The English Standard Version

Wayne Jackson reviews the new English Standard Version translation of the Bible.

By Wayne Jackson | Christian Courier

Follow @FortifyFaith

No narration available

For centuries men have been translating the original Scriptures (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into their native vernacular. Each time a translation is produced, there is the hope that it will be the perfect one.

It never is because translations, unlike the original autographs, are the productions of fallible men. And “to err is human.”

Some degree of subjective interpretation is woven into the fabric of any Bible version. Admittedly, though, some translations are better than others.

In the autumn of 2001, a fresh English translation made its appearance. Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers (Wheaton, IL) introduced the English Standard Version (ESV). The Preface of this rendition begins by echoing a statement expressed by the translators of the original King James Version. “God’s sacred Word . . .is that inestimable treasure that excelleth all the riches of the earth.” The translators pledge that this sentiment “is the motivating force” that undergirds the publication of the ESV.

Unlike many modern paraphrases, which pursue the Dynamic Equivalence (DE) approach, the ESV “seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and personal style of each Bible writer.” Its goal, therefore, was to produce a “word-for-word” edition.

As noted earlier, the DE ideology contends that the best version is that which is concerned more with the representation of ideas that express the primitive meaning and not so much with the replication of the original words (usually designated as Form Equivalence – FE).

It is not difficult to see that the DE concept lends itself more readily to subjectivity, than does the more literal approach. Surely, those who believe that God inspired the very words of the original documents would prefer a literal translation — to the extent that such is possible and practical.

The original-language texts employed in the project were the Masoretic text for the Old Testament, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1983 – 2nd Ed.), and for the New Testament, The Greek New Testament (1993 – 4th ed. UBS) and Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle/Aland – 27th ed.). The English rendition of this new version is somewhat analogous to the RSV of 1971, minus the liberal elements of that translation.

The translation team involved more than 100 scholars, the names and credentials of whom are available upon request from Crossway Bibles. The ESV is recommended by such notable scholars as Robert Mounce, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, Leon Morris, Harold Hoehner, and Jack Cottrell.

The Classic Reference edition of this Bible contains 76,000 center-column references, a concordance with 14,500 entries, introductions to each Bible book, full-color maps, and even a CD-Rom with two English translations (KJV, ESV), along with several additional resources.

I have not gone through the entire volume. I’ve only checked random passages. Nonetheless, I am impressed with this new version. It may turn out to be one the best modern alternative to the King James translation, although I still prefer the meticulous precision of the American Standard Version (1901).

Strengths of the ESV

There are several strengths that underscore the value of the new ESV. First, as reflected in the textual base, it is translated from the latest collection of Hebrew and Greek documents, giving it the strongest textual foundation of anything yet produced in a translation.

Second, unlike some of the more recent versions, whose translators were characterized by liberal tendencies, the ESV appears to have been produced by men who attempted to “carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our language.”

For example, the RSV created a storm of controversy with its “young woman” rendition of Isaiah 7:14, whereas the ESV has it “virgin” — and so Isaiah and Matthew (1:22-23) are in harmony again!

Another strength of the ESV is the clarity and accuracy that many passages lacked in some of the earlier versions. For example “expanse” replaces the ill-rendered “firmament” in Genesis 1. The term “livestock” (more generic) replaces “cattle” (a specific term) in the ESV of Genesis 1.

Genesis 22:1 notes that “God tested Abraham,” a better rendition than the old KJV, where it says God “tempted” Abraham (cf. Jas. 1:13).

The Shakespearean “thee” and “thou” are replaced with contemporary pronouns: “And God said to Abram, Go from your country and your father’s house” (Gen. 12:1). The increasingly obsolete “brethren” is now found as “brothers.” Or when more distant relatives are considered, “brethren” becomes “kinsmen” (Gen. 13:8).

Compare the following passages which depict the power of God in the storms of nature. “The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour” (Job 36:33 – KJV).

The ESV has it: “Its crashing declares his presence; the cattle also declare that he rises.”

