When you contrast what’s depicted above derived from Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty and what ultimately comes from substituting it with man’s own works, why would anyone choose the latter as depicted in Psalm 106?
Thus were they defiled with their own works [e.g. the Declaration of Independence], and went a whoring with their own inventions [e.g., the United States Constitution98]. Therefore was the wrath of Yahweh kindled against his people.... And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. (Psalm 106:39-42)
One only needs to open his eyes to where America finds herself today to know that what’s depicted in Psalm 106 is just applicable now as it was when it was penned.
The Declaration Speaks for Itself
Paragraph #2, Sentences 6-7
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Grievance #4
He [Britain’s King George III] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Legislative Bodies
Grievances #4 and #5 are, for the most part, continuations of Grievance #3. As such, they are as biblically seditious as is Grievance #3 for the same reason.
The problem with King George’s legislative bodies was not so much their location but rather their existence. They were seditious against Yahweh as the exclusive Lawgiver per Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12. In like manner, so was the constitutional framers’ creation of the Constitutional Republic’s legislative branch,99 following America’s secession from Great Britain.
Grievance #5
He [Britain’s King George III] has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
Representative Houses
The real outrage was not that the colonials had lost their representation in Britain’s government but that Britain’s government did not represent God and His law. Just as grievous was the colonials’ replication of Britain’s biblical sedition when they created a legislative branch99 representing the people rather than God. This is often aptly depicted as government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made traditions, contrasted with government of, by, and for God established upon His immutable/unchanging moral law.100
The former is continually hyped as the alleged epitome of good government by the bulk of today’s Christians and patriots. Why would Christians want anything to do with government representing the people and their wishes—the majority of whom are in the broad way leading to destruction, per Christ in Matthew 7:13?
That’s the kind of government that invariably ends up financing in utero infanticide, legalizing sodomite and lesbian “marriages,” and any other number of abominations concocted by mankind.
Rights of the People
Rather than being troubled over King George’s abuse of their alleged rights, the colonials should have been outraged at King George’s usurpation of Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty and legislative authority.
Imaginary human rights only produce whimsical castles in the sky whereas God’s exclusive legislative authority produces government that’s a continual blessing to the righteous and a perpetual terror to the wicked101 and, in turn, a righteous, peaceful, and prosperous society beyond our wildest dreams:
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded me.... Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)
The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of Yahweh are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)
See also Deuteronomy 28:1-14 and Romans 13:1-7.101
Grievance #6
He [Britain’s King George III] has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Human vs. Divine Elections
King George refused to acknowledge colonial elections. But that’s not the issue. Instead, both Britain’s election system and what was to become the Constitutional Republic’s election system were and are entirely unbiblical.102
Although there are differences between Britain’s and the United States’ election systems, both are equally unbiblical, as are all election systems that entitle humans with the authority to elect others to positions of civil leadership:
And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they [judges] ... which Yahweh shall choose shall shew thee.... Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose.... (Deuteronomy 17:10, 15)
As with the individual election of God’s chosen remnant, elections of civil leaders are also Yahweh’s exclusive domain—the only one who not only knows which biblically qualified candidate is best suited for the job and the times, but also the only one who knows the hearts of men, per 1 Samuel 16:7 and Acts 1:24.
God never intended man to elect anyone. The dangers of fickle finite men electing other fickle finite men, especially when biblically unqualified, should be self-evident.
Dumb and Dumber
One of the dumbest things the constitutional framers did was to usurp Yahweh’s one-vote election system whereby election “discretion” was turned over to the people, the majority of whom, according to Christ in Matthew 7:13, are in the broad way leading to destruction.
Where do you suppose the broad-way, destruction bunch are going to take America? Perhaps to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction, precisely where America finds herself following 230-plus years of popular elections (which, in fact, amount to nothing more than popularity contests)? With each and every election, regardless who’s been elected, America has only found herself further along on the suicidal trek that officially commenced in 1787.
Add to this Article 6’s Christian test ban103 whereby mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated, leaving America with nothing but biblically unqualified men and women, the best of whom are like a briar and the most upright like a thorn hedge, per Micah 7:4. Talk about a perfect recipe for disaster.
You only need to look at what America has today for civil rulers to discern what an insane idea it was for the framers to usurp God’s exclusive election authority, compounded by eliminating the Bible’s mandatory qualifications for civil leaders.103 And yet every two and four years, alleged Christians and patriots clamor for their constitutional right to elect another nincompoop, scoundrel, and/or criminal to rule over them.
Helen Keller succinctly depicted this as a choice between Twiddledee and Twiddledumb:
We vote, what does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.104
Otherwise known as the lesser of two evils, at best. Often, under such an election system, it’s the worst of two evils, and always the evil of two lessers.
Under the Bible’s One-God, One-Vote election system,105 it’s the best of the best of two or more biblically qualified candidates every single time.
One-Vote Election System
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose.... (Deuteronomy 17:15)
The Bible’s One-God, One-Vote election system is quite simple, provided we have the faith to follow through with it:
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh. (Proverbs 16:33)
The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. (Proverbs 18:18)
We see Deuteronomy 17:15 and these Proverbs in operation when the remaining eleven Apostles desired to determine Yahweh’s replacement for Judas:
...Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said,... Men and brethren, .... it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate ... and his bishoprick [office, NASB] let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed [NASB put forward, i.e., nominated] two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.... And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)
The Apostles were responsible for nominating biblically qualified candidates. Yahweh was responsible for electing His choice between the two, determined by throwing lots.105
The American colonials should not have been distraught that they were being excluded from Britain’s elections, but rather outraged that the British had usurped Yahweh’s exclusive election authority and had thereby turned their elections over to the “discretion” of fickle finite men.
Regrettably that was not the case, and the colonials instead simply replicated what was essentially the same usurpation in their Constitution’s Article 2.106
This would have never occurred had the Declaration’s signatories and Constitution’s framers been less interested in a declaration of independence from Great Britain and more interested in a declaration of liberty under Yahweh, as can only be accomplished as a society via the Bible’s perfect law of liberty.
Source Notes
98. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
Also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism,” beginning at bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T742.
99. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt4.html
100. For more regarding these two polar opposite forms of government, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective at
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html
101. The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government,
bibleversusconstitution.org/Romans13/Romans13-contents.html
102. “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table,’” constitutionmythbusters.org/constitutional-elections-dining-at-the-devils-table/
Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.html
103. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html
104. Helen Keller, Ellen Bilofsky, ed., “Letter to Mrs. Grindon, January 12, 1911 published in the Manchester Advertiser, March 3, 1911,” To Love This Life: Quotations by Helen Keller (New York, NY: AFB Press, 2000) p. 79
105. For more on how the Bible’s One-God, One-Vote election system operates, see “Salvation by Election” at
constitutionmythbusters.org/salvation-by-election/.
106. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt5.html
