Challenge to David Barton: Where Are the 1500 Bible Verses in Locke’s Two Treatises?

I think I know the answer but I doubt David Barton will respond.

First, some background is necessary. For quite some time, the head of Ted Cruz Super PAC David Barton has claimed that John Locke referred to over 1500 Bible verses in his Two Treatises of Government. In The Jefferson Lies, Barton wrote the following:

Furthermore, in his Two Treatises of Government (1689) — the work specifically relied on by Jefferson and the other Founders as they drafted the Declaration — Locke invoked the Bible over 1500 times (pp. 40-41).

The earliest instance of the claim I have been able to find is a 2006 article posted on Wallbuilders’ website about Independence Day.

Locke’s Treatise (actually two separate treatises combined into one book) is less than 400 pages long; but in the first treatise, Locke invoked the Bible in 1,349 references; in his second treatise, he cited it 157 times. Imagine! In the primary work influencing the Declaration of Independence, Locke referred to the Bible over 1,500 times to show the proper operation of civil government. No wonder the Declaration has been such a successful document!

Then, on the August 14 segment of Rick Wiles’ TruNews (ironic), Barton again claimed that Locke included over 1500 Bible verses on how civil government is supposed to operate.

In this clip, Wiles asks David Barton why pastors won’t preach about culture war topics. Barton answers by describing how he was asked to go to the Ukraine to speak to political and religious leaders there about the foundations of American government. Barton used the Locke story to support his contention that American civil government was derived from the Bible. At about 1:20 into the clip above, Barton says:

The Ukraine is very highly Christian and so I just asked these leading pastors, the heads of their denominations, I said, does the Bible say anything about government, can you give me any verses on that? And I got about seven verses and these are like the popes of their denomination. And so I pulled out a book from 1690, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, you know in America, this is what our founding fathers used to write the 1776 Declaration of Independence. This little book, you can see, translated into Ukrainian, less than 400 pages long, it’s less than an inch thick, it has more than 1500 Bible verses on how civil government should operate, so how come you as church leaders only know seven, when here’s a little book with 1500 in it?

Barton then goes on to castigate American missionaries for teaching the separation of church and state.

I wrote about Barton’s 1500 verse claim previously with Locke scholar Greg Forster providing expert commentary.  Here is one key component of Forster’s response:

In his edition of the Two Treatises, editor Mark Goldie of Cambridge University lists only 121 Bible verses cited in the entire Two Treatises. And that’s including all the places where Locke didn’t cite the verse explicitly and Goldie “interpolated” the citation. In addition to those 121 Bible verses referenced, Goldie lists six places where Locke cited an entire chapter of the Bible, and one place where he cited an entire book (Proverbs). That’s it. But anyone who has read the Two Treatises will know Barton’s claim is false without having had to count.

In another post, I provided Thomas Jefferson’s description of how he wrote the Declaration of Independence. While Locke was an intellectual influence, Jefferson said he didn’t consult any work to write it as asserted by Barton. 
In this post, I want to show how I think Barton could have come up with his inflated claim of 1500 Bible verses. While I get a different number than Barton, I have found a way one can misrepresent the number of verses Locke used in his arguments. Barton’s approach to history and truth is on full display with this claim.

As pointed out first by Greg Forster, Two Treatises editor Mark Goldie produced an index to Scriptures implied and directly cited by Locke. At the end of the post, I am linking to images of that index for readers to examine. In the index, Goldie refers to Locke’s citation of individual verses, several full chapters, and the entire book of Proverbs. To get to over 1500 Bible verses, one must count each time an individual verse is cited by Locke (he cites some verses multiple places in the Two Treatises), and then add the total verses in each full chapter cited by Locke and then add the entire book of Proverbs. If one does that, the total count I get is 1,512 verses. See the image below for a illustrative portion of the Goldie index with an entire chapter, multiple verses and the entire book of Proverbs.
Locke verses example
Even if this method was defensible (it’s not), Barton’s claims are still wrong. He says in The Jefferson Lies that “Locke invoked the Bible 1500 times!” Even though Proverbs contains 915 verses, mentioning the Old Testament book once does not equate to invoking the Bible 915 times. Locke invokes Proverbs once, so one can subtract 914 times from the count if one is being honest.