Or these: " . . .you are straightened in your own bowels" (2 Cor. 6:12 – KJV); " . . .you are restricted in your own affections" (ESV).

Concerning the Sunday collection, the ESV correctly has: “On the first day of every week,” whereas both the KJV and ASV omit the term “every.”

Note how beautifully the following passages dealing with God’s creation are rendered:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Heb. 11:3).

The ESV corrects the NIV relative to 1 Corinthians 7:15. The NIV suggests that if an unbeliever leaves his Christian mate, the Christian “is not bound” to the relationship any longer (which is at variance with Matthew 19:9).

The ESV, however, correctly notes that the Christian is “not enslaved,” i.e., is not obligated to pursue the abandoning mate, maintaining perpetual proximity.

Passages dealing with baptism are treated fairly in this version. However, as with most other translations, the verb baptizo is anglicized rather than being strictly translated as “immerse” (for commercial purposes). This problem goes all the way back to the King James Version and has been almost uniformly followed since then. One can only imagine how few editions would be sold among denominationalists if “immersion” was the common rendition of baptizo.

The ESV of 1 Peter 3:21 shows that immersion is “an appeal to God for a good [i.e., clean] conscience,” which obviously one cannot have apart from that obedience.

Corrections and Improvements

As noted earlier, there is no flawless translation. There is no version upon which all will agree in every particular. One may suggest improvements in a translation without adopting the radical viewpoint that the version must be condemned altogether because of a weakness or mistranslation in some instances. The ESV appears, in this writer’s judgment, to be a good translation — in spite of a few problems.

Some earlier versions (e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) employed italics in the type-setting process, indicating when words were being added to the text for clarification purposes. Unfortunately, the ESV does not continue that helpful procedure.

Some translations in recent years have had the tendency to be more generic than they needed to be. For example, the NASB rendered the Greek term porneia (“fornication”) by “immorality” in Matthew 19:9. That is too generic. Stealing is a form of immorality, but it is not the basis for scriptural divorce.

Similarly, the ESV translates porneia as “sexual immorality.” Again, though, that is too general. Lust is a form of sexual immorality, but evil thoughts are not a justification for terminating a marriage. The translators probably felt that the term “fornication” is not understood well enough today. That assumption likely is unwarranted.

The ESV’s rendition of monogenes (“only begotten” – KJV, ASV) as “only” will probably reignite the controversy that raged mightily a few years ago. But the basic disagreement has to do with the etymology of the original term. Does genos signify “kind,” hence, monogenes indicates “one of a kind,” i.e., unique? Or does genos mean “begotten”?

Actually, the term “begotten” is from gennan, a kindred term, but with a different meaning. Most modern scholars who insist that “only begotten” is the preferred term do so on theological grounds, i.e., the idea that Jesus derived his “being” from the Father (see Hoch, p. 606). Actually, one can argue that monogenes means “only” without being liberal in his view of the Savior. Monogenes is rendered “only” on two occasions in the KJV (Lk. 7:12; 8:42).

The ESV has followed the NASB in rendering the present participle, hyparchon (“being” KJV; “existing” ASV), in Philippians 2:6, as a past tense form — “was in the form of God” — which could leave the impression that Jesus was not deity while in the flesh, though the translators do not mean to imply this. The Lord always existed, and continued to exist, as deity, even though incarnate (Fee, 1995, p. 203; Vine, 1991, pp. 279-80). R.C.H. Lenski noted that Jesus never existed apart from the nature of deity (p. 774). There is no reason not to give the participle its full, present tense flavor, as we have noted earlier.

In a segment where the headship of “man” (in general) over “woman” is in view rather than the husband-wife relationship (1 Cor. 11:3ff), the ESV renders the original words aner as “husband” and gune as “wife” in a manner that is inconsistent with the immediate context. This creates more confusion when comparing this context with other contexts dealing with the same gender theme (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:8ff).

