Introduction

 

This material probably could have been categorized as a sermon or a biblical study, we opted for the Biblical Study category because of the importance of biblical covenants to the study and the many references to them. Our purpose is to uncover the U.S. Constitution’s biblical covenantal underpinnings. Before we begin, some pertinent definitions.

 

• Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Authoritarian regimes can take various forms, including military dictatorships and one-party states. Present-day examples include China, Russia, and Venezuela. Despite holding elections in some instances, the fundamental characteristics of authoritarianism—such as lack of genuine political competition, suppression of dissent, and concentration of power—remain intact. This is why such regimes are still considered authoritarian despite holding elections.
• Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the citizenry, which rules either directly or through freely elected representatives. This means the citizenry participates in governmental decision-making processes, ensuring its individual voices are heard. Most of the world’s countries are considered democratic in some form; as of recent data, about 57% of countries with populations of at least 500,000 are classified as democracies. This includes both full democracies and flawed democracies, where elections are held but may have some limitations or issues. That is, the quality and nature of democracy can vary significantly—some countries may have robust democratic institutions and practices, while others might exhibit democratic features alongside authoritarian elements. At the time of this writing, India is recognized as the world’s largest democracy. It has a population of over 1.4 billion people with some 970 million registered voters, thus holding the largest democratic elections in terms of voter base. India’s democratic system has been in place since its independence in 1947 and it continues to conduct regular elections at both national and state levels.
• In a dictatorship, a single leader or a small group holds absolute power, often without the consent of the people. North Korea is a well-known present-day example.
• Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology. Fascist regimes are typically led by a dictatorial leader who exercises absolute power. Fascism promotes intense national pride and often exalts an ideology, the nation, or race, above the individual. Fascist states emphasize military strength and often glorify violence and war as means to achieve national goals. Fascist governments forcibly suppress political opposition and dissent, often through violence and intimidation. While not entirely rejecting capitalism, fascist regimes control and regulate the economy to serve the state’s interests, often through corporatism. Fascist states use propaganda extensively to control public opinion and promote their ideology. Fascism is often associated with extreme intolerance and oppressive practices, making it fundamentally opposed to democratic and liberty principles. Overall, the aggressive and authoritarian nature of fascism tends to create both internal and external conflicts, leading to significant local and global instability. For example, Nazism is a type of fascism, characterized by its intense focus on race and antisemitism and not least an aggressive expansionist modus operandi and no less aggressive promotion of its ideology. Left unchecked for too long in the mid twentieth-century, it led to a Holocaust, and to significant local and global instability that birthed a terrible world war.
• A republic is a form of government in which power resides with the people (citizenry) and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. The terms “democracy” and “republic” are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct differences. “Democracy” generally refers to a system where the power is directly in the hands of the people. In a pure democracy, decisions are made by majority rule, which means that the majority’s will can directly influence laws and policies without much restraint. A republic is a form of democracy where the people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. The distinguishing and quite key feature of a republic is the presence of a constitution, or a set of laws, that protect certain inalienable rights, ensuring that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority. Bottom line, while both systems are based on the principle of elected governance, a republic places more emphasis on the rule of law and the protection of individual rights against the potential tyranny of the majority.
• In a theocracy, religious leaders control the government, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Present-day Iran is an example of a theocratic state[1]
• Freedom generally refers to the power or right to act, speak, or think without hindrance or restraint. It emphasizes the absence of constraints or interference from others.
• Liberty often refers to the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, or political views. It emphasizes the protection of individual rights and freedoms by law. So, while both “freedom” and “liberty” relate to the concept of being free, “freedom” is more about the absence of external constraints, and “liberty” is more about the protection of individual rights within a legal framework. They are similar terms, but not redundant, as they highlight different aspects of being free.
• In religious terms, a covenant is a solemn agreement or promise between God and humans, often involving commitments and obligations on both sides. In the Bible, covenants are central to the relationship between God and His people. In civil law, a covenant is a formal agreement or promise included in a contract or deed. It typically involves commitments to do or refrain from doing certain acts.
• Seven principles of Covenant, arbitrary order: (1) authoritative with justification thereof, (2) binding, (3) communal, (4) irrevocable, (5) legal framework for administering, (6) limited modifiability, (7) mutual agreement thereof | commitment thereto.
• The seven articles of the U.S. Constitution (L-E-J-S-A-S-R memory mnemonic—Legislative, Executive, Judicial, States, Amendment, Supremacy, Ratification).
• The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution).

 

The Mayflower Compact

 

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James[2], by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland king, defender of the faith […]. Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620. [Anno Domini is Latin and in the ablative case, which is used to indicate time when something occurs among other things, e.g., motion; it is a very versatile case. The full phrase is “Anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi,” meaning “In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is abbreviated as “AD,” signifying the time period after the birth of Jesus Christ.” “BC Please not BCE.”]