Most recently, Barton claimed that the Two Treatises “has more than 1500 Bible verses on how civil government should operate.”  As I have demonstrated, to get to over 1500 verses Barton has to count the entire book of Proverbs, entire chapters of the Bible, such as Genesis 36, as well as every time Locke refers to the same verse. I want Barton to explain to me how the Proverbs and some of the verses in the chapters mentioned by Locke tell us how “civil government should operate.” For instance, Gen. 36: 38 reads:

When Shaul died, Baal-Hanan son of Akbor succeeded him as king.

How about Exodus 21:7? Did the founders rely on this verse to help write the founding documents?

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 

How about Proverbs 12:25?

Anxiety weighs down the heart, but a kind word cheers it up.

Few of the verses Locke used fit the descriptions offered by Barton.
In my opinion, Barton inflated the number of verses in order to craft a fiction about the role of the Bible in the construction of the Declaration of Independence.

To close, it is worth re-reading what Forster said about Locke’s use of the Bible:

Moreover, a large number – possibly even the majority – of those 121 citations are not to passages “on how civil government is to operate.” The Bible references in the Two Treatises are heavily concentrated in the First Treatise. The overwhelming majority of the First Treatise, in turn, is devoted to an extended analysis of small number of selected verses from the first two chapters of Genesis, especially Genesis 1:28-30. That’s a lot of analysis devoted to understanding the biblical text, but it’s not a large number of verses cited. The remainder of the First Treatise, where other biblical verses are cited more frequently, looks to the Bible not primarily for instruction on civil government but almost entirely on the power of parents over their children, especially the inheritance of property from parents to children. Locke is interested in these verses because he wants to use them to refute Robert Filmer’s claim that today’s kings inherit their power from Adam, but these are clearly not “biblical references on how civil government is to operate.” They are biblical references on how families are to operate. In fact, the point that descriptions of the how the family should work are not descriptions of how civil government should work was Locke’s main point!

Goldie’s index: page 253, 254, 255.

24 thoughts on “Challenge to David Barton: Where Are the 1500 Bible Verses in Locke’s Two Treatises?”

  1. In my opinion Barton has already won the argument that the Declaration of Independence was plainly influenced by the Bible. Stating roughly 121 verses of Two Treatises were biblically influenced and citing the entire book of Proverbs is a strong case already. I have no idea why Barton thought inflating the number of references was a good idea or made for a stronger argument. I’m a Bible-believing Christian and I can see the effect Christ has had on the American people and its institutions, but man, Barton inflating the count like that only discredits him as a historian in my eyes. Thank you for the post, it was and interesting and illuminating read!

      1. Actually, Grove City college, where Warren works, is a christian college, not a secular one. Clearly, you do as much “research” as Barton before making your claims.

        This “response” is just another claim without evidence. Barton says: “So, I’ve already documented that 1,500- way over.” yet he gives no reference to that documentation.

        Further I suspect many (most) of these “references to the bible” are just going to be Barton’s loose interpretation. something like:: “The bible had a beginning and Locke’s Treatis had a beginning, therefore that is a reference to the bible.”

        Nor does Barton give any evidence for his claims about the Declaration of Independence.

        1. I’ll deal with this in two sections: Displaying your double standard and Deductions of Federal Funding

          Displaying your double standard.
          Ken, I’m curious, why wouldn’t you count a Bible reference without the Bible citation as a direct quote? Did Jesus have a Chapter and Verse when he quoted Scripture? So why should John Locke’s Two Government Treatise have to ALWAYS make a citation when he can cite the Bible through a mere reference?

          So I read Spurgeon a lot and Spurgeon doesn’t always give a Bible citation when referring to other Scriptures. Yet, Spurgeon quotes other Scriptures. And John Locke precedes Spurgeon, so why would you count Spurgeon as a Bible illustrator, but not count Locke as the same? That seems to me like a double standard. Also, how many times does the Apostle Paul, Apostle Peter, and Apostle John give references for their Old Testament citations? Yet, you would count those Biblical authors to be quoting the OT wouldn’t you? So why wouldn’t you do the same with Locke?

