By What Authority? Re-Examining the Requerimiento of 1513

The Requerimiento, drafted in 1513, was a declaration used during the Spanish conquest of the Americas. It was presented as a legal and religious justification for taking control of Indigenous lands and was often read aloud in Spanish to people who could not hear or understand it. At its core, the document claimed that God had given universal authority to the apostle Peter, that this authority passed to the popes, and that a pope could therefore grant entire continents to foreign powers. This assertion was treated as unquestionable truth, yet it collapses under the most basic examination of history and Scripture.

In this study, I focus on that central claim; the transfer of supposed divine authority from Peter to the papacy; and the idea that such authority allowed one institution to dispose of lands and peoples as it wished. By considering the origins of this doctrine, its lack of scriptural foundation, and the motives behind its creation, I contend that the Requerimiento rests not on divine mandate but on a constructed narrative designed to legitimize conquest. My aim is not to overwhelm the reader with detail, but to provide enough clarity for them to examine the document themselves and see how deeply this version of history was shaped; not by truth, but by the demands of power.

Below is a full public-domain English translation of the Requerimiento (1513).

This is the standard scholarly English rendering based on the original Castilian text.

It is in the public domain and safe to quote in full.

THE REQUERIMIENTO (1513) – FULL ENGLISH TEXT

“On the part of the King, Don Ferdinand, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and León, subduers of barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that God our Lord, one and eternal, created the heaven and the earth and one man and one woman, from whom you and we, and all mankind, are descended and born, and all who shall come after us.

But, on account of the multitude that has sprung from this man and woman in the five thousand or more years since the world was created, it was necessary that some men should go one way and others another, and that they should be divided into many kingdoms and provinces, for in one alone they could not be sustained.(1)

Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called Saint Peter, that he should be lord and superior over the human race, to whom all should obey, and he was given the whole world for his dominion and jurisdiction. As primacy he was placed at Rome as the seat of his rule that he might be the head and superior of the whole world, and the one whom all should obey wherever men lived and were found. (2)

One of the Popes who succeeded him to this sovereignty, in the aforesaid seat, made donation of these islands and mainlands of the Ocean Sea to the aforesaid King and Queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there is in them, as is contained in certain writings passed on the subject, which you may see if you wish.

Thus their Highnesses are kings and lords of these islands and land by virtue of the said donation; and as kings and lords they have appointed us to govern this province for them, and all who live on these islands and mainland for their Highnesses. Hence, we request and require you, as best we can, to understand this fully and to take it in, ponder it, and accept the Church and become subjects of their Highnesses, as your friends and brothers.(3)

If you do so, you will do well, and that which you are obliged to do to their Highnesses, and we in their name shall receive you with love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives and your children, and your lands, free and without servitude, that you may do with them as you please and think best, and we shall not compel you to turn Christians unless, when informed of the truth, you wish to be converted to our holy Catholic faith. (4)

But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in doing it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses. We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, nor wish to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him. (5)

And we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault and not that of their Highnesses or ours, nor of the gentlemen who come with us. And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing; and we ask those present that they should testify for us.” (6)

Where to even start on this one!

The Requerimiento was written in 1513 by Juan López de Palacios Rubios, a legal scholar serving the Spanish Crown. His task was to create a document that claimed spiritual authority for Spain’s actions in the New World. However, when examined through the lens of Scripture, it becomes clear that he had no God-given authority to make the declarations contained in the text.

Scripture does not grant any human being; jurist, monarch, or institution; the right to claim universal dominion over all nations based on their own interpretation of Peter’s role. The Bible does not authorize one kingdom to seize another by invoking Peter, nor does it give Peter authority to distribute lands or peoples. Even the New Testament itself teaches that Christ alone is the head of the Church and the one with “all authority in heaven and on earth,” not any earthly figure acting on political motives.

Because of this, Palacios Rubios’ claims have no grounding in biblical teaching. He was a lawyer, not a prophet. He was interpreting Scripture in a way that Scripture does not support. His words carry no divine commission, no prophetic mandate, and no spiritual jurisdiction to speak on behalf of God to entire nations he had never seen.

