Declaration of Independence – Thinking Accurately Education

“A Republic, if you care to keep it.”

The Bible, Christianity & American Government, Chapter 9

Make us a king to judge us like all the (other) nations.”
1 Samuel 8:5

There’s a famous quote making it’s way around the Internet, about Benjamin Franklin being asked what kind of government the United States was founded to be. It is said that he replied:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Our founding fathers knew that the history of republics was not good, and that they often tended to end in tyranny.

For example, the once very successful Dutch Republic, formed in 1588, had declined and decayed until it had all but disintegrated by the time of the American founding. And in their own history, their ancestors had formed a republic named the English Commonwealth, in 1649, but it had only lasted for 11 years, until 1660.

But the primary example that the founding fathers looked to – which had been the model for all later republics – was the Roman Republic, which lasted 482 years, but it ended tragically in 60 years of civil wars and the rise of the dictator, Julius Caesar.

Why do republics fail?

In pondering this question, I was drawn back once again to a study of the world’s very first tyrant, Nimrod (first referenced in Genesis 10:8).

“Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth.” (the Hebrew word used here is “gibôr“).
Genesis 10:8

Gibor = "strong, mighty, impetuous" (Genesius' Hebrew Lexicon)

Impetuous = "acting or done quickly and without thought or care," (Bing) marked by impulsive vehemence or passion (or) by force and violence.." (Merriam-Webster)

God had commanded mankind to spread out and take dominion over the earth, but instead the people congregated together in a city and started dominating each other, and Nimrod was the worst of them.

So, why do people follow tyrants?

An article in Psychology Today claims that people hunger for “strong parental figures,” and that they are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives, preferring instead to stay on the sidelines, and “let someone else run the show,” even though the people they follow are often “narcissistic,” “calculating,” and “cruel.”

Do you think that is true? That people are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives, and that they would rather follow the directions of someone else, even if they have demonstrated themselves to be narcissistic and cruel?

That’s exactly what the Bible says that the ancient people of Israel did, although they were warned against it.

“‘This is how a king will reign over you,’ Samuel said… ‘He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage… He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves…'”
1 Samuel 8:11-18

When told that George Washington had turned down an offer to become America’s first king, King George III of England said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

But the people who rule our country today have little resemblance to George Washington.

The Psychology Today article goes on to say this about tyrants:

“They tend to have a blend of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder traits such as a lack of empathy, grandiosity, thirst for power and control, lying and deceit, indifference to conventional laws or rules or morality, and more.”
Psychology Today, February 2, 2017

It remind us of a warning by one of the Founding Fathers, James Wilson of Pennsylvania:

“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it… And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre- eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers.”
James Wilson, Constitutional Convention of 1787

In Chapter 3 of our book, we talked about God’s plan for self-government, and the wise advice for doing so from Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, and William Penn.

Back in the 1970’s and 80’s there was an old album cover that was pretty popular.

The artwork on the cover of the album depicts the scene where Haman, the Prime Minister of the Persian Empire is passing by, and everyone is bowing down to him – everyone but one man named Mordecai, and Haman tried to have him killed.

Some years earlier, another man named Daniel, had to disobey the king of his day, and his political enemies tried to have him killed.

And when that same king went to throw them into a fiery furnace, Daniel’s three friends replied:

“If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, Daniel 3:17-18

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, once said:

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”

And in our third chapter, we quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

What is venality?

venality = "openness to bribery or corruption" (dictionary.com)

One thing that Mordecai, Daniel, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego definitely had in common is that they were not open to corruption. They were incorruptible, in the same way that George Washington was incorruptible. If we want to be able to stand against tyranny, and against manipulation – even when your government is telling you otherwise, we have to take responsibility for our own lives.

Second Chronicles 7:14 says:

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

God is ready to heal our land. Are we ready to do our part?

History is the Life-Blood of a Free People

The Bible, Christianity & American Government, Chapter 7

The book of Exodus opens this way:

“The children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.”
Exodus 1:7

400 years earlier, Joseph had saved Egypt from destruction during the seven years of famine.

But, during those 400 years:

“There arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”
Exodus 1:8

It is never a good idea to forget your history.

England had experienced a religious reformation and had grown to be a world power under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I.

But everything changed in 1603, when the King of Scotland also became – for the first time – the King of Great Britain (and thus the King of England). He didn’t know much about English history (such as King John and Magna Charta). He didn’t know much about the Rights of Englishmen, nor did he care.

When people (like the group we know as the “Pilgrims”) chose to separate from the Church of England, King James had some unkind words for them.

“I shall make them conform or I will harry them out of the land or else do worse”
King James I (1603-1625)

And that is exactly what he did.