 

The seven principles of Covenant are apparent in the Mayflower Compact, itself a foundational document in the development of American democracy and governance. While it was not a direct precursor to the U.S. Constitution, it established important principles that influenced later documents and ideas, such as self-governance and rule of law. For our purposes, note the seven principles of Covenant in this foundational document:

• (1 authority) “…in the name of God, Amen…”,
• (2 binding) ”… do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience…”,
• (3 community) “…covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…”,
• (4 irrevocable—not clearly stated; notwithstanding, a decided commitment to mutual agreement and governance) “…do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation…”,
• (5 legal framework for administering) “…and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…”,
• (6 limited modifiability) “…and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…”,
• (7 mutual agreement thereof | commitment thereto) “…do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic […] unto which we promise all due submission and obedience…”

 

The Mayflower Compact is generally understood in light of its covenantal nature, our point of emphasis here, which played a crucial role in the development of American democracy and governance. The Compact was essentially an agreement among the Pilgrims to form a “civil body politic” and abide by laws created for the general good of the colony. This concept is that of a social contract, i.e., an approach where individuals collectively agree to form a government and follow its rules, and it is very much akin to a covenant; importantly, it laid the groundwork for later democratic principles in America[3]. The covenantal nature of the Compact reflects the Pilgrims’ commitment to mutual support and cooperation, clearly rooted in their biblical understanding of Covenant. This idea of forming a community based on mutual agreements, commitments, and shared biblical values, fostered solidarity and unity and was essential for their survival and success, and so naturally it greatly influenced the way they governed themselves. The Mayflower Compact as a document is significant not just in secular American history but more spiritually because it established a framework for self-governance based on a biblical understanding of Covenant. By agreeing to form a “civil body politic” and abide by biblically-based laws created for the general good (it was understood that the general good is the natural effect of biblical Law), the Pilgrims set a precedent for democratic principles and the rule of law in America and beyond.  The important takeaway is that the Mayflower Compact, inherently covenantal and God-centric, laid the groundwork for later democratic documents and practices in American history and beyond.

 

Magna Carta (“Great Charter”)

 

The Magna Carta established key principles such as the rule of law, due process, and protection against arbitrary authority. These principles deeply influenced the legal and political frameworks of the English colonies in America. Many colonial charters and early American legal documents incorporated principles from the Magna Carta. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (by Puritan minister Nathaniel Ward, 1641) and the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges (by Quaker leader and advocate for religious freedom William Penn, 1701) included provisions that echoed those found in the Magna Carta. Until the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the American colonies were governed under charters granted by the British Crown, which were influenced by the principles of the Magna Carta. These charters provided a framework for governance, legal rights, and the relationship between the colonies and the Crown (cf. Article IV). The Magna Carta’s emphasis on limiting the power of the ruler and protecting individual rights became part of the American legal and political tradition which heritage in turn influenced the development of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta’s principles of justice, rule of law, and protection of individual rights were foundational to the colonial charters and continued to influence American governance and legal thought up to and beyond the Declaration of Independence—this makes it an important part of America’s Covenant-heritage.

 

Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings.

 

This preamble sets the stage for the document, establishing King John’s authority and addressing the various stakeholders in the kingdom.

 

Salient points:

• Signed in 1215, it was a foundational document in the development of constitutional law.
• It established that everyone, including the king, is subject to the law.
• It guaranteed the freedom and rights of the English Church.
• It included provisions against unlawful imprisonment and ensured the right to a fair trial.
• It addressed various feudal rights and customs, including inheritance and marriage rights.
• It required that certain taxes could not be levied without the common consent of the realm.

 

As pointed out by the last bullet just above, the Magna Carta required that certain taxes could not be levied without the common consent of the realm. This principle influenced the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that all taxes must be approved by Congress (Article I, Sections 7, 8-scroll down to find these sections), reflecting the idea of “no taxation without representation.” The Magna Carta’s emphasis on protecting certain rights and liberties laid the groundwork for the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which enumerate specific individual freedoms. These things show how the Magna Carta’s principles helped shape the foundational ideas of American governance.

 

Jubilee

 

While there isn’t a direct, intimate connection between Leviticus 25, the concept of Jubilee in Covenant Israel, and the Magna Carta, there certainly are thematic parallels that can be drawn between them (“Jesus our Jubilee” is off-subject but delves into Jubilee per se; note Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18).

