| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
 Posted - 18 May 2005 : 09:30:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
........Simply put, common law is "what is". Jim plead argument into an non-existent jurisdiction and cured it in doing so. Therefore he was convicted by a "judge" who had already admitted he had no subject matter jurisdiction because Jim had broken no law. How could that happen in any other realm than common law? Jim's perception and our perceptions cause common law through stare decisis. Common law is what we perceive exists.......
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
You may be right my friend. My truth is that Divine Law is God's Law and anything else is compartmentalised under that TRUTH. You correctly infer that from my theological position. GO GOD!
What is - IS. That is a priori statement. Now the Positivists would claim that is black letter law - avoid morality stick to authorised legislative 'law making'. The positivists claim law is what legislation is and common law is what it law/morality ought to be.
You also suggest that common law is 'what we perceive exists'.
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
3. Perception is reality - but whose perception?
4. Reality is perception?
You a gambler David? You having an each way bet on what is? haha
As for pleading into a non-existant jurisdiction? The jurisdiction did exist (for fictions) but did it have authority over Jim the man? NO but Yes by consent, acquiesence or negligence on his behalf clothing himself with the colour of fictional law so they could recognise him as an artificial/natural person subject to their jurisdiction.
thanks for sharing David - you are helping to clarify my private rantings in public.
Kindest Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 18 May 2005 09:58:31 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 15:05:10
|
quote:
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
That is the fallacy.
The statute law is and is therefore common law. When you inquire of a black robed attorney why you have no access to the common law, he will answer, "This court of law is based in common law." He is telling the truth.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 17:55:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
quote:
1. Statute law is reality ie. What is - IS man's legislation or black letter law: relegates common law to a fiction.
2. Common law is reality - What is -IS man in a natural law state: relegates Statute law to a fiction.
That is the fallacy.
The statute law is and is therefore common law. When you inquire of a black robed attorney why you have no access to the common law, he will answer, "This court of law is based in common law." He is telling the truth.
Regards,
David Merrill.
G'day David,
Are you simply suggesting that WHAT IS LAW is what you perceive to be your law? or do you go to the next step and declare that common law is the law and statute law is a quasi-contract law based on your consent with another party ie. the State?
If so - I agree. I do believe that the private 'statute' law is applicable to those members or citizens of a political society who elect to be bound by the legislation as defined as a natural-person.
Statute law is codified common law with new rights and obligations.
You cannot compel a non-citizen of a political society to be forced into obedience to a statutory created right or obligation they do not want. They have the right to contract at common law. Regarding your earlier post - AVOIDANCE IS THE SOLUTION! Avoid the political society like the plague, don't fight it. Stick to the principles in Divine Law, common law, contract law.
Regards
Rick
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 19 May 2005 02:17:41 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 19:41:54
|
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
I understand now because I used to privatize common law too. You say that in traversal. I will not be spending any more time on it. |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 03:33:52
|
David raised some very pertinent points on common law - it is what is!
He wrote that his cousin, a 3nd year law student at the time, stated that common law is 'CASE LAW'.
The folowing is from the website:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-05
The idea of precedent is not restricted to the citation
of authority within a single jurisdiction or nation-state.
Systems sharing the same jurisprudential origins—e.g.,
the Napoleonic Code or the English Common law—
may invoke each other's precedents; and there is au-
thority in the United States and the Netherlands for
the courts' adopting a “harmonizing construction” of
domestic law by using comparative techniques to as-
certain the solutions to a particular social problem of
foreign legal systems of various types. Moreover, deci-
sions of international courts and tribunals have persua-
sive authority in public international law and the Stat-
ute of the International Court of Justice (article 38)
accepts national judicial decisions as a subsidiary source
of law.