The ESV could be improved by translating “the perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) as “the complete,” which would then balance with its rendition, “the partial,” in 10b. The contrast is between partial revelation and complete revelation. Too many people erroneously attach a moral connotation to “perfect” in this text, thus contending that spiritual gifts were to continue until the coming of Christ (who is presumed to be the “perfect” one, implied in the passage).

It is unfortunate that most translations continue to lend credence to the notion of “hereditary depravity” by rendering the Greek term psusei as “by nature” in Ephesians 2:3. The word can denote that which reflects “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer, p. 660). Man becomes a “child of wrath” by his practice, not by a contaminated nature effected by inheritance.

It is puzzling that the ESV transliterated the Greek word hades in Acts 2:27, and yet rendered the same term as “hell” in Matthew 16:18. The common conception of “hell” is that it represents the final abode of the wicked. One is grateful, however, for the ESV footnotes on Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, which reflect the perfect tense form of the verbs, “shall have been bound,” etc., thus showing that the apostles yielded to Heaven’s will, rather than the reverse being true (as alleged by Catholicism).

Conclusion

Though the ESV is not without some weakness, generally speaking, it appears to be an accurate, literal translation, rendered in beautiful English. It is a version, we believe, that will serve the English-speaking world with distinction. It is our hope that this new version will not become a point of contention within the body of Christ.

Sources

Fee, Gordon. 1995. Paul’s Letters to the Philippians. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.
Hoch, C.B., Jr. 1986. “Only-Begotten.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. III.
Lenski, R.C.H. 1961. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Thayer, J.H. 1958. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.
Vine, W.E. 1991. Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament. Iowa Falls, IA: World.

 

Lightning and God

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Existence of God

“Can you send out lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, ‘Here we are!’?” (Job 38:35). 

In Job chapters 38-40, God highlights for Job many of the amazing wonders of the Universe that He created, including “lightnings.” When the Israelites were standing at the base of Mount Sinai receiving God’s Law in Exodus, God’s presence on the mountain resulted in “thunderings and lightnings”—“lightning flashes” (Exodus 19:16; 20:18). In the Psalms, lightning is often used symbolically to refer to how God scares, strikes, and scatters His enemies. Lightning is amazing and is even proof of God’s existence, because the scientific rules that govern the Universe (Job 38:33), causing lightning to happen, could not exist without God to make them! God highlights lightning 28 times in the Bible, where it is usually mentioned alongside references to God and, in this issue of Discovery, we will see why. 

What is lightning? Have you ever shuffled your feet on the carpet and then touched someone, shocking them? When you shuffle your feet, you are building up a negative charge in your body (that is, you are picking up tiny electrons from the carpet). One of the rules that God set up in the Universe is that unstable situations want to even/balance out so that there will be stability. The built-up negative charge in your body wants to release its charge (its electrons) into another object that has an opposite charge (that is, has fewer electrons), so that they can balance out their charge and become stable. 

Lightning is basically a cloud shocking something—releasing electrical charges (that is, electrons) from the cloud along a path to balance out its charge with its surroundings. 

How does that work, exactly? Scientists are not sure about every step of the process, but they think that as clouds move during a storm, particles in the clouds organize themselves, with lighter particles moving upwards and becoming positively charged (fewer electrons) and heavier particles moving downwards, becoming negatively charged (more electrons). Objects on the ground do the same thing. This causes an imbalance between groups of charged areas that want to “fix” themselves and get balanced. The surrounding air creates a strong insulation that keeps those areas from exchanging their charge. When the difference in the charges becomes great enough, electricity explosively breaks through the air and is released between the groups. The release tries to even out the charge differences between the two oppositely charged areas, creating a “shock”—a lightning bolt. 

The discharge of electricity can travel over 200 million miles per hour—over 2,000 times faster than a meteorite and over 100,000 times faster than a bullet! Like lightning, Isaiah 19:1 describes God as riding “on a swift cloud.”

