demonstrate that such simple declarations, by themselves, mean nothing to Yahweh. Even if the framers intended this statement as an acknowledgment of the God of the Bible, Jesus declared that if their works proved otherwise, He would still reject them.
Christians are straining at gnats and grasping at straws when they claim the statements “Sundays excepted” and “in the year of our Lord” make this otherwise unchristian document Christian. That this is the best Christian Constitutionalists can come up with only further proves that the Constitution is, in fact, not Christian.
Lord willing, I will address “swallowing camels” in the next article.
Related posts:
5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue
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. I take exception to Dr. Frazer’s interpretation of Romans 13:1-4. For an alternative analysis see my commentary Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7.
3. Dr. Albert Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Gregg Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.
4. Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2012) pp. 225-26.
5. Archie P. Jones, The Influence of Historic Christianity on Early America (Vallecito, CA: 1998) p. 66.
6. Archie P. Jones, “The Myth of Political Polytheism: A Review by Archie P. Jones,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1996) p. 280.
Straightforward and to the point as usual Ted! The only addition I would make is that the Framers (a lot could be said with tongue in cheek about that appellation) is that they did not open their sessions with prayer.
Most people have never been told the rest of the story (as Paul Harvey would say) regarding Benjamin Franklin’s proposal:
“Although it is true that four or five weeks into the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed “prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing upon our deliberations, be held in this assembly,” (Benjamin Franklin, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm.) his proposal did not even merit a vote. (Robert Yates, “Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 197-98.)
Franklin wrote, “The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” (Benjamin Franklin, quoted in William Templeton Franklin, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (London, UK: Henry Colburn, 1818, 3rd ed.) p. 195.) This alone is an abomination to Yahweh:
“…I will cut off … them that are turned back from YHWH; and those that have not sought YHWH, nor inquired for him.” (Zephaniah 1:4-6)
It is an “expert” move on the part of Christians to try and capitalize on such phrases in Baal worshiper’s sermon on the mount called the United States Constitution:
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”
Thanks! Great insight.
I can’t help but perceive Christians ‘looking away unto’ man-made institutions, whether ‘governments’ or ‘constitutions’ or ‘money’ or ‘church’, etc., as a form of idolatry. They are like those idolatrous Israelites, YHWH revealed to Ezekiel, who had turned their backs to the temple to worship the sun. The hope and expectation that the constitution is somehow ‘the power of God unto salvation’ to Americans, proves where their faith is, and instead of ‘looking away unto Jesus’, they have their backs to Him. It is evidence that such Christians are more flesh-bound than Spirit-led, and gazing upon man-made substitutes only feeds the flesh while the spirit starves. What Christ seeks from HIS PEOPLE now is REPENTANCE, and we cannot REPENT without facing HIM.
Lou, thanks for joining the discussion. I couldn’t agree with you more. The Constitution is our national idol and, tragically, “conservative” Christians (see “Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?”) are it’s greatest proponents. However, praise Yahweh, He has allowed us to ambassador on His and His kingdom’s behalf at a time when more and more are awakening to their double-minded apostasy. It is my opinion that we live at what may very well be the beginning of the most important paradigm shift in American history, with the possible exception of the early 1600s. God bless you in your efforts to awaken more of the remnant!
When Christians in the united States refer to the constitution as ‘…the supreme law of the land…’ it’s a blatant usurpation of the authority of The Law of God. The familiarity of that often repeated phrase makes us dull to the realization that by saying such a thing, we AS A NATION are willingly placing man’s will ahead of God’s authority and the results are increasingly horrible. Rebellion against God will never go unpunished.
Thank you for your Biblical insight into today’s world.
>Ray
Thank you Ray for your Biblical insights, as well! Following is some more on this same issue:
“…The framers were fully cognizant of the word ‘supreme’ and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.
‘Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matthew 15:6-9)
“The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.
Regardless what Article 6 claims, Yahweh’s law reigns above all other so-called laws, including the Constitution. This was evident when John the Baptist told Herod Antipas, ‘It is not lawful [according to Leviticus 18:16] for you to have her [Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip]’ (Matthew 14:4). John placed the Roman Tetrarch, and the entire Roman government, under Yahweh’s law.
“Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add ‘under God’ or ‘under the Bible’ to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.
“If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an
idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry….”
For more, see “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.
Ray, you’ve spoken some plain truth, there. Rushdoony often spoke of idolatry being defined as (to paraphrase) “men putting their ultimate trust, or acknowledging as their ultimate priority” anything other than the Lord God Almighty. When we, as you point out, look to something like the constitution as our “supreme law” or, to borrow the phrase “supreme rule of faith and practise”, it is obvious that we are guilty of idolatry and whoredom against our Lord. God’s Law, whether people choose to acknowledge it or not, IS the Supreme and only legitimate Law.
John, good to hear from you again. I hope you’ve been well. Thanks for your input.
Thanks Ted for being aggressive on this topic. Most evangelicals have never once thought about the Constitution in this fashion. The idea that our nation is generally idolatrous in respect to the central government needs to be proclaimed unashamedly in the churches. Don Schanzenbach
Ted, great article!
You are absolutely correct when you say that “Christians are…grasping at straws.” The analogy, of course, is to a drowning person who will grab anything, no matter how small or flimsy, to keep his head above water. Unfortunately, in America, society is drowning in a sea of apostate regulation, legislation, and bondage. Trying to stay afloat, let alone swim to the shore, is becoming increasingly difficult.
Acts 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. How clear this is, but yet many live blind and content in that blindness!! Mr.Weiland thank you for your dedication and your desire to lift the blinders off and expose the well needed truth!
Amen and, of course, you’re welcome.
I am going to say you are the first person who has spoken the truth and you are a very smart man, to bad the other people cannot get past the politics to see what is really happening
Lana, thank you. But, I’m certainly not the first nor the last. Yahweh always has had a faithful remnant and has begun a movement among them fin our time for the sake of a future generation of our posterity toward implementing His authority, kingdom, and law here on earth as it is in heaven. Praise Yahweh!