“For some were clapped into prison, others had their houses beset and watched, night and day, and hardly escaped their hands. And most were feign to flee and leave their houses and habitations and their means of livelihood.”
William Bradford, Of Plimouth Plantation, 1630

You see, King James believed in something called “the Divine Right of Kings,” and that his power as the King over England was absolute (meaning that it could not be questioned).

One website says:

“James’s great failure as an English king stemmed from his inability at first to perceive wherein the English assembly differed from the Scottish Parliament, and from his unwillingness to accept the differences when at last he became aware of them.”

In fact though, the problems didn’t end with James I. They went on for many years, with struggles between various kings and Parliament, until the English Bill of Rights was signed into law in 1689. But that only came after the King at that time (James II) fled the country, which became known as The Bloodless Revolution!

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wasn’t writing it from within the bubble of the current events of his time. He was writing it from within the context of the hundreds of years of history since King James and the Pilgrims. And not only that, he was writing it from within the context of the ancient rights of his ancestors going all the way back through history to Magna Charta.

That is the our heritage as American citizens, and we would do well to remember it.

The Bible, Christianity & American Government

Chapter 4: God’s Plan for Self-Government, Then and Now

“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel…” (Benjamin Franklin)

In the last chapter, we talked about Noah, and Nimrod, and how the people got together to disobey God and build a centralized empire around their Tower of Babel.

Soon afterwards, God thwarted their ambitions and scattered the tribes, with the children of Japheth heading off toward the North, the children of Ham heading toward the South, and the children of Shem spreading out through the Middle East. Some people have even gone so far as to say that Noah himself–even before the Tower of Babel incident–headed East and founded ancient China.

The Book of Job–considered by many to be the oldest book of the Old Testament–seems to recall what had happened to Nimrod’s ancient empire:

“He (God) leads princes away plundered, and overthrows the mighty. He deprives the trusted ones of speech, and takes away the discernment of the elders… He takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless wilderness. They grope in the dark without light, and He makes them stagger like a drunken man.”
Job 12:19-20, 24-25

The point here is that man–us, we–no matter how smart we get, no matter how advanced we become–can never be smarter, or more powerful than God, and thankfully, He is good, and kind, and wants the best for us.

A case in point may be observed in the Book of Jonah.

The people of Nineveh (in the Neo-Assyrian Empire) had become cruel and ruthless, and were threatening the nation of Israel. So, God was not happy with them. So what did He do? Did He send down fire from heaven to consume them? No, instead, He sent a prophet–Jonah–to warn them. And this is what God said to Jonah about the city of Nineveh–which (coincidentally) had been part of Nimrod’s ancient empire:

“…Should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”
Jonah 4:11

Benjamin Franklin once said:

“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel…”
Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 1787

But some people today are no longer impressed with the ideas of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or Plato and Aristotle:

“In a certain sense, then, today’s preschoolers are smarter than the greatest thinkers of the ancient world.”
Steve Stewart-Williams Ph.D., evolutionary psychologist and cultural evolutionist

This is the kind of thinking that leads people to say things like this:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Barack Obama, campaign visit to Columbia, MO

Back in ancient times, God chose Noah to build the ark and save the human race, but only a couple of generations later, it is Noah’s grandson Nimrod–not Noah–who built the first empire and set himself up to lead it. Benjamin Franklin would have called that laboring in vain–in vanity–in the idea that Nimrod was smarter-better– than the people around him.

Elitism is defined as “the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite.” (Bing)

Why is elitism so prevalent? One source says:

“Abraham Lincoln’s dream of governance ‘by, of, and for the people’ has mutated into a deathless trope, emanating from megaphones in the hands of charlatans, philistines and fools.”
DAVID MASCIOTRA, SALON, OCTOBER 25, 2015

So how do these “elite” come to power?

We put them there.

My favorite president was James A. Garfield. And he once said:

“Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
James A. Garfield, 20th President of the United States, 1877

If the people who are running any particular area of our culture–whether it’s government, or media, or higher education, or whatever— have values that are different than ours, we have a responsibility–a duty–to do something to rectify the situation. If we don’t, we are accepting it. We are, in fact, saying “This is the type of culture I deserve.”

Is it?

We are very fortunate to live in the greatest republic–the freest democracy–that has ever existed throughout the history of the world. And we do not have to see it fall into ruin.

Let me leave you with this quote from Richard Maybury (the writer of the wonderful “Uncle Eric” series of books):

“Perhaps more than anything else, (we) should assume humans have the ability to overcome their problems and move forward… One of the most noteworthy characteristics of America’s founders is that they were aware of their own world, and indeed (that) their own characters and personalities, were not the best that humans could do. They worried about slavery, poverty, and war, and wanted something better. More importantly, they knew enough law and economics to believe something better was possible and they were working toward this goal.
“They were not utopians. They realized a perfect society is not possible. But they knew we could do much better and they were trying to create the legal environment that would enable this to happen…
“The belief that a better tomorrow is possible is absolutely essential not only for the rescue of our country but for the mental well-being of the individual. Young people need it desperately. However, we need to visualize this better future…”
Richard J. Maybury, from “What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This?” 1994

Available on podcast and YouTube:

Also, see our book on Worldviews:

The Bible, Christianity & American Government

Chapter 3: God’s Plan for Self-Government

Genesis 3 details the historical account of the “fall” of Adam & Eve, and how they were turned out of paradise (the Garden of Eden). Adam became a farmer, and later, in Genesis 5:28-29, we see that Adam’s descendants, the children of his son Seth, even hundred of years later, were still farmers.