In sum, legal precedent in its conservative and crea-
tive aspects is encountered in all legal systems, though
in different forms. It has been said: “Tradition and
Conscience are the two wings given to the human soul
to reach the truth” (T. M. Taylor, Speaking to Gradu-
ates, Edinburgh, 1965). Both are implicit in legal prec-
edent. The judicial function is not or should not be
that of an animated index to the law reports, nor is
justice by computer a tolerable thought, however
helpful computers may prove to be in tracking avail-
able authority. Julius Stone, who has written exten-
sively on all aspects of precedent, echoes in that con-
tent the injunction of the father of cybernetics, Nor-
bert Wiener, “Render unto man what is man's, and
unto the machine only that which is the machine's.”
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 19 May 2005 17:39:40 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 08:52:19
|
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
The purpose of your disclaimer is befuddling. You have traversed here from the Christian Common Law. Unlike the English Common Law, the Christian Common Law is confined to little pockets of elitists. The English Common Law was at least adopted for the Territory of Colorado [which had never cured] in late 1861.
After the Bill of Rights ending with the de jure 13th Amendment, the final page of this document is the adoption of the Common Law of England. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_13th_Amendment_hanging_in_clerk's_office.jpg It is so often requested by people reading here (719) 520-6200 that it is the only document taped up for quick reference at my clerk's cubicle.
quote:
He stated it is CASE LAW.
Fair enough that you would put that in my mouth. But it is not true. What I said was that my cousin, a two year law student at a family reunion said that. I agree that it is a valid perspective for her. To view common law as the utility to argue it - stare decisis, case law. But it fits you in traversal to distort that to be my point of view for the sake of argument. So please do not tell the readers what I think in the future. Like I said I do not wish to put any more time into this debate. You do not make the disclaimer when you write on christiancommonlaw.org. So I understand the nature of your traversal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 18:03:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
quote:
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty
The purpose of your disclaimer is befuddling. You have traversed here from the Christian Common Law. Unlike the English Common Law, the Christian Common Law is confined to little pockets of elitists. The English Common Law was at least adopted for the Territory of Colorado [which had never cured] in late 1861.
After the Bill of Rights ending with the de jure 13th Amendment, the final page of this document is the adoption of the Common Law of England. http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_13th_Amendment_hanging_in_clerk's_office.jpg It is so often requested by people reading here (719) 520-6200 that it is the only document taped up for quick reference at my clerk's cubicle.
quote:
He stated it is CASE LAW.
Fair enough that you would put that in my mouth. But it is not true. What I said was that my cousin, a two year law student at a family reunion said that. I agree that it is a valid perspective for her. To view common law as the utility to argue it - stare decisis, case law. But it fits you in traversal to distort that to be my point of view for the sake of argument. So please do not tell the readers what I think in the future. Like I said I do not wish to put any more time into this debate. You do not make the disclaimer when you write on christiancommonlaw.org. So I understand the nature of your traversal.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Apologies David,
Thankyou for correcting me - I have corrected the previous post and updated the signature on the other forum (that was an oversight). For the ecclesia's edification I provide a definition of traverse from Bouvier's Law dictionary and a comment on stare decisisAs for the him it is lower case only!
TRAVERSE, pleading. This term, from the French traverser, signifies to deny or controvert anything which is alleged in the declaration, plea, replication or other pleadings; Lawes' Civ. Plead. 116, 117 there is no real distinction between traverses and denials, they are the same in substance.
Willes. R. 224. however, a traverse, in the strict technical meaning, and more ordinary acceptation of the term, signifies a direct denial in formal words, "without this that," &c. Summary of Pleadings, 75; 1 Chit. Pl. 576, n. a.
2. All issues are traverses, although all traverses cannot be said to be issues, and the difference is this; issues are where one or more facts are affirmed on one side, and directly and merely denied on the other; but special traverses are where the matter asserted by one party is not directly and merely denied or put in issue. by the other, but he alleges some new matter or distinction inconsistent with what is previously stated, and then distinctly excludes the previous statement of his adversary. The new matter so alleged is called the inducement to the traverse, and the exclusion of the previous statement, the traverse itself. Lawes' Civ. Pl. 117. See, in general, 20 Vin. Abr. 339; Com. Dig. Pleader, G; Bac. Abr. Pleas, H; Yelv. R. 147, 8; 1 Saund. 22, n. 2; Gould. on Pl. ell. 7 Bouv. Inst. Index, n. t.