Where he claimed heavenly authority, Scripture provides none.Where he claimed divine mandate, the biblical text contradicts him.Where he presented his work as sacred truth, it was in fact a human document built on human interpretation.

My purpose in pointing this out is not to challenge any government or earthly authority, but simply to measure the Requerimiento against the authority of God’s Word; and to show that its claims do not stand.

No one has the right to invent claims in the name of God. Throughout Scripture, God consistently condemns those who speak lies while claiming divine authority. Jeremiah 23:31 says, “Behold, I am against the prophets who use their tongues and declare, ‘The Lord declares.’” In other words, a person cannot attach God’s name to their own ideas and expect those ideas to become truth.

God’s authority cannot be seized, assumed, or fabricated. Deuteronomy 18:20 states clearly that anyone who speaks for God without being commanded to do so is speaking falsely. This principle alone exposes the flaw in the Requerimiento: a jurist wrote it, yet he spoke as though God Himself had given him the right to assign lands and rule nations.

Logically, if God did not speak, then the claim carries no divine weight.If Scripture does not support it, then it is not God’s word. And if a human being declares something God never said, then it is a falsehood; no matter how official or religious it appears.

Thus, no person; not a jurist, not a ruler, not a religious institution; can simply declare falsehoods and attach God’s name to them. God’s authority cannot be manufactured. It must be revealed, and Scripture shows that God never authorized what this document claims.

(1)

The opening of the Requerimiento already reveals how profoundly the authors misunderstood God and misrepresented His character. To describe themselves as “subduers of barbarous nations” is not a God-given identity; it is self-appointed arrogance. Nowhere in Scripture does God commission His people to label entire peoples as “barbarous” simply because they are unfamiliar or different. In fact, Acts 17:26 teaches the opposite: that God “made from one blood all nations of men,” giving each its appointed times and boundaries; not so that one group could elevate itself above another, but so that all might “seek the Lord.”

Then the document claims to “notify and make known” God’s truth “as best we can,” yet immediately presents statements that Scripture does not support. Yes, God created the heavens and the earth and formed humanity from one man and one woman; that much is true. But the moment this truth is invoked to justify domination, the authors step outside of God’s Word and into human invention. Shared descent from Adam and Eve never grants one people spiritual superiority over another; it means all stand equal before God’s judgment and God’s mercy.

The next claim; that because humanity spread across the earth, “it was necessary” for them to divide into kingdoms and provinces; twists the biblical narrative. Scripture never states that the multiplication of humanity required hierarchical divisions or that these divisions gave any group divine right over another. The scattering at Babel (Genesis 11) resulted from human pride, not from divine sanction for one people to rule all others. Furthermore, the early church understood nations not as entities to be conquered, but as peoples to whom the gospel was freely offered (Matthew 28:19–20).

The logic of the Requerimiento attempts to take a basic biblical truth; that God created humanity; and stretch it into a justification for hierarchy, superiority, and control. Scripture allows no such conclusion. Shared origin does not create divine permission to subdue; it creates divine responsibility to honor the image of God in every person (Genesis 1:27).

(2)

If God had truly given Peter jurisdiction over the entire human race, Scripture would have to record it. It would be one of the most significant divine decrees in human history. Yet the Bible is silent. Not unclear. Not symbolic. Silent. Silence in a matter of this magnitude is decisive. If the Bible does not state that Peter holds universal dominion, then Peter does not hold it. God does not hide universal decrees inside the assumptions of later jurists.

At this point some will appeal to the words of Jesus in Matthew 16, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” as if that somehow proves that Peter became lord over all mankind and the foundation of a throne in Rome. But even if a person insists that the “rock” refers to Peter himself and not to Christ or to Peter’s confession, several questions immediately arise. When did Christ ever command Peter to establish a throne in Rome? Where did Christ say, “Go to Rome, sit as universal ruler, and from there govern every nation on earth”? Those words do not exist. Christ never tells Peter to build a chair, a court, or an earthly capital. He speaks of building His church (the called out body of believers), not of Peter building a political center.