 

• Leviticus 25 outlines the concept of the Jubilee year, which occurs every 50 years. During this year, debts are forgiven, slaves are freed, and land is returned to its original owners. By this God intended to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few and to ensure a more equitable society. For its part, the Magna Carta established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law. It also included provisions to protect the rights of nobility, landowners, and the people per se, against arbitrary rule.
• Both the Jubilee and the Magna Carta emphasize the restoration of rights and fairness:The Jubilee aimed to restore economic balance and social justice, while the Magna Carta sought to limit the power of the monarchy and protect individual rights.

• The Jubilee limited the power of wealth accumulation, while the Magna Carta limited the power of the king, ensuring that no one was above the law.
• Both reflect a concern for social justice and the well-being of the community, whether through economic measures (Jubilee) or legal protections (Magna Carta).

 

These connections highlight a shared concern for equity, justice, liberty, and the limitation of power, even though they emerged in very different historical and cultural contexts.

 

Seven Principles of Covenant in the Magna Carta

• Authority, Justification thereof: Preamble “…, by the grace of God…”
• Bindingness: The Magna Carta reflects the principle of bindingness through several clauses that establish enduring commitments and obligations. Clause 1 guarantees the freedom of the English Church. “The English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate.” This establishes a binding commitment to the Church’s autonomy and rights. Clause 39, which ensures the right to due process. “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” This clause binds the king and his officials to uphold the legal rights of individuals. And Clause 40, which guarantees justice. “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” This reflects a binding commitment to provide fair and timely justice to all. These clauses illustrate the Magna Carta’s intent to create lasting and enforceable obligations that limit the power of the monarchy and protect ecclesiastical and individual rights.
• Community: An example can be found in its references to the “community of the whole land,” which underscores the idea that the rights and liberties granted by the Magna Carta were intended to benefit not just the barons and nobility, but the broader community in England (e.g., clause 61 which we will quote later).
• Irrevocability: The Magna Carta contains several clauses that reflect the principle of irrevocability, meaning certain rights and liberties were intended to be permanent and unchangeable. For example, Clause 1 guaranteeing the freedom of the English Church, i.e., free, with full rights and liberties. “The English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate.” This clause underscores the irrevocable nature of the Church’s rights and liberties. And Clause 39, which establishes the right to due process. “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” What we see here is that certain legal rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away. Another would be Clause 40, ensuring justice. “To no one will we sell to no one deny or delay right or justice.” Here is emphasized the irrevocable commitment to fair and timely justice. Altogether these clauses illustrate the Magna Carta’s intent to establish enduring principles that protect ecclesiastical and individual rights and limit the power of the monarchy.
• Legal Framework for the administration of Law: The Magna Carta reflects a legal framework for the administration of law through several key principles and clauses that laid the foundation for modern legal systems. It established that everyone, including the king, is subject to the law. This principle is expressed in the idea that  no one is above the law, which is fundamental to the administration of justice. Clauses 39 and 40 are particularly significant in establishing the right to due process. Clause 39 “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Clause 40 adds: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” These clauses ensure that legal proceedings must be fair and that justice cannot be arbitrarily denied. The Magna Carta laid the groundwork for the concept of habeas corpus, which protects individuals from unlawful detention. This principle ensures that a person cannot be held in custody without being charged with a specific crime and having the opportunity to challenge their detention in court. Clause 61 established a council of barons to monitor the king’s adherence to the charter, creating an early form of checks and balances. This council had the authority to enforce the charter’s provisions and address grievances, ensuring that the king’s power was not absolute. The Magna Carta included various clauses that protected the rights of individuals, such as property rights and protections against excessive fines and punishments. These protections helped to create a more predictable and fair legal environment. These principles and clauses collectively reflect a legal framework that emphasizes accountability, fairness, and the protection of individual rights, which are essential components of the administration of law, all of which are particular to the U.S. Constitution and of course to God’s Law (Deuteronomy 16:20, Proverbs 21:3, 31:8-9, Isaiah 1:17, Galatians 6:1-2, Romans 14:12, et al.).
• Limited Modifiability: The Magna Carta reflects the principle of limited modifiability through its clauses that establish enduring rights and procedures, while also allowing for certain adjustments and renewals over time. For example, Clause 61 which establishes a council of 25 barons to ensure the king’s compliance with the charter. It includes mechanisms for addressing grievances and enforcing the charter’s terms, reflecting a system that can adapt to ensure its principles are upheld. “If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us… to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we make no redress within forty days… the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land [note too the community principle we mentioned].” And the Reissuance Clauses—the Magna Carta was reissued several times after its original issuance in 1215, with modifications to adapt to changing political circumstances. For example, it was reissued in 1216, 1217, and 1225, each time with some changes to its content. This process of reissuance demonstrates the document’s ability to be modified while maintaining its core principles. The Magna Carta was designed to be a lasting framework with mechanisms for adaption and enforcement, ensuring its principles could endure over time while allowing for necessary adjustments (cf. Article V of the U.S. Constitution). In contrast, the Bible relies on ongoing commentary and interpretation with application, all alike by way of pastors, biblical scholars and theologians, and lay communities, to address contemporary issues without altering the original text. Here necessarily manifests the Great Divide, the sacred | secular point of departure: God’s Word is perfect and need not be altered, in fact He expressly disallows that—imagine if He did allow it, what would that tell us about His sacred Word—Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19).
• Mutual Agreement/Commitment: several clauses, 61 for example “If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us… to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we make no redress within forty days… the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else, saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