3. A traverse upon a traverse is one growing out of the same point, or subject matter, as is embraced in a preceding traverse on the other side. Gould on Pl. ch. 7, Sec. 42, n. It is a general rule, that a traverse, well tendered on one side, must be accepted on the other. And hence it follows, as a general rule, that there cannot be a traverse upon a traverse, if the, first traverse is material. The meaning of the rule is, that when one party has tendered a material traverse, the other cannot leave it and tender another of his own to the same point upon the inducement of the first traverse, but must join in that first tendered; otherwise the parties might alternately tender traverses to each other, in unlimited succession, without coming to an issue. Gould on Pl. ch. 7, Sec. 42.
4. In cases where the first traverse is immaterial, there may be a traverse upon a traverse. Id. ch. 7, Sec. 43. And where the plaintiff might be ousted of some right or liberty the law allows him, there may be a traverse upon a traverse, although the first traverse include what is material. Poph. 101; Mo. 350; Com. Dig. Pleader, G 18; Bac. Abr. Pleas, H 4; Hob. 104, marg.; Cro. Eliz. 99, 418; Gould on Pl. ch. 7, 44.
5. Traverses may be divided into general traverses, (q.v.) and special traverses. (q.v.) There is a third kind called a common traverse. (q.v.)
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/LawCom.htm#StareDecisis
Stare Decisis:-
This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the law as it exists today. When a court decides a case it does so on the merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only effect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court, however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time, which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns out, is a living, creeping, creature.
Do not, however, be mistaken - there, is, a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the function of the legislature.4 However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts:
"... built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors, grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the interests, the habits, and the opinions of the people. [Without the common law a court would] in each recurring case, have to enter upon its examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or settled law. Each case with its decision being thus limited as law to itself alone, would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to govern the future." (Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hill, 321.)
Tyrants can only get a hold of a central system where the rules issue from a single authority (government); tyrants cannot get a hold of a system which depends on a spontaneous participation in the law-making process on the part of each and all of the inhabitants of a country, viz., a system of common law.
_______________________________
[UP]
NOTES:
1 Natural Law and Legislation I treat as separate species.
2 A Collection of Arguments and Speeches by Eminent Lawyers (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1882).
3 A trick that some of us up here have learned is this, one listens to the weather that Boston is receiving today and that's likely the weather Halifax will get tomorrow.
4 The legislature's function, notwithstanding the typical politician's view of it, is limited to the making of laws which come fully within the framework as set up by the constitution of the country; which, in Canada, is rooted in common law.
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 19 May 2005 18:09:38 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 18:17:45
|
If I have to be like him (Joe Bloggs) (at common law or statute law or in anyones opinion) then who is going to be like ME?
James 1:25
But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does. WEB
But he that looketh into the perfect law, the 'law' of liberty, and 'so' continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing. ASV
But he who goes on looking into the true law which makes him free, being not a hearer without memory but a doer putting it into effect, this man will have a blessing on his acts. BBE
But he that fixes his view on the perfect law, that of liberty, and abides in it, being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, he shall be blessed in his doing. DBY
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. KJV
But he who looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth in it, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. WBS
But he who looks closely into the perfect Law--the Law of freedom--and continues looking, he, being not a hearer who forgets, but an obedient doer, will as the result of his obedience be blessed. WEY
and he who did look into the perfect law -- that of liberty, and did continue there, this one -- not a forgetful hearer becoming, but a doer of work -- this one shall be happy in his doing. YLT
I HAVE to be like HIM.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 19 May 2005 18:28:54 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 19:02:24
|
Thanks for clarifying that. I was construeing you to be a proponent of Christian Common Law. Therefore the insistance that common law is distinguished from statutory law. I have even debated with folks who say that the admiralty or UCC is not common law.
