Covenants Part X, For the people?
In the previous lesson we discussed Allegiance and Faith and the binding power of giving our allegiance in exchange for benefits.
For the people?
"If a man shall begin with certainties,
he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties."
(Francis Bacon, Adv Learning, I,8 1605)
Patrick Henry began to argue against the Constitution because he had doubts about its wisdom. "What right had they [the group that wrote the Constitution] to say 'We the people,' instead 'We, the States"
"The people, to be sure", said Madison, were parties to the compact, but "not the people as composing one great body." Rather, it is "the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Madison added, "Were it… a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment: and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it…. But, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent."
But this premise was clearly not true despite the fact that it came from Madison. In the course of these pages we have seen that the majority of people in those days rejected the Constitution of the United States including many of the renowned early American "Patriots". The people would not have ratified it by states or as a whole nation.
Secondly, the state's authority to ratify was seriously in question. They were not democracies but republics in a pure sense. Their sovereignty rested independent of its form of government.1
One of the great frauds of modern education is that the nature of a pure republic is the same as an indirect democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.2
By even modern accounts the constitution was 'illegally ratified',3 as it violated the prior unanimous compacts among the states. It was adopted by the states but was a departure from the lawful government despite what may have been the good intentions of some of those who promoted it. For this reason---and because of its lack of popularity--- it was itself a revolution against the "Government of the People".
Those early Republics as we have also seen had no authority to subjugate the free people to the will of this new government without their individual consent, which Madison does recognize with his statement, " without its own consent". Such consent could only come from the individual freeman and not from the legislated congresses with only a titular authority4
Such consent may be presumed by men and their institutions which seek to expand their own position and power. History shows us that once governments are given an exercising authority that there is a steady gleaning of more power from people who depend upon, apply for and participate in the offered benefits, gifts, and gratuities of the new corporate State.
"The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."5
Even though many noble sentiments were incorporated within its pages, the Constitution violated not only the wisdom, but also the precepts of God that have come down to us through the ages and some of the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings. It centralized authority in the hands of some men, though constitutionally limited. The end result has always been the same.
"If we will not be ruled by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." 6
The Bible tells us of this inherited flaw in man's nature. From Cain to Egypt and from Caesar to the present day this folly is well documented --- though often blurred by our own pride and vanity.
In 1Sa 8:4-19 we see:
"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,.. And said ... 'make us a king to judge us like all the nations.' And the LORD said unto Samuel, 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.' ... Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, 'Nay; but we will have a king over us';"
The voice of the people chose a king. Many will say we don't have a king in the United States, because we use terms like "president" and "commander-in-chief". A king is a government that exercises authority. It does not change that position of man over man whether he is elected by popular vote, an electoral body or inherits that governmental office.
The Kings of Israel exercised authority under certain constitutional limitations7 and was some times replaced by a vote of the people.8
Augustus Caesar was elected by an electoral college. Because of his popularity in winning a civil war as General of the victorious army, he was assured of his election.
George Washington enjoyed the same popularity and became the first President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief, and appointer of the federal judges of the United States under that new Constitution devised to replace the existing government.
These offices were the offices of Augustus upon his own victory and election. He had been legally granted, under constitutional forms and limitations, the position Emperator, meaning "Commander-in-Chief"9
This was one of three offices of power established to restore and protect the original Roman Republic.
The office of Principas Civitas, or First Citizen, was the chief executive officer in Rome a municipality. "Thus the republic was restored under the presidency of its 'first citizen'."10
Augustus was not only the first Commander-in-Chief, but also the first President of Rome. These two offices, vested in one man, were to protect the Republic along with the law making powers of their own limited congress, the conscripti patri.
The third office was the most interesting and misunderstood. It was the office Apo Theos, the originator of the gods of the Roman Empire. Was this a departure from the US system of constitutional government or a similitude, unrecognized by sacrilegious phraseology?
Actually, George Washington enjoyed this same office as do more modern Presidents, like Bill Clinton and George Bush. Washington is even proclaimed as having the "rank of god" in the Capital Dome and on US government web sites.
The Apotheos of Washington
These gods were called theos, in the Greek. The New Testament translates the word theos into the word god or God. Theos was a common term used at the time of Christ to address judges and magistrates.11 The same is true of the word elohim,12translated God or god in the Bible's old testament.
What the Apo Theos did was simply appoint all the judges deciding imperial matters in the federal courts of the Empire. A god is a judge who exercises authority, and this is why God the Father says, "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage..." Ex 20:1-2.
The Bible goes on to say, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Ex 20:3-5
We imagine that God is only concerned about dead stone idols but it is the spirit of what they represent in those ancient cultures that incurs the sin. They are monuments of the authority and jurisdiction of men over men, both princes and priests who exercise authority over their fellow man and brothers. Like Cain and Nimrod, Pharaoh and Caesar and all others, from princes to presidents, the right to make law and judge men belongs to God--- and it is as wicked to elevate men to sovereign ranks and pedestals of power created by their own hands as it is to oppress13 men under the exercising authority of governments that assume the office of our Father in Heaven.