 

In sum, the impact of the Magna Carta on American governance is profound. It is often regarded as a cornerstone of constitutional law due to its covenantal nature. It established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law; it introduced the idea that the monarch’s power was not absolute, laying the groundwork for the rule of law, which principle became fundamental in American governance, ensuring that government authority is exercised within the framework of established laws. That word “established” bespeaks Covenant in the extreme. It included clauses that protected the rights and liberties of individuals, such as the right to a fair trial and protection from arbitrary imprisonment, and an early form of checks and balances—these concepts were echoed in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

For our purposes, its covenantal nature influenced the development of social contracts in American political thought. This is evident in foundational documents like the Mayflower Compact discussed above (Magna Carta predated the Mayflower Compact by 1620-1215=405 years), and is evident in the U.S. Constitution itself (ratified 1788, operational 1789). It established early forms of checks and balances by limiting the king’s power and ensuring that he could not act unilaterally. This key idea was integral to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who designed a system of government with separate branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful (Articles I, II, III).

 

The Magna Carta’s principles resonated deeply with the American colonists, who sought to create a government that protected individual “in the image of God” dignity and freedoms, and operated under the rule of law in a manner consistent with biblical Law. Toward that end, its (biblical) covenantal nature provided a model for them, establishing agreements that balanced power and safeguarded rights, which became central to American democratic governance.

 

Eight Biblical Covenants=Covenant

 

Can the reader find one or more principles of Covenant in the biblical covenants below (authority, binding, community, irrevocability, legal framework for administration, limited modifiability, mutual agreement/commitment)? Please note God’s precondition for establishing a given covenant: Psalms 25:14–or is this verse more specifically referring to the New Covenant and Jesus?

 

• Edenic—Rule (Genesis 1:28, 2:15)
• Adamic—Redemption (Genesis 3:15)
• Noahic—Raze, Restraint. (Genesis 6:7, 9:15-17)
• Abrahamic—Restore (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:7; note Genesis 15:8-14, 15-18 which is “Covenant in shoe leather,” i.e., “covenant” literally means “cut.” Jehovah God “cut” a Covenant with Abraham | Israel on that day, and of course, it is inviolable.)
• Mosaic—Reveal (Exodus 19:5-6, 20:1-17, 24:7-8, Leviticus 26:3-13, Deuteronomy 5:1-22, 28:1-14)
• Palestinian—Return (Deuteronomy 29-30)
• Davidic—Reign (2Samuel 7:12-16)
• New—Regenerate (Jeremiah 31:27-34)

 

Both biblical covenants and the U.S. Constitution reflect principles of Covenant.

 

• Both have precisely the same justification for their authority, namely Jehovah God (Romans 13:1, cf. preamble, Art. VI cl. 2—the “supremacy clause,” Art. II sect. I “executive power”). While these clauses and preamble do not invoke divine authority, they establish an authoritative, legal framework for governance and the rule of law, which aligns with the principle of respecting and submitting to governing authorities as outlined in Romans 13:1. As concerns the Preamble’s “Blessings of Liberty,” God, the quintessential Blesser, is implied and in view here in keeping with the Constitution’s foundational documents, their God-centric sentiments in that regard. For example, the Mayflower Compact explicitly mentions God in its opening lines, stating that the signers undertook their voyage “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith.” This reflects the Pilgrims’ belief that their journey and settlement were under divine guidance and blessing. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, begins with an invocation of divine favor, stating that it was issued “in the year of our Lord” and by the “grace of God.” While it doesn’t specifically mention God’s blessings, it acknowledges the authority and presence of God in its preamble. These references highlight the importance of divine authority and blessing in the foundational documents of both English and American political traditions.
• They both share the concept of a binding agreement that establishes a set of principles and obligations for the parties involved; both are intended to be enduring and binding on future generations; the use of terms like “everlasting” in biblical covenants (Genesis 17:7) and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution reflect this permanence. Yet both allow for limited modifiability to better achieve their purposes. Biblical covenants can be renewed or adapted by God Himself (e.g., Deuteronomy 29-30), while the Constitution can be amended through a rigorous congressional process (Article V). These parallels highlight how both aim to balance stability with the ability to adapt to changing circumstances; to be clear, both are intended to be enduring agreements that guide the community over time; biblical covenants are seen as eternal and perfectly sufficient in themselves, while the U.S. Constitution is designed to be a lasting, legal framework, adaptable through amendments.
• Both serve as foundational documents that outline the fundamental principles and laws governing a community—biblical covenants, such as those with Abraham and Moses, set the terms of the relationship between Jehovah God and His people, similarly, the U.S. Constitution establishes the framework for the government and its relationship with U.S. citizens. Clearly both define the identity and values of a community—biblical covenants shape the religious and cultural identity of God’s Covenant People, the U.S. Constitution defines the political and civic identity of the American people.
• Biblical covenants often include moral and ethical directives, such as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-7, 8-14, 15-17). The U.S. Constitution, while primarily a legal document, is similarly undergirded by principles of equality, justice, and the rule of law.
• Both involve mutual agreements and commitments. In biblical covenants, God promises blessings and protection in return for His Covenant People’s faithfulness and obedience. The U.S. Constitution outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the government and the citizens, ensuring protection of liberties in exchange for adherence to the law.