It is also necessary to ask why God incarnate would build His church on a mortal man in the first place. Scripture consistently teaches that God is jealous of His glory, that He alone is the rock, the refuge, the foundation of His people. In the Old Testament, God is repeatedly called the Rock of Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is called the chief cornerstone and the only foundation that can be laid. To say that the eternal Son of God descended from heaven, took on flesh, and then decided to rest the entire structure of His church on the frailty, sinfulness, and mortality of one fisherman is not only theologically strained; it is contrary to the whole direction of biblical revelation. Whenever men are exalted as ultimate foundations, Scripture cuts them back down and points to God as the true rock.

Even the history of Christian interpretation undercuts the idea that this passage makes Peter a universal ruler. Augustine himself, who at one point interpreted the “rock” as Peter, later corrected his view and stated that the rock is not the man, but the confession Peter made: that Christ is the Son of the living God. In other words, the solid foundation upon which the church is built is not Peter’s person, but Peter’s testimony about Christ. Christ builds His church on the truth of who He is, not on the greatness of who Peter is. If one of the greatest teachers in the Latin tradition moved away from identifying the rock with Peter’s person and toward the rock as Peter’s confession and Christ Himself, then it is dishonest to pretend that Matthew 16 provides some clear, uncontested proof that Peter was given dominion over all nations.

So even if someone insists on the most Peter-centered reading of “this rock,” the text still does not say what the Requerimiento claims. Jesus does not mention world jurisdiction. He does not mention Rome. He does not speak of a throne, a crown, or a global chain of command. He promises to build His church, to give keys of the kingdom, and to bind and loose in a way later shared with the other apostles. Turning that into “lord and superior over the human race” is a leap not supported by the words of Christ.

The logic is simple. For Peter to be lord of the human race, the following would need to be true: Christ would have to say clearly that Peter holds authority over all mankind; Scripture would have to record that decree; Peter would have to speak and act as such a ruler; the apostles would have to acknowledge him as their unquestioned head; and there would have to be some command from Christ sending Peter to establish his throne in Rome. None of these conditions are met. Instead, Christ reserves all authority to Himself, Scripture is silent about any universal jurisdiction for Peter, Peter calls himself a fellow elder, the apostles rebuke him when he errs, and the Bible nowhere mentions a Roman throne as the seat of global spiritual rule.

When Scripture is silent, human beings do not have the right to fill the silence with their own ambitions and then stamp God’s name on it.

(3)

The claim here rests on an idea that completely falls apart the moment you examine it carefully: that a man calling himself a successor of Peter can “donate” whole lands and everything in them to other people, and that this supposed donation has divine authority behind it.

First, there is the basic question of ownership. Scripture says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.” The earth does not belong to any bishop, any council, or any church office. If the earth belongs to the Lord, then no human can legitimately claim, “These lands are mine to assign to whomever I choose.” At most, a person can be a steward of what has actually been entrusted to him. But a steward cannot give away what was never placed under his care. To say “I hereby gift you lands I have never seen, inhabited by people I do not know, whose existence I only just learned about” is not stewardship; it is presumption.

Second, even if someone insists that a certain church office stands in a line of succession from Peter (a claim still unproven), that succession can only pass on what Peter actually possessed. A line of succession cannot transfer powers that were never there to begin with. If Peter did not have authority to divide the world into parcels and assign them, then no one claiming to succeed him has that authority either. As we have already seen, Peter never speaks of having dominion over the human race, never acts as a world-ruler, and in fact forbids “lording it over” God’s heritage. The New Testament gives him spiritual authority as an apostle, not territorial ownership as a landlord. Therefore, any claim that a later church leader can “donate” continents by virtue of Peter’s supposed power is built on a fiction: it assumes an authority in Peter that he never claims.

