The Declaration of Independence proclaims as a “self-evident” truth that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
“Rights come from the Creator,” Christians note joyfully. “So that settles it – the Declaration is a Christian document.
But the Declaration can be considered “Christian” only if it is consistent with the Bible, rightly interpreted. So does the Bible contain a bill of rights?
Some say asserting rights is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, which is giving up your rights for others. But on no less than three occasions, Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen, first in Acts 16:37-38 and 22:25-29, where Paul challenges the legality of flogging him without a trial, and then in Acts 25:11, where he appeals to Caesar and avoids trial by the Sanhedrin. Each time, he asserted his rights not for personal gain, but to gain a hearing for the Gospel.
Man’s creation in the image of God means man is created with human dignity. Certain rights go with that human dignity.
Although the Bible prescribes punishment for crimes, human dignity requires that no one be punished without clear proof of guilt. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death,” Deuteronomy 17:6 says.
Also, the negative commands of Scripture imply human rights. “Thou shalt not kill” implies a right to life. “Thou shalt not steal” implies a right to property. One might argue that this means only that one may not steal from the state; but the command against coveting “anything that is thy neighbor’s” clearly encompasses private property. The biblical command against manstealing implies a right to liberty. In the account of Naboth’s vineyard, even the apostate King Ahab recognizes that under Hebrew law Naboth could refuse to sell his vineyard, although Ahab’s Phoenician-born wife Queen Jezebel held such rights in contempt.
Martin Luther saw in Christ’s response to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:15-22 as a jurisdictional limit on tyranny:
A tyrant takes from his subjects as long as he finds something to take. This privilege the Lord does not here want to concede to government. On the contrary, by the fact that He commands the subjects: ‘Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’ he also wants to give governments or the emperors to understand that they are not to demand and take more than is theirs.
The limited powers of government also imply human rights. Do I have a right to be rude or selfish? Maybe not, but civil government has no authority to force me to be polite or generous.
John Locke summarized man’s God-given rights as life, liberty and property, as do the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The Declaration, however, lists them as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson valued property rights but included them with other human liberties. The right to pursue happiness is the right to engage in those pursuits that bring lasting happiness – pursuit of virtue, developing good habits, practicing a work ethic, engaging in good financial management, and being in a right relationship with God, family and community. The American framers would consider the modern interpretation of pursuit of happiness – wallowing in promiscuity and self-indulgence – a sure-fire formula for misery and bondage.
Why does the Declaration call these rights unalienable? (Or is it inalienable? No, the final version of the Declaration says “unalienable,” and I’m sticking with that.) Unalienable rights are those which neither the government nor anyone else can take away. Some would say unalienable rights cannot even be surrendered voluntarily.
If rights cannot be taken away, there must be something unique about their Source. Where do they come from? Clearly, not from the government. If government gives rights, government can take them away, meaning they are not unalienable rights but only negotiable privileges.
Nor can the Constitution be the source of unalienable rights. Men created the Constitution, and men can amend it to eliminate guarantees of rights.
Nor can they simply be inherent in our nature. How did they become part of our nature? Through some Darwinian evolutionary process? Do amoebas have rights? Dinosaurs? Apes or ape-men? How did physical organisms evolve a nonphysical human soul?
The only firm basis for unalienable rights is the recognition that these rights come from a higher Source than man and his institutions. And what Source could that be but God? Jefferson answered that question clearly, eloquently and succinctly – “by their Creator.”
So the Declaration’s recognition that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights is clearly consistent with Scripture and a Judeo-Christian worldview.
How does government fit into this picture? Jefferson gives the following response: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Governments don’t grant rights. Governments merely secure (protect, make possible the enjoyment of) the rights that God has already granted.
But from whence does government derive its just powers? We’ll examine this question next week.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Chairman of the Board of the Plymouth Rock Foundation (plymrock.org). He lives in rural Pike Road, Ala., and may be contacted for speaking engagements at [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
