WHEN THE BIBLE WAS KING IN AMERICA

The Bible was the most cherished and the most quoted book in early America. America’s founding generation found in the pages of the Bible its moral compass, its guide for ethics, and the lens through which it viewed and interpreted all of life. It is, therefore, not surprising that the second most popular book in early America proposed a ceremony making the Bible America’s king.

In January of 1776, Thomas Paine published his very popular book, Common Sense, in which he presented compelling arguments for independence from Great Britain. The book sold 500,000 copies, which would be like 60 million with today’s population.

The book played a primary role in convincing the colonists to declare their independence from Great Britain. In the book, Paine suggested a public ceremony that would show that Americans had replaced King George with the Word of God as their king.

Paine suggested an Independence ceremony in which America’s founding charter would be placed on a Bible and a crown placed on the charter. This would be a public demonstration that in the new nation the Law of God would be their king. He wrote,

But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.

This exact ceremony did not occur, but the same message was conveyed 11 years later when George Washington took the first presidential oath of office with his hand on a Bible. This act showed, that for Washington, the Bible was Supreme. When someone swears an oath, they swear by something greater than themselves. For Washington, the Bible was the highest tangible authority by which he could swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.

A ten-year study to find where America’s founders got their ideas for America’s founding documents, found that they quoted the Bible far more than any other source. America’s second president, John Adams, one of the most learned men in America, believed that if the Bible were truly king, it would produce a utopian paradise on earth. He wrote,

Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. In this Commonwealth, no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbor but would live in peace and good will with all men—no man would blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship, but a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

The major role of the Bible in the founding of America was highlighted in a 1982 article in Newsweek magazine, entitled “How the Bible Made America.” The authors, in vivid fashion, showed the Bible’s impact on the founding of America and wrote,

For centuries, the Bible has exerted an unrivaled influence on American culture, politics, and social life. Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document: the source of the powerful myth of the United States as a special, sacred nation, a people called by God to establish a model of society, a beacon to the world.

America is in trouble today. Sixty plus years of vehement attacks on the Bible and its removal from the public life of the nation have produced a large element in our culture that is crude, cruel, selfish and intolerant. America must revisit the role of the Bible in her rise to prominence and in defeating slavery at a time it was being practiced around the world. This is what I do in my soon-to-be-published book entitled, The Book that Made America Great. Watch for it.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is the author of numerous books on America's overt Christian origins, including 1726: The Year that Defined America, which documents how the Great Awakening, which began in 1726, had a direct bearing on the founding of America and the ending of slavery on this continent. His books are available from Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com.

THE DISTORTED THINKING BEHIND THE RIOTS IN LOS ANGELES

When Freedom is Turned into Lawlessness & Anarchy

Political supporters of the violent protestors insist that they are exercising their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. This is a blatant distortion of those rights and America's founders warned this would happen with an amoral and irreligious people.

America’s Founders knew that the success of the nation they had formed hinged on the moral character of its citizens and their ability to govern themselves. For example, President John Adams, in a 1798 speech, warned,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

From the beginning, political liberty and Christian virtue were linked together in the minds of America’s founding generation. This is why John Dickinson, Founding Father and chairman of the committee that produced the Articles of Confederation, warned that, “when states lose their liberty, this calamity is generally owing to a decay of virtue.”

Virtue is defined as "moral excellence" and America’s Founding Fathers all agreed that only a virtuous people could handle freedom. They also knew that such a people would be the fruit of a vibrant Christianity. This was made clear by John Adams in a letter to his cousin, Zabdiel Adams, a minister of the Gospel, two weeks before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote,

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure virtue . . . You cannot therefore be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the Way of your Profession, pulling down the strongholds of Satan.

When the Founders speak of “religion” they are speaking of Christianity, and they saw Christianity as offering the only moral and philosophical system that would undergird the nation they had formed. George Washington made this clear in his Farewell Address of 1796 after serving two terms as America’s first president. Washington warned the young nation to guard against separating freedom from faith.  He wrote,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  

Far from having a hostility or even indifference toward Christianity, America's Founders counted on a vibrant Christianity to be a rejuvenating moral and ethical force in American society. 