And this brings us to a deeper theological reality: Christ’s kingdom is explicitly spiritual, not economic or political. Jesus refuses to be made an earthly king when the crowds attempt it. He tells Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He teaches His disciples that the greatest among them must be the servant, not a ruler seated on a throne. Everything Christ says about His kingdom distances it from the political ambitions and territorial claims of earthly powers. His rule concerns hearts, consciences, forgiveness, and truth; not borders, maps, or land grants.

If Christ Himself rejected the role of a political monarch, how could He be imagined to establish Peter as one? Why would God incarnate reject earthly kingship for Himself yet institute it for someone else? Why would He refuse economic and territorial power only to hand it to a mortal man who repeatedly demonstrated human weakness? Christ rebuked Peter; Christ forgave Peter; Christ restored Peter. Peter is an example of grace, not a foundation for imperial claims.

To imagine that Christ intended Peter to serve as a universal distributor of lands is to misunderstand Christ’s mission entirely. Christ did not come to divide the earth into portions; He came to reconcile sinners to God. He did not come to create political jurisdictions; He came to create a people “born not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” He did not tell Peter to claim territories; He told him to feed His sheep. Every instruction Christ gives Peter concerns ministry, not ownership; service, not supremacy; shepherding, not ruling.

Thus, even in principle, the idea that Peter possessed the authority to grant or donate lands is incompatible with the nature of Christ’s kingdom. A spiritual kingdom does not operate by economic transactions. A heavenly kingdom does not rely on political decrees. A kingdom “not of this world” cannot be advanced through the assignment of earthly territories as though it were an empire among empires.

So the logic is simple: if Peter’s authority was spiritual and pastoral, not territorial or political; and if Christ’s kingdom is spiritual and not of this world; then any claim that a later church leader can assert economic or political control over lands and peoples in Christ’s name is fundamentally false. It projects worldly ambition onto a kingdom that Christ declared to be distinctly different from the kingdoms of this world. Such claims do not flow from the gospel; they contradict it.

Third, there is a confusion here between spiritual authority and ownership of physical territory. In Scripture, the authority Christ gives His apostles concerns preaching, teaching, binding and loosing in matters of sin and forgiveness, building up the body of believers. It is authority to serve, to shepherd, to guide consciences toward God. It is never described as the authority to transfer the ownership of land occupied by other people. To move from “Feed my sheep” to “I grant you all the lands of distant peoples as your possession” is not a small step; it is a complete change of category. It turns spiritual care into territorial control. Nothing in the words of Christ authorizes that move.

Fourth, there is the moral problem. God’s law forbids coveting what belongs to others, forbids stealing, and forbids bearing false witness. To claim that territories where others live are now “given” to third parties, without the knowledge or consent of those who dwell there, is to treat those inhabitants as if they simply do not count; as if their God-given place in the world can be overwritten by a decree on paper. That is a denial of their dignity as bearers of the image of God. It also implies a falsehood about reality: it pretends that a signature, papal bull or seal can change ownership in God’s eyes when God has not authorized such a transaction. Calling such an act a “donation” does not cleanse it; it only wraps a moral wrong in religious language.

Fifth, the passage then attempts to tie acceptance of this false authority to acceptance of the Church. It suggests that to “accept the Church” is to accept that one particular office-holder can transfer peoples and lands at will, and that true brotherhood and friendship are found in submitting to that claim. But by biblical definition, the Church is the body of all who believe in Christ, united by faith in Him, not a mechanism for legitimizing territorial assertions. Entry into the Church is by repentance and faith, not by yielding to a decree about who owns which shore or which island. When someone makes agreement with a human claim about property a condition for spiritual fellowship, they are adding requirements Christ never gave.

Sixth, there is a logical inversion at work. The passage speaks as though the decree creates reality: because one man has written something, therefore these lands now belong to the persons he favors, and everyone within those lands must recognize this as God-ordained. But in God’s order, truth runs the other way. A claim is only valid if it matches what God has actually said and done. Writing, tradition, custom, or office do not manufacture divine authority; they must submit to it. If God has not given a man power to dispose of continents, the most elaborate document will not make that power real.