Each man was commanded (in Genesis 2:24) to “leave his father and mother” and “cleave to his wife.” These were new commands, added to the earlier ones (back in Genesis 1:28-29). So each family was to establish a new, independent household, just as people do today.

Think of “Little House on the Prairie” or the 1991 movie, “Sarah, Plain and Tall“–homesteads spread out from each other, several hours, or perhaps a day’s travel, but not totally isolated from each other. Though always honoring their parents, the new couple would no longer be subject to them.

subject = "Being under the power and dominion of another." (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

In taking on the responsibilities of managing this new, independent household, they became–for all intents and purposes–their parents’ equals. It became the man’s responsibility to provide for and build a home for his wife and their children. The wife was his companion and helpmate (see Genesis 2:18). The husband/father answered directly to God, and was directly responsible to Him for how he lived, how he treated his wife, and they were both responsible for how they raised their children.

They were to owe no man anything, and they were totally free to enjoy their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each family tilled their own land, tended their own field, garden, and orchard–though they were also free to pursue their individual gifts and talents. One man, who lived by a stream, might build and operate a mill. A person might choose to operate a loom, or a forge.

But if a miller, or weaver, or smith did not do the work he had promised to do, his customers had no government to go to for satisfaction. Business dealings were done by covenant, an agreement between the two parties that was considered to be enforced, when necessary, by God Himself.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that:

“Those who labor on the earth are the chosen people of God…whose breasts He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787, Notes on the State of Virginia

That well describes the culture of the early patriarchs. But it wasn’t easy to be a farmer. You had to get up early in the morning to begin a long day of work; and you had many responsibilities. If you don’t milk the cow, it will stop giving milk. If you don’t feed the chickens, they will stop laying eggs. If you don’t plant your crops, you will have no harvest. In short, if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

And if you’re a day’s travel from your neighbors’ house, you have to learn how to do a lot of things yourself. Think of that Mel Gibson movie from 1984, The River. If your roof leaks, you learn to mend it yourself. If your equipment needs repair, you learn to repair it yourself. In other words, you become self-reliant (see Proverbs 6:6-11).

Many of Seth’s descendants were the kind of people that Jefferson would later say possessed “substantial and genuine virtue”

Yet, at the same time, another culture also existed, the descendants of Adam’s other son Cain, which began with the building of the first city (Genesis 4:16-17). Contrast their lifestyle to Seth’s farming community. If your roof leaks, you call the landlord. If something needs to be repaired, you take it to the repairmen. If your tools need sharpening, you go the hardware store. If you need bread, you buy it at the bakery. In other words, you become dependent.

In his same Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787, Notes on the State of Virginia

And in the Bible, we find this:

“For I have seen violence and strife in the city. Day and night they go around on its walls; iniquity and trouble are also in the midst of it.”
Psalm 55:9

But Seth’s descendants looked at the glitter of urban life–the beautiful starlets and the famous personalities. And they traded away what they now saw as their simple, unsophisticated farms. But at what cost? They chose not to see the difference in the values of the culture they were becoming part of.

One of Cain’s descendants said this, admiring and wanting to imitate his famous ancestor:

“…I have killed a man for wounding me, even a young man for hurting me. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
Genesis 4:23-24

Even though Cain had murdered his own brother, his descendants still thought of him as a great man, and tried to follow in his footsteps. And Seth’s descendants closed their eyes to the violence and strife, and closed their ears to to the cries of the oppressed, even though they knew it was wrong. And when the Great Flood came, both cultures were destroyed, except for 8 people–the family of Noah. And after the flood, Noah went back to farming.

However, the people–Noah’s descendants–began again to build a city–known as Babel (see Genesis 11).

William Penn, a wise man, and the founder of the state of Pennsylvania once said:

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”
William Penn, 1668, “The Sandy Foundation Shaken“

And the Bible–in Genesis 10:8-12–tells us about the world’s first tyrant, Nimrod.

Why do you think the Bible tells us that Nimrod was a mighty hunter? What do you think that has to do with his rise to power?

In any case, he was what the King James version of the Bible calls a man of renown (see Genesis 6:4).