I used to try models like that. They lead to folly.
Here is an example of common law. It is called Workman's Compensation Insurance. But it is common law within its own scope only. When you are signing up it clearly tells you that you are relenquishing common law rights; that you are entering into a private agreement.
Another example is so many contracts today agree exclusively to "arbitration" of any disagreements by an arbitrator established by the opposing party (insurance company etc.). You have gone into a privatized common law - like Christian Common Law. Or English Common Law in the case of the (uncured) Territory of Colorado.
It gets a little frustrating to get this point across. That is why the Continental Congress left it at "...where the common law is competent to give it [remedy]". I recall getting into a squabble on this Topic with Source, its author. That was before the name was changed from something like, "Proof their laws do not apply to Christians". I clarified that Christianity has nothing to do with it. It is this perfect law of liberty, walking in it and doing the work. That is where you get remedy cured properly. And in doing so you can help people around you too. If they have ears to hear and are willing to do instead of just hear.
I suppose the crux of the matter is really forum shopping. For a long time I thought admiralty was the only forum but it turns out by the State of Colorado constitution the district courts are courts of record too.
The two or three writing members on christaincommonlaw.org adhere to the Justus precepts of the Montana Freemen and believe in righteously imposing the principals of that privatized common law on others. I think the natural flopping of the website as a world court system made Charles very sour on any opposing views but he became very nasty toward people here. So when I saw you were signing off without your question, I presumed it a traversal, an evasion of culpability while only visiting this site. Ergo the presumption you would argue the validity of Christian Common Law ad nauseum.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2005 : 19:35:19
|
It is finished!
Walk into a statutory court quoting only the bible could get you hung, shot or crucified. The 'key' for me was understanding God's law as revealed in the bible. My conscience cannot be my guide unless it is taught the truth.
1. Read history
2. Read the bible
3. Read JURISPRUDENCE - positive law of a political society based on biblical principles.
4. Avoid accepting new rights and obligations created by statutes
5. learn Remedies - INJUNCTION - Quo Warranto
6. understand AUTHORITY and POWER
7. Read Contract Law principles
8. Document records
9. Learn how to prosecute public officials for criminal offences or misfeasance in public office.
10. Understand your State and Federal CONstitutions.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2005 : 05:34:48
|
Greetings gang!
re: 1 Peter 2:13.
I can find no satisfactory word translation for SAKE in this passage in Strong's concordance or Vines. In fact it is basically omitted from both books. Nor can I find a consistent interpretation of it in the Darby 1884 (3rd Edition) New Testament or any other bible including NKJV.
The verse 1 Peter 2:13 is relied upon by secular 'authorities' for biblical sanction to punish Christians as evildoers if we do not obey every ordinance of man (legislation)? If Christians are to live as free and therefore not under the authority of a secular power then perhaps it means if you witness a murder you are to submit yourself to the secular authorities in their court (building - institution) to assist in affirming the Commandments against evildoers?
I would like to know if anyone has looked at the word in the context of FOR THE LORD'S SAKE as for the Lord's CAUSE in a legal sense? rather than a desire or emotional context.
The phrase 'for the Lord's sake' I believe is generally translated to refer to some passive desire rather than the doing of something towards the end purpose of Christianity.
If the phrase is a cause and effect statement - particularly in a legal sense - then wouldn't the secular legislation if it conformed to God's purpose fit the context of obedience (not consent) to every ordinance of man?
What are these ordinances anyway? a creature, a creation, a building, an institution, or legislation.... ? Why is it used as ordinance only in this verse rather than creation or building?
I did a brief check on other words similar to ORDINANCE such as MAKE, DO, CAUSE. These all fit the context of sake fitting the context of obeying an ordinance for the Lord's purpose or cause - if it is a Godly ordinance then it would be followed anyway.