The United States Constitution was designed according to Roman precepts despite the assumption that it was a Christian effort. The unwise but good intentions of the men involved in its implementation were the product of an ignorance of Christ's true gospel. This should be of no surprise when we study the 2000-year attempt to twist the gospel into something it was not, and to blur the vision of what it was meant to be.
Christ preached a different type of kingdom, a government of free will, faith, liberty,14 and love. It was at hand15 and it was appointed16and it was not to be like the governments of the other nations17 including Rome---and therefore also the United States.18
Men imagine themselves free in democracies because they are comfortable---but in a democracy, no one is free from their neighbor.
"Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth." Jer 34:17
The corruption of estates continues as it does with all governments of power and exercising authority because the people continued to violate the guidelines laid down in the Bible by Abraham, Moses, and Christ, irrespective of the assumptions and sophisms of modern Christendom.
Patrick Henry's opening speech of June 4, 1788, in opposition to the unapproved Constitution, warned: "A Wrong Step Now and the Republic Will Be Lost Forever." Clearly he believed the Republic predated the constitution and he prophetically was concerned about what the Constitution would provide.
He continued to warn, "If this new Government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they should be disappointed--their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg Gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our Republic will be lost."
Even after its creation the warnings continued to flow from men like John Marshall, who wrote:
“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.”
“No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.”
“Indeed, in a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen”
People remain ignorant, believing that a true republic is an indirect democracy. If that were true then a republic is merely a system where by your neighbor can remove your rights through elected proxy rather than a system where neither your neighbor nor his elected officials may remove your rights without your actual consent. There is a great deal more to governments and how they expand their powers to become modern Goliaths and dictatorial tyrants.
Governments made by the hand of men and dependent upon his wisdom in the assertion of authority are often a phantasmagoria.19
What is the mystery of maintaining a free government where the people remain free from the despotism of tyrants and the coveting vote of their neighbor?
"Execrable [Accursed] son! so to aspire Above his brethren,
to himself assuming Authority usurp'd, from God not given.
He gave us only over beast, fish and fowl, Dominion absolute;
that right we hold By his donation; but man over men He made not Lord;
such title to himself Reserving, human left from human free."20
We are told that the United States is a "government of the People, by the People and for the People". As I have stated many times this phrase did not originate with Abraham Lincoln or constitutionalists, but with what people might call the religious zealots centuries earlier. The Phrase is actually found in the introduction to a 1382 Bible. Not the King James Bible, (which came much later) but John Wycliffe's translation.
"This Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People."
Why would the Bible, a religious book, be concerned with the Government? The reason is simple. The Bible is a book about government.
"Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God?
This same battle continues throughout the world."
Cain started the first civil government recorded in the Bible.22
Nimrod was a mighty provider instead of the LORD.23
Abraham departed from the city states and set up an alternative system to that of those civil powers.
Pharaoh ruled over the people who sinned against their brother and their father.24
Moses led three million People to a new land and established Laws and Statutes by which the people were to rule themselves.25
The Princes of Israel were the Fathers of the households.26
Israel was a government and nation without a king, where they lived without a central government of authority.27
Samuel warned the people about returning to centralized ruling power.28
Judea was the remnant of that government and kingdom and Rome came to protect the peace in that kingdom which again had fallen into civil turmoil.
Jesus preached a kingdom that was at hand.29
He was hailed as a king.30
Did the acts of the king.31
Admitted that he was the king.33
Internationally accepted as king.34
He appointed that kingdom.35
Sent out His disciples as Ambassadors.36
They in turn appointed others elected by the people over the business of a government.37
They were not to be like the governments of those other nations which exercised authority over the people.38
Jesus was setting up a government Of the People, By the People and For the People, just as Abraham39 and Moses40 had done before him. Israel---or the kingdom of God as Luke and Mark called it and the kingdom of heaven41 was a True Republic42 where the people were free from things public under the perfect law of liberty. It was a government where the people needed to learn to govern themselves, where they were to come together being as concerned about their neighbors rights, just as much as they were concerned about their own.
"And the second [is] like, [namely] this, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' There is none other commandment greater than these." Mr 12:31
It was not a government of that Roman world43 and jurisdiction but was a government that was at hand. This Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven was a government where there was no earthly Father or Patronus44 demanding your obedience other than your own natural Father and your Father in Heaven.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Exodus 20:12
A government of and by the people must always remain a government "for the people". The word FOR can have several meanings. In The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language the word FOR is defined at least in one place, "Used to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action". This is the commonly accepted meaning in the phrase "for the people". But in a legal dictionary the word FOR is defined, "Instead of; on behalf of; in place of; as, where one signs a note or legal instrument 'for' another, this formula importing agency or authority."45
If this definition is used then "FOR the People" may mean a government "instead of" or "in place of" the people.