And the Bible quotes Jesus as saying something about men of renown:

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’”
Luke 22:25

Here’s a quote from John Locke, a famous English philosopher who is often called the “Father of Liberalism.”:

“A man may owe honor and respect to an ancient, or wise man…and gratitude to a benefactor…but all these give no authority, no right to any one, of making laws over him from who they are owing.”
John Locke, 1689, SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT

It sounds like Locke was agreeing with Jesus’ criticism of the great men of His time. And later, Alexis de Tocqueville, from whom we have quoted before, gave this warning to his friends in America:

“It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them…”
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1840, Democracy in America

despotism = "The exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel and oppressive way." (Bing)

Remember that de Tocqueville was a Frenchman, and he was writing in the 1800’s:

He went on to say:

“It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood… For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: What remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
“…Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and to often look on them as benefits.
“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1840, Democracy in America

The Bible says this:

“Wisdom is better than strength… Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard rather than the shout of a ruler of fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war…”
Ecclesiastes 9:16-18

And it says this:

“The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.”
James 3:17

What can we do to gain such wisdom? We can listen to the words of those who have gone before us, and learn from their experience. Maybe Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, and William Penn have something they can teach us–even us, in the 21st century.

Available on podcast and YouTube:

Also, see our book on Worldviews:

The 2020 Presidential Election

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Abraham Lincoln

It seems like something has been released upon America, and it reminds me of an old Star Trek episode.

The Bible (and an old song by Barry McGuire) says that there is a time for everything, including a time to keep silence, and a time to speak, as well as a time to hate, and a time of peace.

Regardless of one’s political views, it’s fair to say that it’s getting pretty ugly out there. And I think that one of the reasons this is happening is because people are confused.

For example, a lot of terms are thrown around by politicians and the media which we would do well to look at briefly:

Democrats = political party, started by Martin Van Buren, to support the candidacy of Andrew Jackson in 1828. In the 1850's, the part split over the issue of slavery, allowing Republican Abraham Lincoln to win the 1860 election. (History.com)

Republicans = political party, founded in 1854 to oppose the westward expansion of slavery in America. It's first presidential candidate was Abraham Lincoln. (History.com)

In his book, Are You Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?, Richard J. Maybury claims:

“Both (parties) tend to hover close to the center, which is where they perceive the bulk of the voters to be.”
Richard J. Maybury (“Uncle Eric”)

That was the way it was in the 1970’s (think Gerald Ford), but if you think back, American Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy could also be considered centrists or moderates.

Moderates (Centrists) = "One who is in the middle of the left-right spectrum...not to the extremes..." (Richard Maybury)

And even in the 1980’s, we had Conservatives and Liberals, like Ronald Reagan, “Teddy” Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. But it was still an era of compromise.

Modern Liberalism = "based, in general, on faith in progress and in the ability and goodness of man, and on the firm belief in the importance of the rights and welfare of the individual...Liberalism advocates steady change"  (Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd Ed.)

Conservative = "the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order...Conservatives value highly the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform." (Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd Ed.)

But nobody’s moderate now, and compromise has not happened in Washington D.C. since Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton produced The Contract for America (“one of the most significant developments in the political history of the United States“) in 1994.

Today, everyone–to quote Richard Maybury–is “to the extremes.”

But what would our Founding Fathers think of the nation that we’ve become? (For an excellent understanding of their point of view, I recommend, What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This? by Richard J. Maybury.)

The popular musical Hamilton does a pretty good job of trying to tell us about them (See our blog ). They were Classical Liberals.

Classic Liberalism = "One who believes that the country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights to his life, liberty, and property. Also, one who believes in Natural Law and common law, or Higher Law (think Thomas Jefferson)." (Richard Maybury)

But they were not radicals. Radicalism results in “widespread hysteria,” burning, and looting.

And it leads–in the end–to despotism, and the all-powerful State.

Statism = "The opposite of the original American philosophy (Classical Liberalism). Says political power is a good thing. Government is our friend, our protector, the solution to our problems, and there is no higher law than government's law." (Richard J Maybury)

There are many, many examples of this in history–in France, in Germany, in Russia, in China.

The Bible says:

“This is the spirit of the antichrist; you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.”
1 John 4:3

One of my pastors once said something very wise about this. He said that every generation has an antichrist waiting in the wings. I think that is true. Yet, it’s really up to us. The Bible says:

” You know what currently restrains him…”
2 Thessalonians 2:6

The American people have restrained him before, and we can do it again.

“Wait for It…” (“What are you waiting for?”)

“Wait for It”

By now, most of us have seen the musical, “Hamilton.” (If not, I recommend you do!) The musical centers around the relationship between founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and “Aaron Burr, Sir.“

The men, Hamilton and Burr, remind one of several famous several pairs of counterparts in the Bible, such as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, and even Moses and the Pharaoh of Egypt.

First, let’s look at Abraham and Lot–the differences between them. Abraham is often referred to as a man of faith, though he screwed up a number times.