Needless to say, 1 Peter 2:13 does not sit well with Acts 5:29.
Most commentaries focus on every ordinance whereas I am looking at the context of SAKE as CAUSE changing the emphasis.
Comments welcome.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2005 : 08:59:08
|
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
Good to “see you”; we were beginning to be a bit concerned about your welfare.
We more or less will “bite our tongues” here concerning the common interpretation of these verses and try desperately to stick with the subject you presented.
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
The New International Version calls this chapter Submission to rulers and masters, how appropriate! This is, in our humble opinion, a sloppy copy of Romans thirteen. Compare 1Peter 2:14b, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well with Romans 13:3, 4, & 5 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of Yahuwah to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of Yahuwah, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Also, here in Romans 13:5 we once again see the Greek word dia translated sake.
A side note, perhaps of interest, is that the word of was added to the Word for our understanding [perhaps], that is to say, according to Zondervan’s Greek Interlinear the Greek word ek or ex was apparently not there in the originals (if there is such a thing). This tidbit may, or may not, have any bearing whatsoever on your question, brother Rick.
Was this the same Peter who said, We ought to obey Yahuwah rather than men? …as you so fittingly point out. If one has a proper understanding of Romans thirteen, which I believe we have covered in some detail elsewhere on ecclesia.org, then he should have a suitable understanding of 1Peter two, in our humble opinion.
Hope this has been helpful.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 07 Aug 2005 09:23:21 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2005 : 10:23:00
|
I believe the common interpretation of Romans 13 and all sloppy copies fail to account for Paul's war by propaganda against Rome - Christianity. In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.
I have conversed with a rabbi who told me outright, "You know we are to subject ourselves to whatever law of the land where we live." Of course! The Jews (and Christians until the Return; Messiah ben David) are in Diaspora.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2005 : 20:53:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, Uncle Buck:
Peace be unto the house.
Good to “see you”; we were beginning to be a bit concerned about your welfare.
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
Greetings bro Robert and Sister K!
Bro Robert suggested the word sake may mean:
Technically the Greek word dia means by, as in via, through, by way of or because of, thus that portion of the Word would probably read literally: Obey therefore every creation [of?] man because of the Lord [supreme power and authority] or as the KJV presented it, for the Lord's sake.
As a Protestant I do not believe that Peter wrote a sloppy copy of Romans 13.
1 PETER
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
In commenting on Romans 13, Greg L. Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics [p.377] states:
The conclusion should be that what is due to the state is obedience to God's law, and if this is what is its due, then the law of God is the area of the state's assigned function. What Caesar must render unto God as the things which are God's includes his obedience to, and enforcement of, God's law within the nation.
Further on Bahnsen quotes from Alan M. Stibbs [The First Epistle General of Peter, ed. R V G Tasker, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol 17 pp.110-111] as follows:
Civil rulers are explicitly commissioned to represent God as the Judge. They give active expression to His righteousness and His wrath by inflicting just retribution on wrongdoers, and by publicly commending and rewarding those who do well. All to whom such divine authority is thus delegated ought in its exercise to be like God, by whose commission and in whose service they act; ie., they should love righteousness and hate iniquity (see hewbrews 1:8-9).
And finally on p.519 Bahnsen writes:
By closely defining the ordination of the civil magistrate as including the proper ends of temporal government the Westminster Confession is simply following the example of Paul (Romans 13:1-7) and Peter (1 Peter 2:13-14) who do not give a blank check authority to the ruler, but who specify that the ruler is to be of a certain kind: promoting good and avenging evil (both of these terms are strongly associated with obedience to, or rebellion from, the law of God in Scripture).
R J Rushdoony in The Institutes of Biblical Law p.56-57 writes:
For the state to claim the right to tax the earth is for the state to make itself the god and creator of the earth, whereas the state is instead God's ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-8).