          Deductions of Federal Funding
          Is a college Christian just because it says it’s Christian? Is a Mormon a Christian just because he calls himself one? Let’s see where the money comes from to determine where the college’s allegiance lay. Though the institution does NOT accept Federal funds, they do receive STATE funding and students DO have to get there funds through their FEDERAL CODE G03269. The US Department of Education DOES HAVE TO APPROVE of funding through the State. So….

          Warren works for a “Christian college” in Pennsylvania that receives STATE FUNDING through the Federal Government. Let’s think this through….

          Premise 1: Secular colleges receive state funding.
          Premise 2: State funding goes to Grove City College.
          Conclusion: Grove City College is a secular college.

          So they can market themselves as a Christian “environment” but they are not independently funded. However, Hillsdale College DOES NOT receive one penny from the Government. THEY are government free. But Grove City College isn’t like the such. They are a government funded school, so I label them as a secular school.

          1. “why wouldn’t you count a Bible reference without the Bible citation as a direct quote.”

            Because Barton has a long history of lying and misrepresenting facts to suit his personal biases.

            “Is a college Christian just because it says it’s Christian?”

            yes.

            Premise 1: Secular colleges receive state funding.
            Premise 2: State funding goes to Grove City College.
            Conclusion: Grove City College is a secular college.

            Wow, so much wrong with this. here is a simple counter example of how it is wrong:

            Liberty University is a christian university.
            Liberty University receives state funding.
            conclusion: All universities that receive state funding are christian universities.

            the problem with the argument is you have incorrectly assumed that only secular colleges can received state funding and that isn’t true.

            “So they can market themselves as a Christian “environment” but they are not independently funded.”

            Again, by your logic any independent college (i.e. does not receive state funding) is a “christian college”.

            Your only purpose in trying to label Grove City college (and Warren) as “secular” is so you can use it as an ad hominem attack and ignore Warren’s actual arguments.

          2. //Again, by your logic any independent college (i.e. does not receive state funding) is a “christian college”.//

            Nice straw man. That’s not my argument. LOL.

            First Your Subject and Predicate Order in the Conclusion Is Incorrect
            But your structure is incorrect. Your conclusion has “all” universities SHOVED into its predicate piece of the syllogism, but doesn’t show up in the premise. That’s a false structure since the predicate conclusion must be a predicate in the premise. Liberty University is your subject term and christian universities are middle term, yet your conclusion is missing its subject term and has placed the middle term in the conclusion. Wrong set up, my friend.

            You Have No Real Middle Term
            Every correct syllogistic structure needs a middle term, that appears in the premises to connect the subject and predicate pieces in your syllogism.You have JAMMED the conclusion with all your imaginary premises. You switch “christian university” from being the middle term in your first premise, then you switch your second premises’ middle term to be Liberty University, which isn’t even in your conclusion?? What??

            Liberty University is a christian university.
            Liberty University receives state funding.
            conclusion: All universities that receive state funding are christian universities.

            I’ll leave that alone, you need to brush up on your logic and structural thinking. I’m not trying to gaslight you, but that made no sense. You seem like an intelligent person, though misguided, so if you want to reorder your syllogism to meet standard syllogism principles, I’ll consider your point with respect.

            However I will concede that Warren teaches at a Christian University. He is not a “secular” professor. That much is clear. I don’t know why he attacks Barton, who is a Christian? Let me explain…
            ****************************************************************************************
            Lastly, just saying David Barton is a liar without any examples doesn’t convince me that he is a liar. Where has David Barton lied before?

            Let me use an example from John Locke’s Two Treaties of Government

            In chapter One section 3, Locke says: ” To make way for this doctrine,
            they have denied mankind a right to natural freedom; whereby they have
            not only, as much as in them lies, exposed all subjects to the utmost
            misery of tyranny and oppression, but have also unsettled the titles and
            shaken the thrones of princes: (for they too, by these men’s system,
            except only one, are all born slaves, and by divine right are subjects to
            Adam’s right heir
            ); as if they had designed to make war upon all government, and subvert the very foundations of human society, to serve
            their present turn”

            The reference to “Adam’s right heir” doesn’t have a Bible citation, however, it is a reference to the Bible, in that it points to the Monarchy’s misleading understanding that there is a human thread of nobility that is to be heir to rule over all humans. Locke calls it out without a Bible verse. However, the Bible verse is alluding to the fact that Adam does have a seed/heir (Genesis 3:15) being Jesus Christ, not a Monarch. So I would label this a key Bible citation.