Genesis 12:1, God says to Abraham (then known as Abram), “Go…to the land that I will show you…”
Genesis 12:4 tells us, “So Abram went…”
Verse 7 “He built an altar to the Lord…”
Verse 8, he built another altar.
Genesis 13:8-9, there’s quarreling between Abram’s men, and his nephew, Lot’s.
The two men choose to separate.
Abram lets Lot choose west or east.
Verse 10, Lot chooses the east–the “better” land (the Jordan Valley).
Verse 12-13, that includes the city of Sodom.
Genesis 13:14-17, God’s promise to Abraham (not including Lot):

“Lift up thy eyes, and look from the place wherein thou now art, to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west. All the land which thou seest, I will give to thee, and to thy seed for ever.”
Genesis 13:14-17

Verse 18, Abram built another altar to the Lord.
Genesis 15:6 “(Abram, now called Abraham) believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness. In other words, despite Abraham’s failures, God considered him to be a righteous man.

righteousness = "the quality or state of being just or rightful." (Dictionary.com)

We’ve all got to have something to believe in.

A song in the “Hamilton” musical says: Hamilton doesn’t hesitate.” Hamilton held strong beliefs, and acted on them. But the song points out that Burr was, instead, “lying in wait.” Burr was what the Bible calls “double-minded”

The Greek word originally used in the Bible to describe that is dipsos, which is G1373 in Stong’s Concordance: “wavering, uncertain, divided in interest, vacillating.”

Abraham’s nephew, Lot, was like that.

Genesis 19: 7, Lot calls the wicked men of Sodom, “my brothers.”
Verse 8, he offers his own daughters to the men of Sodom.
Verse 9, the men of Sodom treat him like a hypocrite, saying, “he’s acting like a judge!”

In the Hebrew, the word that’s used is shaphat, H8199 (to act as law-giver).

Verse 14, When Lot advises them to flee the city for safety, “his sons-in-law thought he was joking”
Verse 18 When the angels tell Lot to flee to the mountains, Lot replies, “No, my lords—please…I can’t run to the mountains…I will die. Look, this town is close…Please let me go there…”
Verses 30-36, It didn’t turn out well.

But 2 Peter 2:8 calls Lot:

“The just soul…”
Douay-Rheims Bible

Other translations call him:

“That righteous man”
King James Version

How can that be?

Is it possible that right-standing with God is based on our beliefs (despite our less-than-virtuous behavior)?

In Genesis 25:34, we find the statement, “Esau despised his birthright.”

despise = "feel contempt or a deep repugnance for." (Bing)

The Hebrew word the Bible uses is bazah, which is H959 in Stong’s Concordance: “to despise, hold in contempt, disdain.”

Even a cursory look at the book of Genesis shows that Jacob did not have sterling character, but there was a difference between he and Esau, just as we will see that there was between Hamilton and Burr.

To begin with, as we said before, Esau revealed his character, see Gen 25:31).

This seems reminiscent to Shakespeare’s:

“This above all- to thine own self be true…”
Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3

Peoples’ choices–often made when under pressure, quite often end up determining their destinies.

From this perspective, let’s look at Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr’s early lives.

Their love stories and the births of their children could have been an opportunity for both men to turn their hearts in God’s direction.

In the song, “Dear Theodosia,” Burr says, “When you cried, you broke my heart.” Hamilton says, “When you smile I am undone… I fall apart, and I thought I was so smart.“

The Bible says:

“The Lord is near to the broken-hearted…”
Psalm 34:18

And:

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart…”
Psalm 51:17

This reminds one of David, the man who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed.

But in the New Testament he is called:

“A man after mine own heart…”
Acts 13:22

So what did happen to Hamilton and Burr?

In the song, “It’s Quiet Uptown,” Alexander Hamilton says, ““I take the children to church on Sunday / A sign of the cross at the door / And I pray / That never used to happen before.” In Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, which was the inspiration for the musical, he writes: “It is striking how religion preoccupied Hamilton during his final years.”

♫“Forgiveness, can you imagine?”♫

The grace of God was available to both Hamilton and Burr’s lives, just as it had been to both Jacob and Esau. Yet, their legacies are the result of their choices.

The New Testament, looking back on Esau’s life in hindsight, calls him:

“(An) ‘immoral (and) godless person…who sold his own birthright for a single meal…though he sought for (the blessing) with tears.”
Hebrews 12:16-17

Under pressure–when “push came to shove“–Esau revealed his true nature by his choices. And this was the case with Hamilton and Burr.