So the structure of the argument is flawed at every point. It assumes a universal authority in Peter that Scripture denies. It assumes that this supposed authority can be inherited in full by later leaders. It assumes that spiritual authority includes the right to reassign lands and peoples. It assumes that such reassignment can occur without reference to those who already live there. And then it assumes that rejecting this chain of claims is equivalent to rejecting the Church itself. None of these steps is supported by the words of Christ, the writings of the apostles, or the character of God revealed in Scripture.

A human being can write that he has given away “these islands and mainlands of the Ocean Sea,” but writing it does not make it true. For it to be true in God’s sight, God Himself would have to grant that authority and say so clearly. He has not. Therefore, the claim that a pope can donate lands and all within them as if they were his to assign has no basis in the Word of God, no basis in Peter’s own teaching, and no basis in sound reason. It is a human fiction spoken in the language of heaven, but heaven did not author it.

I would also remind readers of the so-called Donation of Constantine; a document once used to justify sweeping papal authority, later exposed as a medieval forgery. It claimed that Emperor Constantine had granted political power and vast territories to the bishop of Rome, yet historical and linguistic analysis proved that it could not have been written in Constantine’s time.

(4)

Where to start with this one? Every line of this passage is a study in spiritual contradiction. It dresses itself in the language of charity while smuggling in assumptions that deny the very nature of God’s kingdom.

First, the statement “If you do so, you will do well” rests on the fantasy that obedience to them is the measure of doing well. In Scripture, doing well is defined as fearing God and keeping His commandments; not submitting to men who claim authority God never gave. This text assumes a moral obligation where none exists, as though the hearer already belongs under their authority. That assumption is without foundation in Scripture, in reason, or in truth.

Next, the promise to “receive you with love and charity” reveals its hollowness the moment you examine it. Love does not wait for obedience before existing. Love is not conditional. Love does not say, “We will treat you kindly only once you acknowledge our claim over you.” That is not love; it is manipulation wrapped in pious vocabulary. John writes plainly, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” Any love that requires allegiance first is not the love of Christ.

The passage then offers to leave “your wives and your children, and your lands, free and without servitude.” But who gave these men the right to decide whether someone else’s family is free? Freedom is not theirs to dispense. Freedom is the starting point of all humanity, given by the Creator to those made in His image. To claim the power to “leave” someone free implies the power to enslave them. That power does not come from God. Scripture speaks of God breaking yokes, not fastening them. He brings His people out of bondage; He does not authorize His servants to place others into it.

The deeper contradiction emerges when they claim they “shall not compel you to turn Christians,” a statement immediately invalidated by the structure of the entire argument. If acceptance is rewarded with conditional freedom and refusal results in destruction, then the word “compel” has lost all meaning. This is not an invitation; it is a threat wrapped in velvet. Christ never invited anyone this way. He never said, “Follow Me or lose your land.” He never offered the gospel as an escape from consequences imposed by men. He said, “My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” There is no coercion in Christ.

Christ Himself warned His disciples that forcing belief makes them unlike Him. Faith cannot be extracted by bargaining, fear, or promises of earthly safety. A coerced faith is no faith at all.

This is exactly what Revelation condemns when it describes Babylon as dealing in “slaves and human souls.” In Revelation 18, Babylon falls not just for violence, but for turning people into commodities; objects to be allocated, controlled, granted, or withheld. The moment someone presumes authority over another’s freedom, family, or soul, and does so under the banner of religion, they stand in the shadow of Babylon. The moment a human institution claims the right to determine who may remain “without servitude,” the language aligns not with the Spirit of Christ but with the spirit Scripture warns will deceive the nations.

And here is the deepest problem: the passage presents acceptance of human authority as a step toward acceptance of the Church. But the Church is not built by coercion. It is not entered by negotiation. It is not founded on fear. Christ said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.” That drawing is an act of divine grace, not human intimidation. When an earthly claim of authority becomes the doorway to supposed spiritual acceptance, the gospel is replaced by a counterfeit. The Church becomes a tool of control rather than a fellowship of the redeemed.