Kenneth S. Wuest, a greek scholar, in his Expanded Translation of the New Testament translates the passage 1 Peter 2:13-18:
Put yourself in the attitude of submission to, thus giving yourselves to the implicit obedience of, every human regulation for the sake of the Lord, whether to a king as one who is supereminent, or to governors as those sent by him to inflict punishment upon those who do evil, and to give praise to those who do good; for so is the will of God, that by doing good you might be reducing to silence the ignorance of men who are unreflecting and unintelligent; doing all this as those who have their liberty, and not as those who are holding their liberty as a cloak of wickedness, but as those who are God's bondmen. Pay honor to all, be loving the brotherhood, be fearing God, be paying honor to the king.
Richard Anthony wrote in his article There is only One Lawgiver:
One way to test whether or not a man-made law is godly or not is to test it with the following. Ask yourself, "Does this law punish evil-doers and praise or reward doers of good?" For example, consider the drivers license law. Does the requirement for a drivers license punish evil or reward good? No, it does not. The traffic courts might do this, but not the license itself. Therefore, since God only gave His "governing authorities" the power to punish evil and reward good, this man-made law is outside of God's delegated authority, and no obedience is required if you live, move, and have your being in Him. Another question you can ask is, "Will this Law, being imposed by man, help me walk in God's Truth?" If it is a godly law, it will. But most man made laws do not bring anyone to the Truth, nor can they.
Wuest does justice to the scripture. The ground or reason why something is or is not done is through our belief in Jesus Christ and is based on the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other. We subject ourselves implicitly (not explicitly) in “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden according to such conditions = where it often introduces, after statement of the grounds a divine declaration or command. (b) inferring the cause from the effect, or developing what is logically involved in a statement therefore (not a consequence of but the development of what is implicit in it). The Greek equivalent is 5921 `al
For the 'sake' of completeness for the 'cause' I add the following definitions from Mr Noah Webster's dictionary 1828! And I added IMPLICIT just in case!
SAKE, n. [Heb. to press or oppress. The primary sense is to strain, urge, press or drive forward, and this is from the same root as seek, essay and L. sequor, whence we have pursue and prosecute. We have analogous words in cause, thing, and the L. res.]
1. Final cause; end; purpose; or rather the purpose of obtaining. I open a window for the sake of air, that is, to obtain it, for the purpose of obtaining air. I read for the sake of instruction, that is, to obtain it. Sake then signifies primarily effort to obtain, and secondarily purpose of obtaining. The hero fights for the sake of glory; men labor for the sake of subsistence or wealth.
2. Account; regard to any person or thing.
I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake. Gen. 8.
Save me for thy mercies' sake. Ps. 6.
CAUSE, n. s as z.
1. A suit or action in court; any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand, or by which he seeks his right or his supposed right. This is a legal, scriptural and popular use of the word, coinciding nearly with case from cado, and action from ago, to urge or drive.
The cause of both parties shall come before the judges. Ex. 22.
2. That which produces an effect; that which impels into existence, or by its agency or operation produces what did not before exist; that by virtue of which any thing is done; that from which any thing proceeds, and without which it would not exist.
Cause is a substance exerting its power into act, to make a thing begin to be.
3. The reason or motive that urges, moves, or impels the mind to act or decide.
For this cause have I raised up Pharaoh. Ex. 9.
And David said, is there not a cause? 1 Sam. 17.
4. Sake; account.
I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong. 2 Cor. 6. [See Sake.]
5. That which a party or nation pursues; or rather pursuit, prosecution of an object. We say, Bible Societies are engaged in a noble cause. [See the first definition.] Hence the word cause is used to denote that which a person or thing favors; that to which the efforts of an intelligent being are directed; as, to promote religion is to advance the cause of God. So we say, the cause of truth or of justice. In all its applications, cause retains something of its original meaning, struggle, impelling force, contest, effort to obtain or to effect something.
6. Without cause, without good reason; without a reason or motive to justify the act.
They hate me without cause. Ps. 35. 69.
CAUSE, v.t.