 

These parallels highlight how both types of covenants, i.e., biblical, U.S. Constitution, serve to establish and maintain justice, order, and a sense of shared purpose that is high, higher, and ultimate.

 

Concluding Comments

 

While God did not enter into a formal covenant with the United States as He did with Israel, we have tried to show that many early American settlers and leaders believed they were in fact establishing a covenant with God. This belief was rooted in their desire to create a society based on biblical principles. The Pilgrims and Puritans who settled in America saw their journey and settlement as part of a divine mission, they often referred to their agreements and charters as covenants with God, aiming to build a “city upon a hill” that would serve as a model of Christian virtue. Wow, somewhere along the way we have lost that focus, particularly since World War II thereabouts. Going forward, we better revisit that focus and make it our number one priority to do so as a nation and as individual citizens, because America will never be great let alone survive without that kind of “city upon a hill” focus and thrust. Well, these early covenants and compacts, such as the Mayflower Compact we discussed, were seen as binding agreements under God, as evidenced by referencing His Name therein again and again, and they greatly influenced the development of American political thought and of course the U.S. Constitution—therein pretty much lies the purpose of the study, to show that connection.

 

A bit of summarizing and some final thoughts.

 

The Mayflower Compact played a significant role in shaping the foundations of American democracy and influenced the American Revolution and independence in several ways.

 

• Signed in 1620 by the Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower, it was one of the first attempts at self-governance in the New World. It established a basic form of democracy where the signers agreed to create and abide by their own laws for the good of the colony. This idea of self-governance and collective decision-making was a precursor to the democratic principles that would later be central to the American Revolution.
• The Compact was essentially a covenant, indeed, a form of social contract where the settlers consented to follow the community’s rules and regulations for the sake of order and survival. This concept of a social contract influenced Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke (“father of liberalism,” faith and reason proponent), whose ideas on government and natural rights were pivotal in the ideological foundation of the American Revolution.
• The principles laid out in the Mayflower Compact influenced later colonial charters and documents. It set a precedent for the idea that legitimate government must be based on the consent of the governed, a key argument in the Declaration of Independence.
• The Compact helped to unify the diverse group of settlers, including both Pilgrims and non-Pilgrims (so-called “strangers”), by creating a common framework for governance. This spirit of cooperation and unity was crucial during the Revolutionary War, as the colonies needed to tether together to achieve independence from Britain.

 

In short, the Mayflower Compact’s emphasis on self-governance, social contracts, and collective decision-making laid important groundwork for the democratic ideals that fueled the American Revolution and the quest for independence.

 

While the Mayflower Compact was heavily influenced by the immediate, practical needs of the settlers, the foundational principles of the Magna Carta, such as the rule of law and self-governance, were also significant influences. It established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law, and guaranteed certain rights such as protection from unlawful imprisonment and the right to a fair trial. The rub here from the colonists’ perspective is the colonial charters, they guaranteed certain rights to the colonists, and many colonists believed these rights were being violated by British policies, particularly with regard to taxation without representation[4]. This belief was a major grievance leading to the American Revolution and on the heels of that revolution came the creation of the United Sates of America—that’s the mundane thumbnail view of how we emerged as a nation. The Declaration of Independence did not explicitly reference the Magna Carta, but it echoed its principles by asserting the colonists’ right to self-governance and listing grievances against King George III, similar to how the Magna Carta listed grievances against King John. [5]

 

Both the Mayflower Compact and the Magna Carta reflect key principles of covenants. Not least, both were agreements made by the parties involved to govern their relationships and ensure mutual obligations. They aimed to establish order and justice, whether in the context of medieval England or the early American colonies. And both were intended to be binding on the parties, creating a sense of accountability and shared responsibility. In this sense, the Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact can clearly be viewed as forms of covenants, reflecting the enduring importance of mutual agreements and commitments in governance and society.