This short paragraph, on examination, contains layer upon layer of contradiction. It assumes authority where God has given none. It offers conditional love where Christ offers unconditional mercy. It speaks of leaving people free while implying the power to enslave. It denies coercion while structuring the entire argument around coercive pressure. And it ties acceptance of Christ to submission under a human claim that has no grounding in Scripture.

It is not love. It is not charity. It is not the gospel. And it is not the voice of Christ: Christ who wins hearts through truth, not through fear, pressure, or the threat of being counted among the “slaves and souls of men” condemned in Revelation.

(5)

This passage tears off the mask and shows the true spirit behind the entire document. The moment the invitation is refused, the language shifts from “love and charity” to threats of war, enslavement, and destruction; all supposedly with the help of God. But invoking God’s name does not make God present. Scripture is explicit: God does not join Himself to human violence committed in His name when the reason for that violence is the refusal to submit to men.

The passage accuses those who refuse this claim of acting “maliciously.” But what is malicious about declining an authority God never established? What is malicious about rejecting a demand that contradicts Scripture? It is not malicious to refuse falsehood. It is not rebellion to reject claims God never commanded. To label discernment as malice is itself a distortion of truth; one used throughout history by those who wish to place their own will in the mouth of God.

Then comes the claim that refusal will justify “entering into your country” and “making war against you in all ways and manners that we can.” This is portrayed as righteous action, as though God endorses it. But in Scripture, God forbids His people from using violence to coerce faith, compel obedience to men, or enlarge the influence of a religious institution. Jesus rebuked the disciple who tried to defend Him with the sword.

There is no New Testament command that even hints that one may wage war to produce spiritual obedience. Paul writes that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” and Christ Himself forbids dominion-based leadership: “It shall not be so among you.” Yet here we see the exact opposite: war, domination, and coercion declared to be divinely sanctioned. This is the same spirit Revelation warns about; the spirit that deceives nations through violence wrapped in religious language.

Then the passage moves from threat to atrocity: “We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and sell and dispose of them.” Here the mask fully falls. The claim is no longer merely false; it is blasphemous. Scripture condemns the trafficking of humans outright. In Revelation 18, when Babylon is judged, one of the final indictments listed is that she deals in “slaves and human souls.” The judgment is not vague or symbolic; it is targeted: God condemns any system that monetizes or enslaves human beings while claiming spiritual legitimacy.

To capture and sell people while invoking God’s name is not merely immoral; it is the very thing Revelation identifies as a hallmark of spiritual corruption. Human beings are made in the image of God. To enslave them is to assault the image of the One who created them. And to call this enslavement the work of God is to attribute evil to the Holy One, which Scripture identifies as a grievous sin.

The passage then claims that taking goods and inflicting harm is justified because the people who resist “do not wish to receive their lord.” But in Scripture, there is only one “Lord,” and that is Christ. Refusing to submit to a claim that Christ never made is not refusing Christ. It is protecting the honor of Christ by refusing to let His name be used as a weapon.

What is being demanded here is not faith but surrender; not to God, but to the ambitions of men. The threat of destruction, enslavement, and theft is presented as righteous punishment for those who refuse to “receive their lord.” But Christ does not force Himself upon anyone. He does not enslave the unwilling. He does not destroy families to win followers. He does not say, “Let Me in, or I will harm you.” That is the voice of a tyrant, not the Shepherd.

When a document threatens to murder, enslave, and dispossess people; and then claims divine approval; it shows that the speaker is no longer merely in error but opposing the character of God Himself. The God who liberates the oppressed cannot be invoked to justify those who enslave them. The God who commands His people to defend the fatherless and the widow cannot be invoked to justify those who take families as property. The God who warns that judgment falls upon those who destroy others for profit cannot be invoked to legitimize the destruction of goods and livelihoods.

This passage reveals the truth: the document claims the authority of heaven while contradicting every principle of the kingdom of heaven. It speaks in God’s name while rejecting God’s character. It promises spiritual legitimacy while practicing the works Revelation condemns as “Babylon.” It offers Christ’s vocabulary but not Christ’s voice.