1. To produce; to bring into existence.
They caused great joy to all the brethren. Acts 15.
2. To effect by agency, power or influence.
I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days. Gen. 7.
I will cause him to fall by the sword. 2 Kings 19.
CAUSE, v.i. To assign insufficient cause.
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]
1. Infolded; entangled; complicated.
In his woolly fleece
I cling implicit. [Little used.]
2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.
3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed.
I referenced the following greek and hebrew words:
1223 dia { dee-ah’}
a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; TDNT - 2:65,149; prep
AV - by 241, through 88, with 16, for 58, for ... sake 47, therefore + 5124 44, for this cause + 5124 14, because 53, misc 86; 647
GK - 1328 { diav }
1) through
1a) of place
1a1) with
1a2) in
1b) of time
1b1) throughout
1b2) during
1c) of means
1c1) by
1c2) by the means of
2) through
2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
2a1) by reason of
2a2) on account of
2a3) because of for this reason
2a4) therefore
2a5) on this account
5293 hupotasso { hoop-ot-as’-so}
from 5259 and 5021; TDNT - 8:39,1156; v
AV - put under 6, be subject unto 6, be subject to 5, submit (one’s) self unto 5, submit (one’s) self to 3, be in subjection unto 2, put in subjection under 1, misc 12; 40
GK - 5718 { uJpotavssw }
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a miliary fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
2937 ktisis { ktis’-is}
from 2936; TDNT - 3:1000,481; n f
AV - creature 11, creation 6, building 1, ordinance 1; 19
GK - 3232 { ktivsi" }
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
4893 suneidesis { soon-i’-day-sis}
from a prolonged form of 4894; TDNT - 7:898,1120; n f
AV - conscience 32; 32GK - 5287 { suneivdhsi" }
1) the consciousness of anything
2) the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other2a) the conscience
15 agathopoieo { ag-ath-op-oy-eh’-o}
from 17; TDNT - 1:17,3; v
AV - do good 7, well doing 2, do well 2; 11
GK - 16 { ajgaqopoievw }
1) to do good, do something which profits others
1a) to be a good help to someone
1b) to do someone a favour
1c) to benefit
2) to do well, do right
At Sparta, this was the name of the five oldest knights, who went on missions for the state.
I. ÷Ke
adv. so, thus; so, thus (i.e. usu., as has been described or commanded, with ref. to what has preceded), mostly of manner, but sts. also of quantity, quality, or degree: 1. a. so. b. the force of ÷Ke
has sts. to be elicited from the context. c. ÷k
occurs freq. in partic. phrases, as (a) with hy:h;
, esp. ÷k yhyw
and it was so. (c) alone, ÷Ke µai
if it be so. (d) ÷k al
not so (viz. as has been described or implied), with a subst. 2. Often, to emphasize the agreement, in answer to ð]
, and rv,a}K'
. 3. With prepositions:
a. ÷KeArj'a'
, ÷keAyrej}a'
, ÷keAyrej}a'me
, lit. after so, i.e. afterwards: v. rj'a'
. b. ÷keB]
(late), lit. in such circumstances, i.e. thereupon, then.
c. ÷keA/mK]
, acc. to some, like so, i.e. in like manner, or like this (accompanied by a contemptuous gesture) = like a mere nothing: but v. IV. ÷Ke
. d. ÷kel;
according to such conditions, that being so, therefore; esp. in proph., where it often introduces, after statement of the grounds a divine declaration or command. Special usages: (a) idiom., in conversation, in reply to an objection, to state the ground upon which the answer is made; therefore — this being so. (b) inferring the cause from the effect, or developing what is logically involved in a statement therefore (not a consequence of but the development of what is implicit in it).
e. ÷KeAd['
hitherto (of time), as yet.
f. ÷KeAl['
upon ground of such conditions, therefore (introducing, more generally than ÷kel;
, the statement of a fact, rather than a declaration: never used in the phrases noted under ÷kel;
); and regularly where the origin of a name, or custom, or proverb is assigned.