 

Biblical covenants share many similarities with the principles reflected in the Mayflower Compact and the Magna Carta.

 

• Biblical covenants are solemn agreements between God and humans, often involving promises and mutual commitments and obligations, where both parties have roles and responsibilities. Similarly, Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact were agreements among people (and in the case of Magna Carta, between the king and his subjects) to govern their relationships and ensure mutual obligations.
• Biblical Covenants often set out laws and principles to guide moral and social behavior, aiming to establish a just and orderly society in keeping with God’s holy nature and under His guidance. Similarly, Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact aimed to create a framework for governance that ensured justice and order within their respective societies.
• Biblical Covenants were intended to be enduring and binding, creating a sense of accountability to God and among the people. Similarly, Magna Carta and Mayflower Compact were meant to be binding, establishing accountability and shared responsibility among the signatories.
• Biblical Covenants emphasize the importance of faithfulness and adherence to the agreed terms, with consequences for breaking the covenant. Similarly, Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact created mechanisms for ensuring that the parties adhered to their commitments, fostering a sense of collective responsibility.

 

In essence, biblical covenants, the Mayflower Compact, and the Magna Carta, all alike reflect the enduring importance of mutual agreements and commitments in establishing governance, justice, and societal order. They highlight the principles of accountability, mutual commitment, and the pursuit of a just and orderly society. The conclusion is easy, therefore: While the U.S. Constitution itself does not explicitly mention biblical principles, the foundational documents and the philosophical context that influenced its framing were heavily steeped in biblical covenantal principles. In other words, the U.S. Constitution is implicitly a document very much rooted in biblical principles, necessarily because of its biblical covenantal underpinnings[6]. Many of the Founding Fathers were guided and influenced by biblical principles in particular the moral and ethical teachings of Christianity. This influence is quite evident in their writings and the values they espoused herein. For example, the colonial charters and early state constitutions, which preceded the U.S. Constitution, often reflected Christian biblical principles; these documents emphasized justice, the rule of law, and the idea of a covenant between the governed and their leaders. The concept of a covenant, which is central to many biblical teachings, is mirrored in the idea of a social contract that underpins the U.S. Constitution. This includes the mutual obligations and accountability between the government and the people. The Puritans, who were among the early settlers in America, brought with them a strong sense of covenant theology. The impact of Puritan covenant theology on American political thought and community was significant to put it mildly. Overall, the Puritans’ covenant theology played a crucial role in shaping early American society, laying the groundwork for many of the political and social values that continue to influence the United States today.

 

So, while the U.S. Constitution is a secular document no doubt, the principles and ideas that greatly influenced its creation were significantly shaped by biblical covenantal principles. To bring that influence into sharper focus, one might ask: What would our constitution look like had it not been influenced by biblical covenantal principles to the great extent that it was? One shudders to think what such a Godless-in-the-extreme governing concoction would look like. May God prevent us from turning what we have, nay, what He has given us, into such a grotesque, Godless concoction going forward.

 

Thank you, great Jehovah God, for founding this great nation, the United States of America. Thank you for our Founding Fathers. Thank you for our early brethren in Christ who so greatly influenced our precious Christian heritage. Thank you for all those who sacrificed for America, sacrificed so that we might enjoy the blessings and freedom and liberty we do today; thank you for them. Please help us to be a bastion of biblical, covenantal principles true to the underpinnings of our Constitution in all the days you have prescribed for us as a nation. Cause us to be the greatest evangelical nation in the world proclaiming your governance, justice, and blessed, salvific Name, and ever help us to walk that proclamation talk, for your glory. Let us not go on our own willful ways and completely abandon you lest we be completely abandoned by you, even you, our Founder and Sustainer. Forgive our manifold national and individual sins and trespasses against you and grant us a sacred national and individual healing in that regard. In Jesus’ honorable and worthy Name we ask these things. Amen.

 

 

Illustrations and Tables

Figure 1. One Nation, Blessed, Exceedingly Great, Whilst Under God.

The Covenant God of Israel Ever Bless Thee Beloved America (Genesis 12:1-3). Amen.

Works Cited and References

 

“A Letter of Invitation.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/a-letter-of-invitation-2/ >

“A City on a Hill: Why John Winthrop and the Puritans Came to America.”

AmericanHeritageEducationalFoundation.

< https://americanheritage.org/a-city-on-a-hill-why-john-winthrop-and-the-puritans-came-to-america/ >

“A Modern Take on Biblical Blood Covenants.”

iBelieve.