It is not the gospel. It is not Christian authority. It is not the will of God. It is a threat made by men who place their own desires above Scripture and then attempt to baptize those desires in the name of the Lord.

(6)

This final declaration is perhaps the most revealing line in the entire document, because it attempts something Scripture repeatedly condemns: shifting moral responsibility for violence onto the victims, all while using the name of God to excuse the perpetrators. It declares that any “deaths and losses” inflicted will be “your fault and not ours.” In other words: We will harm you, but we will blame you for the harm we choose to commit.

This is the exact opposite of God’s justice. Scripture never allows a person to commit violence and then declare that the guilt lies with the one who suffered. That is the logic of Cain (son of satan), not Christ.

Even more, the passage tries to sanctify this inversion with a legal trick; by stating it on paper, in front of a notary, as if a written record transforms wrongdoing into righteousness. But writing a falsehood does not make it true. Recording a lie does not sanctify it. Scripture is full of examples of false witnesses who “testify” in official settings to justify evil, and God repeatedly condemns them. In fact, the command “You shall not bear false witness” addresses this precise kind of behavior: shifting blame, using formal language to cover injustice, and enlisting others to participate in the lie.

To say “the deaths are your fault” is to deny accountability before God. The prophets confronted this exact sin. Isaiah condemned those who “call evil good and good evil.” Ezekiel condemned those who “kill the innocent and say, ‘We are guiltless.’” Jesus condemned those who harm others and then declare themselves righteous. Scripture never accepts the idea that the one who suffers is responsible for the sins of the one who harms.

This passage also exposes a deeper spiritual problem: the authors know what they plan to do, and they know it will cause harm, and yet they insist on absolving themselves in advance. That is not ignorance; it is premeditation. To plan evil, announce it, and then claim innocence is precisely the behavior Scripture identifies with hardened hearts. It is an unwillingness to repent, combined with the desire to cloak one's actions in the language of moral purity.

Worse still, they call witnesses; not to truth, but to support their claim of innocence. They enlist the notary to affirm that the victims were “warned,” as though a declaration spoken in a foreign tongue, under threat, constitutes moral justification. It does not. God judges the heart, not the written formalities of men. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, it was because they used legal language and elaborate procedures to bypass the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The same spirit is present here. A testimony in writing may satisfy the consciences of those committing the deeds, but it does not satisfy the God who weighs every motive.

This line also embodies the fundamental lie of coercion: that refusal to submit to unjust authority makes one deserving of punishment. But Scripture is clear; refusing to obey men when men contradict God is not rebellion; it is righteousness. Daniel refused to bow. The apostles refused to obey commands that contradicted God's Word. Christ Himself refused Satan’s offer of earthly authority. In all these cases, Scripture celebrates the refusal. Yet this document condemns refusal as if it were sin deserving of death.

Finally, by insisting that the victims are at fault, the passage attempts to absolve the perpetrators before the judgment seat of God. But no written protest, no recorded statement, no chain of human witnesses can erase moral responsibility before the One who sees all. When the blood of Abel cried from the ground, Cain could not silence it by saying, “It is not my fault.” And when Revelation describes the martyrs who cry out for justice, it is those who shed the blood; not those who suffered it; who are held accountable.

So what is this final line? It is the attempt to rewrite the moral universe. It is the reversal of victim and aggressor. It is the shifting of guilt from the sinner to the innocent. It is the misuse of recorded words to justify future evil. And it is the declaration: “We will harm you, but we will claim righteousness.” Scripture has a name for this: false religion religion that invokes God’s name to shield human violence.

In the end, no notary can make injustice just, no testimony can make coercion righteous, and no document can turn sin into obedience. Heaven does not take dictation from men. God does not sign their paperwork. And on the day when all accounts are settled, responsibility will not rest on the victims of oppression, but on those who committed it and dared to say, “It was not our fault.”

There is nothing Christian or holy in this. It reflects a pattern in which spiritual language is used to justify human agendas rather than the kingdom Christ proclaimed.