Most of the time, lightning bolts happen within a cloud or between two clouds in the sky (which looks like clouds flashing from our perspective), but sometimes a lightning bolt travels between the cloud and the ground (especially taller objects on the ground). Interestingly, lightning bolts are not actually one stroke of electricity, but a series of very fast return strokes that move back up into the cloud. 

The charges that the clouds release zig zag through the air (not the rain), taking the path through the air that is easiest for the electricity to travel. Amazingly, the power created by each bolt of lightning carries enough energy to provide power for 30 million people to have electricity for an entire year. 

Like lightning, the power of God is highlighted repeatedly in the Bible. When describing what happened at Mount Sinai, Moses explained, “Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled…. Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly” (Exodus 19:16,18).

Amazingly, the path that lightning moves through heats up to 30,000oC—five times hotter than the surface of the Sun. The immense heat causes the surrounding air to become plasma (a special form that is different from a gas, liquid, or solid) that glows, emitting very strong light. The Bible often describes the intense brightness of God. In fact, God is called the “Father of lights” (James 1:17). Again, accompanying the lightning at Mount Sinai, “The sight of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel” (Exodus 24:17). Habakkuk 3:3-4 says, “God came…. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of His praise. His brightness was like the light; He had rays flashing from His hand….”

Interestingly, the skin of the angel that rolled back the stone at Jesus’ tomb was “like lightning” (Matthew 28:3).

What is thunder? As lightning moves through the air, the air around its path heats and, therefore, expands. The expansion, however, is faster than the speed of sound, rapidly compressing the air in front of it, which causes the “booms” of thunder we hear. 

Given this information, consider: can you have thunder without lightning? Since light travels faster than sound, unless the lightning is close to you, you can see the lightning before you hear its thunder, which only travels at the speed of sound. Once again, many times in Scripture, God’s voice is compared to thunder. “Have you an arm like God? Or can you thunder with a voice like His?” (Job 40:9; see also 2 Samuel 22:14). 

Everything about God is awesome. His almighty power. His lightning speed. His blinding brightness. His thundering voice. While we really cannot fathom just how great God is, since He is an infinite spiritual Being, and we (for now) are bound to the physical world around us, God created physical things that He wants us to study because they can help us to understand to a small degree things about Him (Romans 1:20). When God created lightning, He no doubt did so, in part, to help us understand more about Who He is. 

Very importantly, Jesus’ coming in judgment is also compared to lightning in Matthew 24:27: “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” Let’s all make sure we’re ready to meet Him on Judgment Day!

Doc’s Corner: Was Behemoth a Dinosaur?

In Job 40:15-24, God shows Job an amazing beast called “behemoth,” and nobody is certain what it was. The description doesn’t match any known, modern species, but several of its features line up best with a sauropod dinosaur (the long-neck, long-tail dinosaurs). One of those features is mentioned in vs. 18: behemoth’s “bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron”—apparently like solid metal. While most animals (including hippos and elephants) have open spaces in their bones which make them “spongy,” sauropod dinosaurs were unique among animals in that their ribs (and certain other bones) were made of solid bone. If God considered behemoth special and worth highlighting, wouldn’t it make sense for Him to highlight some of the features that made it different (like its bones, tail, stomach muscles, and where its strength lay, vss. 16-17)? A sauropod fits God’s description of behemoth better than any other animal we know about.

Interactive PDF

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Separation of Church and State?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Culture WarFounding Father

Our nation’s capital has many indicators of our country’s religious heritage. Indeed, a host of references to God, Christ, and the Bible literally riddle the monuments and government buildings. The writings of the Founding Fathers are also filled with their belief in what they called “true religion”—referring to Christianity. They believed in the God of the Bible—to the exclusion of all others—and they believed that atheism was foolish thinking.

But if these statements are true—and abundant evidence exists to prove them1—why do so many claim that the Founding Fathers and the Constitution require “separation of church and state”? Why do courts, judges, and politicians say that there should be no crosses, or Bibles, or other Christian objects in public schools, government buildings, or public parks? Did those who actually wrote the Constitution agree with them? Did the Founders believe that public expressions of Christianity should not be allowed?