They knew that unless the American people were a virtuous people, the freedoms they were implementing would be turned into anarchy and societal chaos. This is exactly what we see happening today with the violent anti-government, antisemitic, pro-Hamas protestors and their supporters claiming a constitutional right to free speech. This is the distorted thinking that is fueling these riots.

It is time for the American church to step up to the plate and be the spiritual rejuvenating force the Founders counted on her to be. Only then will our constitutional freedoms be preserved, for faith and freedom must coexist in America if either are to be preserved.

This article was derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's books, 1726: The Year that Defined America and Pilgrims and Patriots, both available from Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com.

Making the Most of Your Priestly Privilege

When Jesus died on the cross, the Old Testament priesthood came to an end. This was signified by the fact that the heavy curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom at the very moment of His death. Matthew 27:50-51 says,

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom; and the earth quaked and the rocks were rent.

This veil was about 30 feet high and four inches thick. No one was allowed past this veil except the high priest who went in once a year before Almighty God to offer a blood sacrifice for the sins of the people of Israel. It was a fearful thing, even for the high priest, to venture into the presence of God hidden behind this veil.

This veil was so strong and thick that the Jewish historian, Josephus, stated that even two oxen could not tear it. However, when Jesus died, it was ripped from the top to the bottom.

This was an obvious act of God. It was God saying, “The way has been made. The ultimate sacrifice has been offered. The redemptive price has been paid. You are welcome to come into My presence.”

At that point, the Old Testament priesthood ended. There was no longer any need for a human priest to mediate between the people and God. The veil was rent, and all could not now enter freely into His presence.

Modern churches that maintain a priestly ministry to mediate between God and the people are completely out of sync with what Jesus accomplished for us at the Cross. Because of what Jesus has done, we have become a kingdom of priests, as John wrote in Revelation 1:5-6, To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father.

“The Priesthood of all Believers” was one of the platforms of the Reformation. It means we do not need a human mediator to go before God on our behalf. Neither do we need a departed “saint” to pray for us. We are completely accepted by God when we come to Him through faith in Jesus.

There are NOT many paths to God. There is only One. Jesus Himself said in John 14:6, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Paul echoed this truth some years later when he wrote, For there is one God and one Mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5).

What a wonderful privilege we have in this New Covenant of freely coming into the presence of Almighty God through Jesus and His atoning death. The writer of Hebrews spelled it out when he wrote in 4:16, Let us therefore come boldly to throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in the time of need.

Yes, the veil has been rent, and even now God Almighty welcomes you to come.

This article was derived from the book, Discovering the Real Jesus, by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt. He is the author of around 30 books, which can be found on Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

TWO GREAT AMERICANS SUPPORT PETE HEGSETH 'S PENTAGON PRAYER SERVICE

Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, was inundated with a flood of criticism after leading a prayer service at the Pentagon. Critics accused Hegseth of trying to impose his Christian faith on others and warned that it was an expression of Christian Nationalism and a violation of the First Amendment.

This kind of response, however, merely highlights the ignorance of the First Amendment and America's history that pervades our country. The First Amendment bans Congress from ever establishing an official state church. It does not ban prayer by public officials, which was common in America for the first 150 years of her existence.  

Hegseth merely wants to acknowledge our national need and ask God for His help. In this regard, he has the support of America 's two greatest presidents. He also has precedence on his side for the American army was a praying army from the very beginning.

Washington Ordered Every Day to Begin with Prayer

George Washington took command of the ragtag Colonial Army in May of 1775. Knowing they would need Divine help in facing the mighty British war machine, he immediately issued an order that each day was to begin with prayer led by the officers of each unit. He also began appointing chaplains throughout the different units.

Washington was not trying impose a religion on anyone. He knew that "religion" would not save them from the British. His command to pray was based on the fact that he knew that unless they had help from Heaven they would be devastated by the British forces and they and their children would remain British subjects for generations to come.

This is why he also ordered that, unless their duties required them to be elsewhere, every soldier was to observe “a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of heaven upon the means used for our safety and public defense.”

Washington also forbade profanity, swearing, gambling and drunkenness, explaining, “We can have little hope of the blessing of Heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impiety and folly.” He went on to express his desire that, “Every officer and man will endeavor so as to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier” (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 114).

