Within the concept of due process, as stated by the 5th amendment and SCOTUS, is the ancient idea that no man can be made to accuse himself. Borrowing from the writings of the Jewish rabbi Maimonides, SCOTUS has declared that the 5th amendment right against self incrimination has its origins in the Bible(Miranda v Arizona, footnote 27).
“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I have said”
Jesus exercised his right to face his accusers(Isaiah 50:8), and protection of God(Isaiah 54:17), thus becoming an example for all those accused of lawbreaking, or “sin(1 John 3:4)”.
Within this example, we see Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas echoing this principle of protection from God(Miranda):
“The principle that a man is not obliged to furnish the state with ammunition against him is basic to this conception….[The state] has no right to compel the sovereign individual to surrender or impair his right of self defense….A man may be punished, even put to death by the state; but…he should not be made to prostrate himself before its majesty. Mea culpa belongs to a man and his God. It is a plea that cannot be extracted from men by human authority. To require it is to insist that the state is the superior of the individuals who compose it, instead of their instrument”.
Law historian Leonard Levy writes:
“The framers understood that without fair and regularized procedures to protect the criminally accused, liberty could not exist. They knew from time immemorial the tyrant’s first step was to use the criminal law to crush his opposition”.
Applying this idea to the concept of “hell” as taught by Christianity, we see that Jesus demanded that his accusers provide actual testimony that proved he had indeed “sinned” by breaking the law. In fact, no proof was given, and as the Jews admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any an to death(John 18:31)”.
From this we have the separation, as Blackstone pointed out, between civil law(Roman law) and “common law”, which recognized the authority of “God, reason, and nature”. The Jews could not lawfully put any person to death without direct proof, unquestionable, that the accused had committed a sin worthy of death. If they did so, by the law of Deuteronomy 19:19, they were guilty of the sin with which they accused the person. Therefore, it was unlawful for them to put Jesus to death by “hanging on a tree” without bringing the “curse” upon themselves.(Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22-23).
As you see in verse 23, “…for he that is hanged is accursed of God”. This is in reference to Leviticus 18:25, which curses the land itself on which Israel lived, if they hanged a man from a tree. Consequently, it was important that Jesus be “laid to rest’ that very day on which he was hanged.
Paul, therefore, pointed out that Jesus was “made a curse for us”(Galatians 3:13). By leaving crucifixion to civil(Roman) law, the Jews avoided the responsibility of putting an innocent man to death by their law.
The Jews, therefore, can technically argue that it was civil(Roman) law that put Jesus to death, and not God’s law.
This would mean that if Jesus paid the penalty of law, which was death, he paid the penalty of civil law, which had hanged him “on a tree” by law. Civil law, in accordance with Justice Fortas’ statement, had no authority to compel any person to confess guilt, and federal law IS civil law. Therefore, we have the understanding of the 5th amendment that “[no person] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Due process of civil law? No, common law, which Justice Joseph Story shows plainly in his “Commentaries” is recognized as “due process”. Story takes his conclusions from English Chief Justice Coke, who equated common law with due process. Since Jesus had paid the penalty of civil law, any accused person had the right of common law procedure to defend himself against accusers, which included protection of God and the right to face accusers, as Jesus himself had demanded.
How far does the principle of the right against self incrimination go by Biblical law? Notice Jude 9:
“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil for the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.”
Notice, however, in describing “the devil” and his “angels”, in Jude 6, we see:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate(proper domain) but
left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgement of the great day”.
We see from this that God has “reserved judgement” on even those beings. Even the archangel, therefore, could not bring accusation against Satan, as God himself was the judge. “The Lord rebuke thee”.
In 2 Peter 2, we see this parallel of Jude. Verse 10:
“But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptious are they, and self willed, and not afraid to speak evil of dignities”.
Does this mean we have no right to speak out against human government? Next verse, 11:
“Wheras angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord”.
Who DOES bring accusation? Well, hebrews 2:14:
“Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he(Jesus) also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”.
How is it that Satan exercises this power of death? Matthew 4:8-10, and Luke 4:6-8. Satan ruled over the governments of the world, and offered world power to Jesus, who then told Satan that “thou shalt serve the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve”.
We see from Biblical example AND the statement of a Supreme Court Justice(Fortas) that the state may accuse, but has no power to compel any person to admit of any guilt. it is “between man and his God”. We also see, from Biblical example, that not even archangels have this power of accusation(2 Peter 2:11).
The state has no authorization to condemn anyone by its own laws.
If the state acts as accuser, being under power of Satan, we see the nature of those people who serve it, in 2 Peter 2:12:
“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”.
The state cannot justify condemnation of any man for breaking a “victimless” law. The state is no more permitted to such accusations or punishment than the archangels mentioned in 2 Peter and Jude.
Notice further the description of these folks in 2 Peter 2:18-19:
“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure
through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were
clean escaped from those that live in error.
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are servants of corruption, for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage“.
if they are “again entangled” in these laws and doctrines, they have created their own bondage(verse 20). Civil law(Roman, laws of men), cannot exercise punishment simply by virtue of the law itself, since Jesus died and paid the full penalty for us.
These are not people, but those who serve a combination of “beast(government) and false prophet(church)”. It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand, an atheist, referred to them in similar terms; “Attila and the Witch Doctor”, the combination of “faith and force” without reason and logic.
We now know mathematically from Godel’s theorem and Turing’s halting problem, along with other mathematical proofs, that it is simply impossible, by human reason, to put all truth in one package. Every attempt to do so results in “undecidable propositions” or “self swallowing sets” of logic. By attempting to establish human authority, we become “entangled” in what Douglas Hofstadter(Godel, Escher, Bach), calls “tangled hierarchies” of human authority.
Such absolute authority cannot be established by either church or state, leaving us with Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 24:23.
So who is condemned to hell(hades, or gehenna)?
They are named in the book of Jude, verse 6. The devil and those who followed him in rebellion.
They control the governments of the world, and they enslave those who
wish to be part of that system, including both church and state. For
whom is “everlasting fire” reserved? “The devil and his angels(Matthew
25:41)”.
Those who follow human laws and human reasoning that condemns men by the
authority of “victimless crime” deceive themselves, seeking punishment
for others “as brute beasts”, condemning that which they do not fully
understand.
You are free, now, today. You need not enslave yourself to human reasoning or even religions(Matthew 24:23).
Ralph.