In the 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education, the high court declared: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The court clearly understood the “wall” metaphor to refer to expunging all references to God, the Bible, and Christianity from public life. But where did they get such an idea? After all, the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even found in the U.S. Constitution or any other official government document. Indeed, the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist labeled the phrase “a misleading metaphor” and noted: “The ‘wall of separation between church and State’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”2

The phrase was appropriated from a private letter addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association written by Thomas Jefferson while he was President—a quarter of a century after the Founding. It read in part:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.3

What did Jefferson mean by “a wall of separation between Church and State”? Did he mean that we must keep God and the Bible out of public life? Or did he mean that we must keep government from interfering with the public practice of Christianity?

In their efforts to restrain the federal government from overstepping its boundaries and wielding illicit power, the Founders appended the Bill of Rights. Their stated intention was to further insure that the Federal government did not interfere with the foundational rights given by God to each citizen. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” A careful consideration of the discussions4 that transpired among the Founders in their effort to achieve the proper wording yields two conclusions: (1) by “establishment of religion” they meant that no one Protestant denomination was to be elevated above the other sects and established as the state religion, and (2) by “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” they meant that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion. Several historical facts verify these conclusions.

For example, the Founder who has gone down in history as the “Father of the Bill of Rights” was George Mason, himself a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. His proposed wording of the First Amendment enables us to grasp the historical context in which the Founders were attempting to frame the amendment’s intention: “All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”5

The “wall” to which Jefferson referred was the fact that no power was given by the Constitution to Congress to establish a national church and to compel by law the worship rituals of any particular denomination. His own practices demonstrate that the courts have misapplied Jefferson’s phrase:

Two days after Jefferson wrote his “wall of separation” metaphor he attended church services held in the House of Representatives where the Speaker’s podium was used as the pulpit. This was no isolated event either as he continuously attended church services held on government property during his two terms as President. President Madison also attended church services in the House on Sundays. Even the Treasury building was used as a church on Sundays where John Quincy Adams was known to attend.6

In his Second Inaugural Address, Jefferson explained the role of the Constitution concerning religious matters:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.7

Do his remarks mean that Jefferson thought all references to God and Bible religion should be avoided by the government and politicians? Surely not since in the same address, he declared:

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.8

The First Amendment does not ban Congress from recognizing or participating in religious practices. It only prohibits Congress from creating by law a religious establishment (state church) and requiring adherence to it. Religious symbols in schools and on public property do not violate the First Amendment. They do not officially establish a state church, much less coerce a citizen to join it. To repeat: The First Amendment prevents government from establishing a religion and declaring by law that it is the only religion that can be practiced. It has nothing to do with acknowledging religion and its teachings—particularly Christianity.

This realization naturally raises a question: If you allow the Bible and allusions to Christianity in schools and public life (as was historically the case prior to the 1960s), won’t you also need to include Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well as Atheism? And what about the atheists? The Founders’ view was that the general doctrines of the Christian religion are the basis of the American Republic—our culture and way of life. Hence, Christianity must remain the foundation of our society or the freedom we have achieved will dissolve. Other religions can be tolerated. But if the majority of our population abandons Christianity, and other religions are allowed to increase their presence and role in American life, America will gradually become like the other nations of the world.

Indeed, if one wishes to see what America would look like if Islam exerts its influence over the nation, look at any Islamic nation on Earth. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism (as well as Socialism). Just examine all countries on the planet where those ideologies dominate. It would be irrational and nonsensical to suppose that America could continue its unprecedented freedom, prosperity, and moral structure if any of those ideologies were permitted to prevail.9

The truth is that the Founders’ idea of religious freedom was actually quite simple and sensible—not at all like the “political correctness” of our day. The facts show that most of the Founders, with few exceptions, believed that the Christian worldview and Christian principles must be the foundation of the Republic. For example, during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued 15 proclamations to all Americans from 1775 to 1783. Those proclamations are filled with biblical references—including references to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.10 Their view of religious freedom and tolerance simply meant that they did not want anyone persecuted or mistreated by the government due to their religious beliefs. Those who practiced no religion or a non-Christian religion could come to America and not be persecuted. Why? For the simple reason that most of the Founders and most Americans lived by Christian principles that forbid persecuting one’s fellowman (Matthew 5:38-47; Luke 6:27-36). They understood Jesus’ teaching to treat others the way they themselves wished to be treated (Matthew 7:12).