Not only was there corporate prayer in the ranks of the Colonial Army, but Washington engaged in private prayer on a regular basis. This was confirmed by the Quaker, Isaac Potts, who lived near Valley Forge, and happened upon Washington alone at prayer in the forest. He said,

I heard a plaintive sound as of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling and went quietly into the woods and to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching Him to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, and the cause of the country, of humanity and of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man (Hyatt, 1726: TheYear that Defined America, 115).

Not only did Washington and his troops pray, but the Continental Congress also opened each of their sessions with prayer. They also issued no less than fifteen proclamations for national days of repentance, prayer and fasting during the war. The Catholic scholar, the late Michael Novak, was correct in saying, “In all moments of imminent danger, as in the first Act of the First Continental Congress, the founding generation turned to prayer” (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 109).

Amazing Answers to Prayer

It was a grueling seven years of war, but the prayers of Washington, his troops, and the American populace prevailed. This was acknowledged in a dramatic way on the same day the British commander, General Cornwallis, ended the war by surrendering to Washington on October 19, 1783.

Washington immediately appointed Israel Evans, a chaplain in the Colonial Army, to deliver a Thanksgiving sermon to the troops that same day. A massive crowd from the surrounding region gathered with the troops to hear this sermon.

Evans exhorted them to give thanks to God, knowing that their victory was not the result of their own strength and prowess. He also declared that the same God that fought for Israel in days of old had fought for them. In poetic verse, he declared,

To Him who led in ancient days,

the Hebrew tribes, your anthems raise.

The God who spoke from Sinai’s hill,

Protects His chosen people still,

Not in ourselves success we owe, 
By Divine help we crushed the foe.

Are Hegseth’ s Critics too Proud to Pray?

So, Washington’s orders for prayer were not an attempt to impose his faith on anyone. It was an act of desperation knowing they had no chance against the British forces apart from Divine help. God answered their prayers, and a great new nation was born.

The critics of Hegseth fit the category of those President Abraham Lincoln admonished in his Prayer Proclamation issued at the height of the Civil War. He said that too many Americans had become “too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us” (Hyatt, 1726:The Year that Defined America, 185)!

Pete Hegseth has no desire to impose his faith on anyone. He realizes we are not sufficient in ourselves and he wants to publicly acknowledge the need and ask God for His help. In this, he has separated himself from the modern critics and joined the ranks of great Americans such as Washington and Lincoln who were not too proud to acknowledge our need for God.

This article is derived from the book, 1726:The Year that Defined America, by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt and is available from Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com.

A HATRED HATCHED IN HELL

Here's Why there is Such World-Wide Hated of Jews and Christians

 

The young Jewish couple above, engaged to be married, were murdered in cold-blood as they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.  last night. The gunman shouted “Free Palestine” as he gunned them down. 

Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim were Messianic believers, i.e., Jews who had embraced Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah. Yaron had purchased a ring and planned to propose to Sarah in Jerusalem later in the year and introduce her to his family. Their lives were snuffed out be a demonic-driven hatred that must be confronted on every level--spiritually, politically, lawfully, and rationally.

Two People Groups With Whom God Has Made Covenant

There are two people groups in the earth that are hated by Satan and this couple represented both groups: Jews and Christians. This demonic hatred is because these are the two people groups with whom God has made covenant. Satan cannot get at God, so he viciously attacks those whom God has chosen to advance His purpose and cause.

It is a fact that the same people who hate Jews also hate Bible-believing Christians. In a recently surfaced clip, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas official, declared that after their successful takeover of the globe, the world would finally be rid of “Zionism” and “treacherous Christianity.”

Such hatred is so irrational, which is why I say it must have been hatched in hell. It must be demonic. The Hamas Charter makes it clear that it exists for the purpose of killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. There is no hint of tolerance or a desire to live peaceably with the Jewish state, but only loathing and hatred.

Satan hates Jews because he hates God and God’s purposes. Any human instrument of God's favor and blessing to mankind will become a target of demonic attacks.