            There are hundreds of these types of references, that ALL point to a Biblical understanding of what the Monarchs misunderstood.

            That’s my point. Warren and Forster are incorrect in only counting citations with Book, Chapter, and Verses to be the only KIND of Bible references, when the Bible doesn’t even count such references to be as limited as they do. So I find error, though well intended, with Warren and Forster. However, my quarrel is not with you. I hope this helped you to understand where I’m coming from.

          3. “Where has David Barton lied before?”

            Warren’s blog is full of examples of Barton’s deceptions and outright lies. The best example I can think of off the top of my head was his claim that Jefferson couldn’t free his slaves and lied about the Virginia law.

            Warren wrote about it here and in his book Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President

            Barton clearly misrepresented the law.

            “This was NOT an editorial accident.”

            “Warren and Forster are incorrect in only counting citations with Book,
            Chapter, and Verses to be the only KIND of Bible references”

            who claims they required that? The issue is Barton hasn’t documented his claim of over 1500 references. Further I don’t really care about that claim. It is Barton’s claim about the Declaration of Independence that I find more disturbing. Which he refuses to provide any evidence for (because he can’t).

          4. Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson could have freed his slaves, but did NOT? David Barton says that Jefferson would have freed his slaves had not it been for the Virginia Law.

          5. the law Barton lied about? Nothing in that law prevented Jefferson from freeing his slaves. Warren has cited the full text of the law in the post I linked. Did you not read it?

          6. Look up the 1782 law on manumission. Not Barton’s edited version but the actual version. Look up Robert Carter and his manumission of all his slaves.

    1. Warren gives half truths in his claims. A half truth is a whole lie. For example:

      Warren said “How about Exodus 21:7? Did the founders rely on this verse to help write the founding documents?If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.”

      but this is what John Locke was refuting in the Two Treatise of Government: “. God also hath given to the father a right or liberty to alien his power over his children to any other; whence we find the sale and gift of children to have been much in use in the beginning of the world, when men had their servants for a possession and an inheritance, as well as other goods;”

      Locke was not advocating for the selling of children, he was correcting the false ideas of his day.

      So when he speaks about Adam, God, the Scriptures, then yes those count as a reference to the Bible because Locke was referencing an issue he had with England and their interpretation of parenting.

      Why shouldn’t this be counted as a reference. This Treatise is filled with instances like this. Warren and Forster are operating in their own phantom imaginations as to what counts as a Bible reference.

      Don’t be fooled.

      1. “Why shouldn’t this be counted as a reference.”

        Who is claiming it isn’t counted as a reference?

      2. Did you fully read my entire post?

        If you did you will see that the count that Forster relied on – Goldie’s from Cambridge – counted the verses where Locke referred to verses without citation. We also responded to Barton’s exact claim that all of those verses were to help create a government when in fact they were not.

        It is tempting not to reply to someone who made any kind of case that Grove City College isn’t a Christian college or that it takes state funding. Regarding funding, GCC is one of two colleges that doesn’t even allow students to accept federal grants or loans. We do allow them to take PA loans or grants where the regulatory burden is relatively light. However, we are funded by donations and tuition. If you can somehow reason to get GCC in the government funded or secular category, you are not a serious thinker.

        1. I did read the post. If you read my threads, you’ll see I disagree with your entire post and have rebutted your claims, especially that part where you think Barton thinks Locke suggested to sell their children into slavery. Locke was rebutting Sir Roberts justifications to do as you pleased with your children. Locke merely put those Scriptures in context. Thus Barton, I’m sure, would still count that as a reference to the Bible and so would I.

          If you have read the rest of the thread, I’ve already conceded that GCC is a Christian University; however muddled the syllogisms from Ken were.

          Being told I’m not a serious thinker is gas lighting. I’m not interested in that. I don’t need people to think for me, hence why I don’t rely on scholars. Rather, I listen to what they say, then make my own decisions, that’s the wonderful thing about natural rights, I’m free to think and I don’t need anyone else’s approval or acceptance to express those God given abilities or to trust them. So, if you want to throw intellectual mud, you can go jump in the lake, and I could care less if you came back up.