< https://www.ibelieve.com/christian-living/a-modern-take-on-biblical-blood-covenants.html >

Adams, John.

A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.

InternetArchive.

< https://archive.org/details/defenceofcons00adam >

“America’s Explicit Covenant with God.”

CBN

< https://cbn.com/news/us/americas-explicit-covenant-god-how-nation-pledged-god-can-save-world-or-lose-it >

“BC Please, Not BCE.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/bc-please-not-bce/ >

“Covenant People.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/covenant-people/ >

“Anti-Federalism.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism >

“Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation >

“Authoritarianism.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism >

“Basic Laws of Israel.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel >

“Biblical Covenants of God.”

RhettCreative | YouTube.

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvvey71pfy0 >

“Book of the Covenant.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Covenant >

“Christian Amendment.”

MTSU FreeSpeechCenter.

< https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/christian-amendment/ >

“Confirmation of the Charters (Confirmatio Cartarum).”

Yale Law Schol.

< https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/confcha.asp >

“Constitution Annotated.”

Archives.gov.

< https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ >

“Constitution of the confederate States.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States >

“Constitution of the United Sates.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States >

“Commonwealth Charter.”

TheCommonwealth.

< https://thecommonwealth.org/charter >

“Covenant and Constitutions.”

LonangInstitute.

< https://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/americas-heritage-constitutional-liberty/covenant-and-constitutions/ >

“Covenant and the American Founding.”

JerusalemCenterforPbulicAffairs.

< https://dje.jcpa.org/articles/cov-amer.htm >

“Creating the United Sates.”

LibraryofCongress.

< https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html >

“Democracy.”

OurWorldinData.

< https://ourworldindata.org/democracy >

“Democracy.”

Wikipededia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy >

Encyclopedia of the First Amendment.

Middle Tennesse State University.

< https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/about-the-encyclopedia/ >

“Established Churches in Early America.”

MTSU FreeSpeechCenter.

< https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/established-churches-in-early-america/ >

“Fascism.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism >

“Federalism.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism >

Figure 1.

Pexels.com, robertkso17502130.

< https://www.pexels.com/ >

“First Continental Congress—America’s First Government.”

History.com.

< https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/first-continental-congress/ >

“Founding Fathers of the United States.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States >

“Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven.”

Yale Law School.

< https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ct01.asp >

“How did the Bible Influence the U.S. Constitution?”

TheClassroom.

< https://www.theclassroom.com/thomas-hobbes-importance-american-government-22001.html >

“How did Magna Carta Influence the U.S. Constittution, Bill of Rights.?”

History.com

< https://www.history.com/news/magna-carta-influence-us-constitution-bill-of-rights >

“How is the Blood Covenant Represented in the Old and New Testaments?”

Biblechat.

< https://biblechat.ai/knowledgebase/biblical-studies/biblical-theology/how-blood-covenant-represented-old-new-testaments/ >

“How the Mayflower Compact Laid a Foundation for American Democracy.”

History.com

< https://www.history.com/news/mayflower-compact-colonial-america-plymouth >

“Inaugural Address (G. Washington, 1789).”

TeachingAmericanHistory.

< https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/first-inaugural-address-gw/ >

“Jesus Our Jubilee.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/jesus-our-jubilee/ >

“Lex Rex.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex,_Rex >

“Liberty Bell.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Bell >

“Magna Carta.”

< Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta >

Microsoft Copilot.

October 2024.

“…More Than Half of Countries are Democratic…”

PewResearchCenter.

< https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/ >

“New England Confederation: The First Union in Colonial America.”

AmericanHistoryCentral.

< https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/new-england-confederation/ >

“Portsmouth Compact.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Compact >

“Powerful Biblical Stories of Change and Renewal.”

AnsweredFaith.

< https://answeredfaith.com/examples-change-bible/ >

“Presiding over the Convention: The Indispensable Man.”

George Washington’s Mount Vernon.

< https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/constitutional-convention/convention-president >

“Republic.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic >

Sproul, R.C.

“The Covenant.”

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKNIPNbnHgw >

“Stamp Act Congress.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_Congress >

Stoler, M.A.

“The Original Intent of the Constitution.”

< https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=u.s.+constitution+covenants+with+god&mid=79E4FAD8E611AEF6318979E4FAD8E611AEF63189&cvid=97D99F94DDE449718EDFF771632BBDEF&FORM=VIRE >

“Supremacy Clause.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause >

“The Amendments.”

NationalConstitutionCenter.

< https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments >

“The American Social contract in the Declaration and Constitution.”

American Heritage Education Foundation.

< https://americanheritage.org/the-american-bible-inspired-social-contract/ >

“The Bible and the U.S. Constitution.”