In 1800, Aaron Burr had been elected Vice-President under Jefferson, but Jefferson said of him:

“[H]is conduct very soon inspired me with distrust…I habitually cautioned Mr. Madison against trusting him too much.”
Thomas Jefferson (Notes on a Conversation with Aaron Burr, January 26, 1804)

“I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.” and “I am a sinner. I look to His mercy.”
Alexander Hamilton

“On that subject I am coy.”
Last words of Aaron Burr

Burr’s enigmatic legacy, once considered a patriot hero, but later a rogue and probably, a conspirator in a “treasonable scheme” to take up arms against the government and seize land in the frontier of the Louisiana Purchase.

Burr’s is a notorious case. But was he outside the reach of God’s grace? That is a not only a profound question, but also a very practical one, that has ramifications for all of us. One might say that it (God’s grace) “doesn’t discriminate between the sinners and the saints.“

In fact, the Bible distinctly says that:

“The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:9

Does that mean that God’s promises are for everybody–that God’s “salvation” is universal?

No, but it is available to all who accept it, in spite of anything they may have done, in the same way that Hamilton seems to have done.

But is it possible to resist God’s grace?

Yes, we know that Esau must have rejected it (Hebrews 12:16-17).

Lot, though he seems to be a lot like Esau, did not. How do we know? (2 Peter 2:7).

Hamilton seems to have not.

“It is striking how religion preoccupied Hamilton during his final years.”
Ron Chernow

This apparent mystery is made clear in the story of Moses and Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Why? The Bible tells us that Pharaoh, like Esau, despised God.

despise = "feel contempt or a deep repugnance for." (Bing)

“Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice…?'”
Exodus 5:2

God was aware that Pharaoh held him in low esteem. But God did not react to Pharaoh in indignation.

indignation = "anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment."

Instead God gave Pharaoh ten opportunities to turn to humble himself before Him. But Pharaoh did not.

Have you ever seen the movie and TV show, Stargate SG-1? They really did an excellent job with their visualizations of the Goa’uld as the rulers of ancient Egypt.

These were wicked, evil, and arrogant people. And, like a lot of people in powerful positions, they were paranoid and petty.

“Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.“
Exodus 5:7

Think of Henry VIII of England.

God brought ten plagues upon the land of Egypt. Why?

The Bible tells us:

“The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt…”
Exodus 7:5

People will argue that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. That’s true. But do you not know that God allows all of our hearts to be hardened, if we allow it? It’s true. Each “plague” that life throws in our path is an opportunity for us to harden our hearts, to raise a fist toward the heavens and curse God (Sovereign of the Universe). It may be a mystery, but it’s not a secret.

It’s simple. God wants us to want Him. Why? Is God insecure? No, God only wants authentic believers in His kingdom.

authentic = "not false or imitation" (Mirriam-Webster)

“Now for a little while…you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith…may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
1 Peter 1:6-7

“The Father seeketh such to worship Him.”
John 4:23

“I love those who love Me, and those who seek Me find Me.”
Proverbs 8:17

“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
Jeremiah 29:13

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.”
Acts 17:24-27

That is why the Bible tells us at least three different times:

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart…”
Psalm 95:6-11; Hebrews 3:7-19; Hebrews 4:1-8 (and see Deuteronomy 1:26-38)

Like Aaron Burr (who lost his wife, grandson, and precious daughter), Pharaoh lost his own son–his heir.

“And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD…”
Exodus 12:30-31

And like Burr, Pharaoh–even at that point, even after all that suffering–turned away from all those opportunities to humble himself, to soften his heart, and to accept God’s grace.

“And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, ‘Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?’ …And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them… And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen… And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them…. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.”
Exodus 14:5-29

Grace is always available to those who turn to God. And He, in His mercy redeems our life–our story.

redeem = "to buy back, repurchase;" "to free from captivity by payment of ransom;" "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental;" "to release from blame or debt, clear;" "to free from the consequences of sin." (Mirriam-Webster)

So what about you? What are you waiting for?

Will you accept God’s offer of reconciliation and redemption? Will you accept His grace?

Democracy is close to godliness, isn’t it?

The Ox-Bow Incident, 1943

In “The Ox-Bow Incident,” made in 1943, we get a very clear portrayal of democracy in action.

democracy = "comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos)." (National Geographic)

democracy = "government by the people, especially : rule of the majority." (Mirriam-Webster)

Genesis 12 begins the story of how God, in much the same way that He had previously chosen the individual man–Noah–to save the human race, selected a particular family of people–a tribe, if you will, to become his chosen people, to be His representatives to the rest of humanity.

We learn later, in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that God’s chosen form of government is actually theocracy.

theocracy = "The Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King." (Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Is the implication, then, that God wants the whole human race to enter into that type of system of government?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, except that Jesus (the “Son of God”) will temporarily reign until He turns rule of all things to His Father.

“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth.'”
Matthew 28:18

“For He must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.”
1 Corinthians 15:25

However, until Christ returns to do that, God has left it to men to rule themselves.

Interestingly, when the American colonists set up their brand-new experiments in self-rule, they did not choose a democracy. The question to carefully consider is why not?