          So I’m reading the Two Treatise of Government; I’m on section 19 of chapter 3 and I’ve already counted over 70 references to the Biblical idea Adam and God in order to prove natural freedom as opposed to the Natural Right of Kings. I reject the idea that Locke only used 121 references to the Bible when if fact, every reference to Adam or God counts as a reference, not just a time where a Book, Chapter, and Verse was mentioned. Spurgeon referenced dozens of Scriptures without referencing their location in the Scriptures, why should Barton, Locke, or myself be limited to Forster’s methodology if it doesn’t even line up with the New Testament’s way of referencing the Old Testament?

          1. Wow you really didn’t get the purpose of my “muddle syllogism” did you?

            70 references, only 1430 more to go. Hope you document your evidence better than Barton does.

          2. I just finished the third chapter to the first Treatise, I’m at 85 references to the Biblical account of Adam and to the recognition of God as the giver of natural freedom. I have 37 more chapters to go. Still think Barton is off base?…

            Let’s do some math…..

            If I have 28 references for every chapter; and
            If I have 40 chapters. (Treatise 1 has 11 chapters. Treatise 2 has 29 chapters.)

            That’s about 1,133 references on estimation alone based on the first 3 chapters and I have 37 chapters more to go.

            *That’s not including the summaries and notes that precede and follow each Treaty, respectively.*

            Will it be closer to Forster’s or Barton’s claim as to how many times the Bible is referenced?

            I respect Dr. Warren, but he is misleading you.

          3. No he isn’t. Barton is the one who misleads, misrepresents or outright lies.
            As I said, I really don’t care how many references Locke makes to the bible.

          4. Then in the words of the person who leads you, If you’re not interested in what the Bible says, “You’re not a serious thinker.”

            Think about that.

          5. Wow you really didn’t get the purpose of my “muddle syllogism” did you?

            70 references, only 1430 more to go. Hope you document your evidence better than Barton does.

        2. I would love to show you what I’ve documented so far on Locke’s Two Treatise of Governement.

          My email is: [email protected]

          If you’re serious is discussing the number of references from the Bible like you appear, then let me give you my 18 page commentary on John Locke’s writing. Review it and get back to me, if you’re a truth seeker.

      3. Did you fully read my entire post?

        If you did you will see that the count that Forster relied on – Goldie’s from Cambridge – counted the verses where Locke referred to verses without citation. We also responded to Barton’s exact claim that all of those verses were to help create a government when in fact they were not.

        It is tempting not to reply to someone who made any kind of case that Grove City College isn’t a Christian college or that it takes state funding. Regarding funding, GCC is one of two colleges that doesn’t even allow students to accept federal grants or loans. We do allow them to take PA loans or grants where the regulatory burden is relatively light. However, we are funded by donations and tuition. If you can somehow reason to get GCC in the government funded or secular category, you are not a serious thinker.

    2. Toni – Jefferson did not confirm that argument. He said there were many sources but he didn’t name the Bible. This post will help in that regard: /2012/10/29/the-founders-bible-did-thomas-jefferson-base-the-declaration-of-independence-on-the-bible/

    3. Toni-please read John Locke for yourself, and YOU determine how many times Locke refers to the Bible. I’m reading/studying Locke’s Two Treatise of Government now. I’m only on chapter three section 19 and I’ve already documented over 70 references to the Biblical and Historical accounts of Adam and God in order to support Natural Liberty which Thomas Jefferson installed in the Declaration of Independence. If you want I can send you the documentation when I’m complete and you can look at it yourself and determine for yourself if David Barton is telling the truth.

      Warren’s self referencing you to his own blog. I do not know Dr. Warren and I’m sure he is a great man. But I disagree with him. I’m not saying you SHOULD disagree with him, without further investigation. Read his stuff, but don’t settle for his word alone. Be a Berean. I believe David Barton is being used of God as a modern day “Daniel of the 21st Century.” However, I think you should take in what Dr. Warren is saying and think about it.

      I wish you the absolute best and God’s will to be a reality in your life.

      God bless!

Comments are closed.