The same phrase but different meanings.
Which meaning do you hear in your own heart?
Again, what is the mystery of a free government?
If a government is truly 'for' the benefit and welfare of the people those who sit in a position to exercise authority must truly love the people more than they love power. Throughout history the stories of good men gone bad under the temptation of power and authority is consistent making the adage, "Power corrupts" all too true.
The first section of the book The Enterprise of Law written by Bruce Bensen shows that "our modern reliance on government to make law and establish order is not the historical norm"46 .
"The historical norm was customary law which, spontaneously created and voluntarily obeyed, provided law and order in all early societies. Since customary law had precisely the same status and served the same purpose as the state-created law we take for granted today, the commonly-held belief that law and government develop together is mistaken."47
Those ancient systems, where the civil power remained in the hands of the individual freeman also required those individuals to love their neighbors as themselves. They had to be as concerned about their neighbors rights and freedoms as they were their own rights and freedoms or their society would dissipate.
This has been the sound advice recorded in "sacred writings" concerning government from the earliest history of mankind.
Leviticus 19:18 " ... thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD." Not to mention, Zechariah 8:17. And James 2:8, "If ye fulfil the royal [kings] law according to the scripture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:'"
This was wise political advice from a Prince to His people. It was also a warning to a free people concerning the mystery of how to remain a free nation.
"For this, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet'; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'." Romans 13:9
A democracy is a government of the people, and it is a government by the people---or at least 51% of them but it is not necessarily a government "for the people". It is a collective government instead of the individual freeman because it is a government where the mob is King. It is the mob who is often exercising authority over the minority. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he stated, " A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
In order to gain from the gifts, gratuities, and benefits of a Democracy, one must be willing to take something from his neighbor. Dependence on those benefits graced by the benefactors of the state, automatically brings about a new state of mind in the people---and a new corporate state is born out of their collective activity.
Thomas Jefferson also said, "Dependence begets subservience and venality,48 suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." When men are ambitious or covetous, for what their neighbor has, they are changed by their greed. When they have power over their neighbor, though that power is small, it corrupts them, it tempts and taints their souls. They become addicted to their own desires, sloth, avarice, and indulgence until they equate freedom with comfort, liberty with affluence, and the responsibility bestowed on them by God as an intolerable burden.
"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."
–Mark Twain
In a Democracy the voice of the people elects the benefactor or patron of the nation. That Benefactor guarantees certain advantages and blessings to the people and is sworn to provide them. But in return, he demands a corresponding allegiance. Because the Benefactor takes on the responsibility of care and provision he also obtains a corresponding power to exercise authority, demand compliance, and extract support. This relationship may begin when a government takes on the role or office of Protector, Patron, or Patronus.49
People have the right to band together in a common purse of rights and allow the Voice of the People50 to determine which rights they may continue to enjoy and which rights they must forfeit, but that band of would-be rulers has no right to compel membership in that society against consent, without application or novation.
The greatest failing in such schemes of the multitude is the suffocation of virtue where "Faith, Hope, and Charity began for to flee".51 It is this custom and practice of coveting even a button on your neighbors coat that sets men in danger of becoming the victim of despots. Whether they are obvious despots and dictators or just our neighbor seeking the benefit of our forced contribution in support of their own desires---each man becomes George the III and a traitor to freedom and liberty.
"Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you." Abraham Lincoln
The Kingdom of God has always relied upon the freewill offerings of the people to fill its treasuries and left the contributions to the support of its ministers in the hands of those who receive that direct service. It formed an interlaced network of men and women who took the responsibility of freedom as a compelling obligation of daily choice.
Governments of men compel that national contribution robbing all of the exercise of choice, which feeds the soul and nurtures virtue in mankind.
"I desire what is good.
Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor."
King George III of England
Democracy is no answer, indirect or pure. All have a hand in the covetous collection of our "neighbor's goods" by electing men to that office of "collector of the national treasury". The soiled activities of plundering our neighbors, or robbing widows and orphans through taxation, usury, and inflation is like a cancer that eats away at the souls of God's children.
The temptation to rule our neighbors and be corrupted by that power of rule, has been too great for even good men. Jesus passed the test, the temptation of power, but few come close to His willingness to remain a servant, when the power to rule and judge is given them..
"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." Patrick Henry.
We should not make men rulers or benefactors. If we want God given rights and freedoms we must take the responsibility to rule ourselves according to God's precepts and choose to charitably provide for the honest needs of each other, stranger or neighbor.52
From Abraham to Moses to Jesus setting the captives free and living under God the Father was a key element and precept of the Gospels.
And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.. Ps 119:45
God wants men to be free souls under Him and not under any other authority.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5:1
It is the spirit, nature, and righteousness of His kingdom that leads us, guides u,s and grants us that freedom.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Mt 6:33
"From the Cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the Laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Oh, God of Truth, deliver us."
An ancient Hebrew prayer
Footnotes:
|
Share this
page 