Here’s Why Satan Hates Jews

Satan hates Jews because God made a covenant with Abraham and promised that through his descendants the entire world would be blessed, and through his descendants would come the Messiah and Savior of the world.  

The world has been incredibly blessed by the Jews. For example, can you imagine a world with no Bible, no Ten Commandments, no Psalms, no Abraham, no Moses, no King David, and no Elijah. Can you imagine a world with no Isaiah, no Jeremiah, or other prophets who prophesied such wondrous and glorious things to come.

Can you imagine a world with no New Testament, no Gospel, no Sermon on the Mount, and no “love your neighbor as yourself.? Can you imagine a world with no Jesus, no Cross, no Resurrection, and no hope of eternal life?

Now, all these wonderful blessings that have touched people of all races, languages, and ethnicities have come to us through the Jewish people. No wonder that Satan hates the Jewish people! He cannot get directly to God, so he attacks those whom God has chosen to carry out His plan and Purpose.

The restoration of the modern state of Israel is a providential act of God. No one has ever heard of a people without a homeland and scattered throughout the earth suddenly returning to their original homeland and becoming a nation once again after 2000 years. But this is exactly what happened on May 14, 1948 in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies.

Does this mean that the Jews cannot be criticized? Of course not! In the Old Testament God raised up prophets to rebuke the people and nation for their moral sins and idolatry. Israel can be criticized but those calling for the murder of Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel are pitting themselves against God and making themselves instruments of hell.

Here’s Why Satan Hates Christians

Yes, both Jews and Christians are being persecuted all over the world. In northern Nigeria Christian pastors are being murdered, their church buildings burned, and Christian children abducted and forced into Islam. Open Doors, an organization that tracks the persecution of Christians around the world, says that last year over 5000 Christians were martyred for their faith in different parts of the world.

Satan hates Jews and Christians because they are the two people in the earth with whom God has made a covenant and used to advance His purpose in the earth.

Just before He was crucified, Jesus inaugurated a New Covenant, based on His redemptive sacrifice at the Cross, for all who come to Him in faith and acknowledge Him as their Lord and trust Him as their Savior. God is continuing His purposes in the earth through this New Covenant people, made up of both Jew and Gentile.

God’s eternal purposes are at work in both people, whom He is calling together into one body through Messiah Jesus.  Paul wrote of this in Ephesians 2:14-16 where he said of Jesus, 

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation . . . that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Yes, God has worked through the Jewish people to bring so many blessings to humanity, including the Messiah and Savior of the world. Since the Bible, the Messiah, and Christianity itself would not exist without the Jewish race, real Christians will love and support Israel and pray for her salvation.

And, by the way, support for Hamas is not protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were in agreement that the freedoms they were implementing could only be maintained by a moral and virtuous people. Hamas is anything but that. John Adams, America's 2nd president, said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [Christian] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 168.

The only explanation for the cold-blooded, irrational murder of Yaron and Sarah is that their murderer was motivated by a hatred that was hatched in hell. 

Dr. Eddie Hyatt is a Bible teacher, historian, and revivalist. His numerous books are available on Amazon and his website at http://www.eddiehyatt.com. 

HERE'S WHY POPE LEO X1V SHOULD REMOVE MARTIN LUTHER'S EXCOMMUNICATION

Martin Luther Defends Himself at the Diet of Worms

I wish Pope Leo the XIV well as he takes leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In his opening speeches he has emphasized freedom and peace. In a speech to members of the press at the Vatican, he emphasized the “importance of the 'freedom of expression' and the press” and concluded by saying, “Let us disarm communication of all prejudice and resentment, fanaticism and even hatred.”

I applaud those words of Pope Leo, but I would like to see him move beyond mere words to real, pragmatic action. The Roman Catholic Church has a history of silencing and shutting down those who have dared to disagree. I would, therefore, like to hear him address the harsh, un-Christian treatment of Martin Luther by the Catholic Church.

Luther was a devout Roman Catholic priest who never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, but desired to see it reformed according to the Gospel. As the Professor of Bible and Theology at the University of Wittenberg, Luther had begun to see how far the medieval Catholic Church had strayed from Jesus and the New Testament.

He began to boldly teach that Scripture is the final authority for the Christian, rather than the pope. He also taught that we are saved through faith in Christ alone apart from church appointed works and sacraments.