“The founders feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt.”
Huffington Post, 11/17/2016

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths
James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10

No discussion of governmental systems would be complete, I think, without a glance at King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, interpreted by Daniel in Daniel 2.

The statue above indicates a series of “world” governments, beginning with the Neo-Babylonian Empire (represented here by the gold head) and including the Persian Empire (silver chest & arms), Macedonian Empire (brass abdomen), and Roman Empire–and all its reiterations (iron legs). The interesting thing about the statue, though, are its feet–a combination of the iron left over from the Roman Empire (think of it’s tyrannical strength) and clay.

What does that make you think of?

The Western Roman Empire fell in about the fifth century. Yet its legacy carried on, most immediately through Emperor Constantine and his cooperation with the Catholic Church, which became the most powerful organization in Europe. Out of that came association eventually came Charlemagne and the “Holy Roman Empire,” which lasted for about 1000 years. This empire was known as “the First Reich.” The “Second Reich” was the German empire that was ruled by Otto von Bismark, William I and II, that led to the First World War. You may remember that William II was known as “the Kaiser.”

kaiser = "Kaiser is the German title meaning "Emperor". Like the Russian Tsar it is directly derived from the Roman Emperors' title of Caesar..." (Definitions.net)

The “Third Reich” as you probably know, was “the official official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945…“

There are still ways that the legacy of the Roman Empire lives on in Europe, England and even in the United States of America.

But what about the “iron mixed with clay?”

The main difference today between the governmental systems of most of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is that all of the empires mentioned above were ruled by a dictator, while most of the modern countries are considered democracies.

democracy = 'control of an organization or group by the majority of its members;the practice or principles of social equality." (Bing)

That seems to make sense to me, that people would want to rule themselves by democracy, rather than submit to a dictatorship.

dictatorship = "autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), absolute authority in any sphere." (Bing)

Then, let me ask you a question: Why doesn’t the malleable clay REPLACE the iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?

malleable = "easily influenced; pliable" (Bing)

“And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay… but they shall not stick fast one to another, as iron cannot be mixed with clay.”
Daniel 2:43

Rather than replace the iron, the clay attempts to mix with it, but it is not possible. Eventually, under enough pressure the weaker, brittle clay will fall off. And only iron will remain.

In the book, How Should We Then Live?, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer wrote (in 1976):

“Overwhelming pressures are being brought to bear on people who have no absolutes… The pressures are progressively preparing modern people to accept a manipulative, authoritarian government.. If these pressures do continue to mount, which seems probable, do you think people, young or old, will at great cost to themselves, at the cost of their present personal peace and affluence, stand up for liberty or for the individual? …When these outward forms are imposed on (their) wordview (which) would never have produced freedom without chaos in the first place, people will not stand when the pressures increase… As the memory of the Christian base grows ever dimmer, freedom will disintegrate…”
Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live,” 1976

Is that the future you want?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

“I will require the blood of your lives… at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.
Genesis 9:5

This is a verse of the Bible that can probably be easily overlooked, but it really is quite foundational to the world you probably want to live in.

In other words, God was letting mankind know that He was going to hold individuals accountable for how they treated their fellow man. This was the beginning of a foundation for civil law.

Later, when Moses wrote what is known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), he included what is known as the Mosaic Law. However, in the New Testament, Paul (the apostle) gave us a new understanding of each individual’s moral responsibility for his own actions:

“The law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers…”
1 Timothy 1:9

In the French Revolution that began in 1789, and the “Reign of Terror” that followed it, people died. The king, Louis XVI, died. His queen, Marie-Antoinette, died. In fact, 40, 000 people died before it was said and done, including the Rebellion’s architect, Maximilien Robespierre.

In that same year, 1789, the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

And (wisely) founding father John Adams wrote this about it:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
in a speech to the military in 1798

The American government was not designed–and not really equipped–to control the behavior of people who habitually choose to do wrong things.

Years later, Abraham Lincoln (the President who issued the Emancipation Proclamation–freeing American slaves) would quote from the Bible–quoting Proverbs 25:11–when he wrote that the Constitution acted as a “picture of silver” framed around an “apple of gold” (the Declaration of Independence).

And many years after that, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke these words:

“It wouldn’t take us long to discover the substance of (the American) dream. It is found in those majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, words lifted to cosmic proportions: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ This is a dream. It’s a great dream….”
from A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin, Peter Holloran, et al. | Jan 1, 2000

Dr. King went on to say, “..That dream goes on to say another thing that ultimately distinguishes our nation and our form of government from any totalitarian system in the world. It says that each of us has certain basic rights that are neither derived from or conferred by the state. In order to discover where they came from, it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity. They are God-given, gifts from His hands. Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent, and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us, and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day, that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth…”

Then he said:

“Now ever since the founding fathers of our nation dreamed this dream in all of its magnificence…America has been something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against herself. On the one hand we have proudly professed the great principles of democracy, but on the other hand we have sadly practiced the very opposite of those principles.
Dr. Martin Luther King, on “The American Dream”

And on July 4, 1965, when he spoke those words in Atlanta, Dr. King was 100 percent right.