BibleOdyssey.

< https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/the-bible-and-the-us-constitution/ >

“The Bible-inspired Influences on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

American Heritage Education Foundation.

< https://americanheritage.org/the-bible-inspired-influences-on-the-u-s-constitution-and-u-s-bill-of-rights/ >

“The Constitution: what does it say?”

NationalArchives.

< https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution/what-does-it-say >

“The Constitutional Convention.”

GeorgeWashington.org.

< https://www.georgewashington.org/constitutional-convention.jsp >

“The Federalist Papers.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers >

“The Great Awakening Emerges in Early America, Impacting Religion, Society, and Politics.”

American Heritage Foundation.

< https://americanheritage.org/great-awakening-emerges-early-1700s/ >

“The Judgment of Abandonment.”

Jesus, Amen.

< https://development.jesusamen.org/the-judgment-of-abandonment/ >

The Mayflower Compact.”

Britannica.com.

< https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mayflower-Compact >

The Mayflower Compact Laid a Foundation for American Democracy.”

Encyclopedia.com.

< https://www.history.com/news/mayflower-compact-colonial-america-plymouth >

“The Pilgrims.”

History.com.

< https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/pilgrims >

“The Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact as a Covenant.

American Heritage Educational Foundation.

< https://americanheritage.org/the-pilgrims-mayflower-compact-was-a-covenant/ >

“The Puritans in America Created the First “Written Constitution of Law.”

American Heritage Education Foundation

< https://americanheritage.org/created-first-written-constitution-history/ >

“The Suzerain Vassal Treaty (Covenant) in the Old Testament.”

RussMeek.

< https://russmeek.com/2020/10/the-suzerain-vassal-treaty-covenant-in-the-old-testament/ >

“Thirteen Colonies.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies >

“Understanding the Basic Difference between Fascism and Nazism.”

HistoryPlex.
.< https://historyplex.com/difference-between-fascism-nazism >

“United States Bill of Rights.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights >

“United Sates Declaration of Independence.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence >

“United States House of Representatives.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives >

“United States Senate.”

Wikipedia.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate >

“Was the U.S. Constitution Based on the Bible?”

TheHolyScript.

< https://www.theholyscript.com/was-the-u-s-constitution-based-on-the-bible/ >

“What are the 7 Covenants in the Bible.”

TheHolyScript.

< https://www.theholyscript.com/what-are-the-7-covenants-in-the-bible/ >

“What is a Bicameral Legislation and Why does the U.S. Have One?”

ThoughtCo.

< https://www.thoughtco.com/why-we-have-house-and-senate-3322313 >

“Why God is in the Declaration but Not the constitution.”

American Revolution.

< https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/ >

 

Notes

[1] . Officially “Islamic Republic” of Iran, which signifies a blend of two systems, aiming to integrate Islamic governance with republican principles. Aside: Because it is demonstrably a sponsor of global terror and its attendant barbarism and savagery to achieve national aims, and practices both strict intolerance and oppression internally under the auspices of its religious norms, and blatant genocidal antisemitism, the current regime directing and governing and guiding the Islamic Republic of Iran can arguably be more narrowly categorized as a revolutionary fascist theocracy.

[2] This is King James I who commissioned the King James version of the Bible in 1611.

[3] The idea of a “social contract” is viewed differently by various fundamentalist Christian thinkers, depending on their theological and philosophical perspectives. Some fundamentalist Christians may support the concept of a social contract if it aligns with biblical principles of justice, order, and mutual responsibility. They might see it as a way to ensure that government and society function in a manner that reflects Christian values. Others might be critical of the social contract theory, particularly if they perceive it as emphasizing human autonomy and secular governance over divine authority. They may argue that true justice and order can only be achieved through adherence to God’s laws, rather than human-made agreements. Fundamentalist Christians who prioritize a theocratic or biblically-based governance model might view the social contract as insufficient because it does not explicitly acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They might prefer a system where laws and governance are directly derived from biblical teachings. Historically, some Christian thinkers have integrated social contract ideas with their theological views. For example, the Puritans in early America saw their community covenants as both social contracts and religious commitments.

[4]The colonial charters were granted by the Crown. They were official documents issued by the king that authorized the establishment of colonies in the New World. They outlined the rights and privileges of the colonists, as well as the governance structure of the colony. They “shadowed” the principles of the Magna Carta, they were like localized extensions of the principles established by the “Great Charter,” i.e., the Magna Carta.

[5] The colonists’ view of “taxation without representation” as a grievance was deeply rooted in their understanding of the rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta and their belief in the necessity of representation in government.

[6] What it has become, and where it seems to be heading, well, that is a different matter.