His teachings were interpreted as an attack on the power structure of the Roman Church, and he was ordered to cease. Convinced that he was on the side of Scripture, he refused. Pope Leo X then excommunicated him on January 3, 1521, calling him a “child of the Devil" and describing him as “a wild boar that has invaded the Lord’s vineyard.”

Since heresy was a civil crime, Luther would have been arrested had he not been protected by the powerful German prince, Frederick the Wise. Luther later agreed to defend himself before a religious court in the German city of Worms and was guaranteed that he would not be arrested to and from this court.

At the Diet of Worms, Luther faced down the highest dignitaries in the empire, both religious and civil. Pope Leo was personally represented by the highest dignitaries in the Catholic Church. The Roman emperor, Charles I, was also present. The court ordered Luther to recant his teachings, but he refused, saying,

I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the Word of God; thus, I cannot and will not recant anything, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand! God help me! Amen!"

As promised, Luther was allowed to leave the court but after brief deliberations the court affirmed Leo’s excommunication of Luther, and an order was issued for princes and magistrates to seize Luther and turn him over to the Roman authorities. Christians were ordered not to read, print or publish any of Luther’s books, but to burn them, and such occurred in many cities.

Luther did not recant because he was convinced that he was on the right side of God and history, and history has shown he was right. The late Dr. Hans Kung, the most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, also believed Luther to be on the right side of history. He wrote,

And from a historical perspective there can be no doubt that it is not Luther but Rome which bears the chief responsibility for the way in which the dispute over the right way to salvation and practical reflection on the gospel very rapidly turned into a fundamental dispute over authority in the church and the infallibility of popes (Hans Kung, Christianity: Essence, History, And Future, 538).

One thing Luther did not have was "freedom of expression." And despite all the talk of freedom and peace, Luther remains a heretic according to Catholic doctrine. And, according to Catholic doctrine, Protestant believers are not fully Christian but are “separated brethren” and Protestant churches are not true churches but mere “Christian communities.”

Pope Leo XIV could begin a real movement toward freedom and peace by removing the Catholic Church’s ban of Luther and his designation as a heretic. This would not resolve all the issues, but it would certainly be seen as a sincere gesture of peace by the hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians around the world, including myself, who are convinced that Luther was on the right side of God and history.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is a historian, Bible teacher, and revivalist. This article was derived from his books Apostolic Leadership:Returning to the Servant Leadership of Jesus and Early Christianity and The Charismatic Luther, both available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.

A ROMANIZED EXPRESSION OF CHRISTIANITY?

Tracing the Roots of the Pomp and Ceremony
Surrounding the Choosing of a New Pope

The world seemed mesmerized with the magnificent pomp and ceremony surrounding the announcement of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the next pope. In the excitement of it all, Catholic news journalists found themselves declaring religious dogma rather than objectively reporting the news. One Fox News reporter, for example, could not contain his excitement, and gushed forth calling the new pope, “the direct descendant of Saint Peter.”

There is, of course, no biblical basis for such pomp and ceremony, nor for the pope being the successor of Peter. Jesus spoke against the use of special outward clothing and titles for self-promotion. He warned Peter and the other apostles,

But you, do not be called “Rabbi”: for One is your teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your “father;” for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called “teachers;” for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (Matthew 23:8-11).

In the New Testament, we find no sign of hierarchy in the leadership of the church. Words that carried connotations of authority such as archon (ruler), timē (rank), and despot (master) are used of Jewish and secular rulers but are glaringly missing in regard to Christian leaders.

Instead, the word diakonos is used for Christian leaders and it is a word that means “servant” and carries no connotations of status, rank or authority. This means that the pomp and pageantry of the modern Roman Catholic Church cannot be traced to Jesus and the New Testament, but to Constantine and imperial Rome.

The Source of the Pomp and Pageantry Surrounding the Pope

When the Roman emperor, Constantine, converted to Christianity in 312, he began bestowing special favors on the Christians. He built magnificent buildings for their gatherings and made elevated throne-like seating for the bishops. He also began funding the salaries of the bishops. The church obviously had an impact on the emperor, but the emperor seems to have had an even greater impact on the church.