You see, the Founders were mostly British citizens who had felt the sting of persecution in their disagreement with the state religion (the Church of England). They were well familiar with their mother country’s long history of religious oppression and bloodshed, depending on whether a Catholic or a Protestant king or queen was on the throne. The Founders’ “forefathers” were the pilgrims who fled England specifically on account of religious persecution. So the Founders and Framers envisioned no religious coercion in the new Republic. They believed that everyone ought to be able to decide for themselves what to believe about religion.

This view is in complete harmony with the nature of God Himself. God created humans to be freewill agents who make their own decisions with regard to their eternal destiny. God does not want Christians to force their beliefs on others (unlike Islam and the god of the Quran). However, the Founders had two concerns about tolerating false religions. They did not approve (1) any religious belief that urged a person to harm others, or (2) any religious belief that included an immoral or illegal practice (by Christian standards). So, for instance, if your religion allows you to have multiple wives, that part of your religion would not be tolerated since, by Christian standards, polygamy is sinful. Or if your religion urged you to kill Christians, your religious belief would not be allowed.11 Apart from these two exceptions, the Founders believed that people ought to be left free to practice their religion without governmental interference.

However, that does not mean that the Founders wanted all religions to be given equal treatment in the public sector. As Father of American Jurisprudence Joseph Story said concerning the attitude of Americans regarding the priority of the Christian religion: “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”12 To the Founders, permitting non-Christian peoples to live in our country without persecution did not mean that they “celebrated diversity” or desired the spread of what they considered to be false religion. Rather, doing so reflected their desire that all peoples be allowed to pursue happiness without governmental interference.

Conclusion

To summarize, the Founding Fathers believed America’s moral and religious foundation must be the Christian religion in order for the nation to endure.13 The Father of American Geography, Jedidiah Morse, provides a fitting conclusion to this brief analysis when he cogently articulated the rationale of the Founders and most early Americans:

The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own. In all those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom,and approximate the miseries of complete despotism.14

Endnotes

1 See, for example, Dave Miller (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Dave Miller (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

2 Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), United States Supreme Court, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985), http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm.

3 Thomas Jefferson (1802)

4 Annals of Congress (1789), House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, August 15, Library of Congress, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380. Also The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (1834-1856) (Gales and Seaton), pp. 757ff.

5 Kate Rowland (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons), 1:244.

6 P.A. Madison (2010), “Misunderstanding Jefferson’s ‘Wall of Separation’ Metaphor,” The Federalist Blog, November 19, http://www.federalistblog.us/2010/11/_defending_jeffersons_wall_of_separation_metaphor/.

7 Thomas Jefferson (1805), “Second Inaugural Address,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/jefinau2.htm.

8 Ibid.

9 This fact is precisely why the Founders were concerned about unrestrained immigration and its potential to alter the moral and religious fabric of the Republic. See Dave Miller (2017), God & Government (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 204ff.

10 Dave Miller (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

11 For a discussion of whether the Founders agreed with the pluralistic and “politically correct” mentality of our day that encourages immigrants who do not share Christian values to come to America, see Dave Miller (2013), “Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? (Parts 1&2),” Reason & Revelation, 33[3/4]:26-28,32-35,38-40,45-47, March/April. Also, Miller, (2017), pp. 204ff.

12 Joseph Story (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), Vol. III, Ch. 44, Paragraphs 1865-1868, emp. added.

13 For more discussion of this subject, see the DVDs America’s Most Pressing Concern and Separation of Church & State? available from Apologetics Press.

14 Jedidiah Morse (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.