Why? Why was the “dream” of America out of reach for so many black-skinned people?

“You see, the founding fathers were really influenced by the Bible. The whole concept of the imago dei, as it is expressed in Latin, the ‘image of God,’ is the idea that all men have something within them that God injected. Not that they have substantial unity with God, but that every man has a capacity to have fellowship with God. And this gives him a uniqueness, it gives him worth, it gives him dignity. And we must never forget this as a nation: there are no gradations in the image of God. Every man from a treble white to a bass black is significant on God’s keyboard, precisely because every man is made in the image of God. One day we will learn that. We will know one day that God made us to live together as brothers and to respect the dignity and worth of every man.”
Dr. King, “The American Dream (continued)

It sounds like Dr. King’s “dream,” was filled with hope for the future.

The story of human relations through time is an interesting one.

And it starts in an unusual place.

“Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
Genesis 9:1

Seemingly–for a while–they did just that.

In Genesis, chapters 9-10, we see a description of a culture wherein people had small family property holdings, and when children were born, grew to adulthood, married, and had children of their own, they would spread out (scatter), build their own homes, and raise their own families. Each household would have enough land to support themselves. There were no “rich” people or “poor” people. There were no “lords” or “serfs.” There were no “masters” or slaves.”

Yet in Genesis 11, we read:

“And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. And each one said to his neighbour… ‘Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.'”
Genesis 11:2-4

Let’s unpack that:

God told them to fill the earth (scatter).
They conspired to build a city (and a tower) instead.
Their motive was to reach to heaven (to bring God down to their level?) and to make a name for themselves.

Making a Name for Yourself

What’s your understanding of “the American Dream?” Is it all about making a name for yourself?

Or is it about something else?

What’s this imago dei thing that Dr. King was talking about?

One article interestingly claims:

“(Following the Civil War) many black leaders argued against special privileges and requested for blacks only ‘the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ specified in the Declaration of Independence.”
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Frederick Douglass was a former slave himself, and he rejected special treatment of former slaves.

“Everybody has asked the question, … ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
Frederick Douglass, “What the Black Man Wants,” 1863

Listen carefully to an excerpt from a book about Frederick Douglass:

“It was (‘an elderly, partially literate, and intensively devout black man, whom Douglass would later refer to as Uncle Lawson‘) who imparted to the impressionable young Frederick a strong sense of self-esteem, convincing the youth that he had an important mission to fulfill.”
David B. Chesebrough, Frederick Douglass: Oratory from Slavery, 1998

Do you have a strong sense of self-esteem?

Are you convinced that you have an important mission to fulfill?

Back in Genesis 9-10, everyone had a purpose. Each family had to own a cow or a goat (milk for the children, and perhaps cheese), and chickens (for eggs and meat). Children often fed, cleaned up after them, milked them, and collected eggs from them. Each family had a small farm, and a small orchard. Each family had a garden. Often, children tended it. Mothers made clothes for their children. Fathers tanned hides. Children picked fruit. Mothers made jam, baked pies, fermented vegetables, milled wheat, baked bread, made elderberry syrup for dealing with illnesses. Fathers hunted, fished, made repairs, built homes and constructed needed tools and equipment. Parents taught children to read, write, and do arithmetic. Children submitted to parents. Families helped each other when necessary.

But a fellow named Nimrod came along:

“Now (Cush) begot N(i)mrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as N(i)mrod the stout hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.’A stout hunter’: Not of beasts but of men: whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord, that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived.”
Genesis 10:8-10

In context of the world that had heretofore existed, Nimrod should be considered a sociopath. He tore down the culture, the society, of the world of Noah and his sons, and he restructured a new society, one which included “haves” and “have-nots,” “suzerains” and “vassals”, those who “dominate” their fellows and the unfortunate fellows that they dominate.

This new re-structured, re-imagined world is one of specialization, mechanization, and centralization. This is an urban world, filled with soot, smoke and sweat-shops.

This was not God’s plan. It was built by Nimrod–for his own benefit. This dude was strictly in in for himself.

“The mainstays of his empire were Babel (Babylon), Erech and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From this country came Asshur (Assyria), and he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah,and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (this being the capital).”
Genesis 10:10-12 (New Jerusalem Bible)

Be careful that someone is not using you as a pawn on the chessboard of their agenda–that someone is not using you.

A while back, Bob Dylan sang:

The Bible says:

“You know well that if you undertake to be somebody’s slave and obey him, you are the slave of him you obey…”
Romans 6:16

Don’t you think that it’s time to stop and re-evaluate some things?