Constantine convened, at government expense, a church council that became known as the Council of Nicaea. Although he had not been baptized, Constantine opened this council and intervened in the discussions of the bishops at certain points. The most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, the late Dr. Hans Kung, wrote,

Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. The church provinces were to correspond to the imperial provinces, each with a metropolitan and a provincial synod. In other words, the empire now had its imperial church (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 50-51).

This was the Romanizing of Christianity. The bishop of Rome now had special status afforded to him by the emperor. This status would be greatly increased when, in 330, Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to the town of Byzantine located in present day Turkey. Constantine renamed the town Constantinople, after himself. It is today known as Istanbul.

The power vacuum left in Rome by the removal of all the governmental apparatus from Rome to Byzantine was filled by the bishop of Rome who began to make his claim that he was the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of all Christendom.

The Fabled “Donation of Constantine”

In the eighth century a fable began to be used by the popes and the Roman Church that supported and enhanced those claims. This fable, known as “The Donation of Constantine,” is now recognized as a myth by both Catholic and Protestant historians. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in infusing the papacy with imperial pomp and authority.

 According to this fable, Constantine, the persecutor of Christians, was smitten with leprosy and then healed by Pope Silvester who also converted him and baptized him. When Constantine later decided to move the capital to Constantinople without papal approval, he soon realized his sin and came and prostrated himself before Pope Silvester. When his sin was forgiven, he then moved the capital to Constantinople with the pope’s consent.

According to this myth, before departing, Constantine bestowed on Silvester the right to wear the Roman imperial insignia and robes and bequeathed to him Rome and all the provinces and cities in Italy and the western regions. In other words, Constantine bestowed on the Roman bishop a kingly royalty and authority like that of an emperor over all the cities and churches of the West.

Popes latched on to this fable and it became the basis for the papal throne and the pope’s royal insignia, garments, entourage and crown. It became the basis for popes exercising civil as well as spiritual authority.

In addition, the story implied that Constantine had received his authority for establishing the Byzantine empire of the East from the bishop of Rome. This was used by later popes to claim universal authority over all churches everywhere, even those of Byzantine.

Found to be False

It was not until the 15th century that this story was challenged by the Catholic official and historian, Lorenzo Valla. The Donation of Constantine is now widely recognized, even by Catholic historians, as fictitious. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in providing a powerful argument for the medieval popes to further their claims of universal preeminence and authority.

Indeed, after Constantine, the Romanizing of the church continued, leading the historian, Rudolph Sohm, to say, “The constitution of the Church was, in the main, modeled on the  organization of the Empire.” And the late Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens admitted,

When I was young the Church was presented to us as a hierarchical society: it was described as “juridically perfect,” having within itself all the powers necessary to insure and promote its own existence. This view reflected an image of the Church which was closely modeled on civil, and even military, society (Hyatt, Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division, 29).

After Constantine, the bishops were generally looked upon as the successors of the apostles and the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles. They began dressing in imperial regalia, surrounded by Romish pomp and ceremony. This was based, not on Scripture, but on Roman imperial custom and law. Kung has commented on this, saying,

Bishops were accorded secular titles, insignia and privileges which up to then had been reserved for the emperor or high officials: candles, incense, a throne, shoes, the maniple, the pallium and so on (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 49-50).

So, the grandiose ritual and ceremony that we have observed in the choosing of a new pope is clearly rooted in ancient, imperial Rome, not in Jesus and the New Testament.

Consider Ourselves

But before we become too critical, we must come down off our own religious thrones and consider to what degree we have been impacted by modern culture. To what degree are we preaching an “Americanized” Gospel that has more in common with Hollywood and Wall Street than with Jesus and the New Testament?

There is plenty of room for repentance in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. Let us, therefore, pray for the new pope and pray that during the next decade there will be a return to Jesus and the New Testament throughout the universal church. We have the promise of Joel 2:28, repeated by Peter in Acts 2:17,

And it shall come to pass in the last days,” says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams, and on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out of My Spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is a Bible teacher, historian, and revivalist. This article was derived from two of his books, Apostolic Leadership and Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division. Both are available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.