5921 `al { al}
properly, the same as 5920 used as a preposition (in the sing. or pl. often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); TWOT - 1624p;
AV - upon, in, on, over, by, for, both, beyond, through, throughout, against, beside, forth, off, from off; 48
GK - 6584 { l['
GK - together with 03651 6586 { ÷KeAl['
}*
GK - together with 04192 6629 { tWmAl['
}*
prep
1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against
1a) upon, on the ground of, on the basis of, on account of, because of, therefore, on behalf of, for the sake of, for, with, in spite of, notwithstanding, concerning, in the matter of, as regards
1b) above, beyond, over (of excess)
1c) above, over (of elevation or pre-eminence)
1d) upon, to, over to, unto, in addition to, together with, with (of addition)
1e) over (of suspension or extension)
1f) by, adjoining, next, at, over, around (of contiguity or proximity)
1g) down upon, upon, on, from, up upon, up to,, towards, over towards, to, against (with verbs of motion)
1h) to (as a dative) conj
2) because that, because, notwithstanding, although
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
Edited by - Uncle Buck on 07 Aug 2005 21:15:32 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2005 : 21:33:09
|
Greetings to all,
I am posting the following now before my thoughts wonder off to other areas.
When many discussions come here about "refusing for cause", or "not accepting for value," leads me to understand the meaning unto a deeper threshold. See, weights and balance has much to do not only on the bartering we use, but also the morals we accept. So you see, it is not just the money, money, money issue we so much focus on, but most deeply is the moral, moral, moral.
Value/s to me (I have not looked-up the root meaning of the word) has a broad meaning and should be used with a broad brush, for it covers lots, if not all of what we face all the time.
So when the refusal comes about, and we say, "refuse for cause and not accepted for value," we should understand its meaning that we are avoiding the causes & affects, and also understand that we are not accepting the "values" they are projecting.
Anybody get my drift?
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2005 : 05:35:35
|
Greetings and salutations brother Rick:
Peace be unto the house.
A little more evidence as to why we believe it is rather sloppy.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake…
Submit (subordinate, obey) every (all, any, whole) ordinance (creation) of man (men) for the Lord’s sake…
Ordinance, n.
1. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense it is often used in the Scriptures. Exo 15. Num 10. Ezra 3. It may also signify a decree, edict or rescript, and the word has sometimes been applied to the statutes of Parliament, but these are usually called acts or laws. In the United States, it is never applied to the acts of Congress, or of a state legislature.
2. Observance commanded.
3. Appointment.
4. Established rite or ceremony.
– Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Ordinance. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action; a law or statute. In its most common meaning, the term is used to designate the enactments of the legislative body of a municipal corporation. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 757
According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake” , have to obey it. And then to top it off Peter gives us this at verse eighteen…
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Servants (residents, domestics), be subject (subordinate, obey) your masters (despots) with all fear (fear, dread, terror or reverence for one’s husband); not only to the good and gentle (appropriate, mild), but also to the forward (warped, winding, persverse).
The Greek word despotes, translated masters in the above verse, is the very root word itself for despots!
Despot, n. An emperor, king or price invested with absolute power, or ruling without any control from men, constitution or laws. Hence in a general sense, a tyrant. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
It also was originally a title meaning “master”, which was applied to…bishops of the Greek church.
Of course, that bolded part in Webster’s definition is the negative connotation of the word, and to ensure that is what he [Peter?] apparently meant by it, he finishes this verse with the Greek word skolios, which can mean…
warped, winding or perverse (Strong’s)…
1) crooked, curved; 2) metaphorically, 2a) perverse, wicked; 2b) unfair, surly, froward (Thayer’s)
Froward, a. [L. versus: turned or looking from.] Perverse, that is, turning from, with aversion or reluctance; not willing to yield or comply with what is required; unyielding; ungovernable; refractory; disobedient… – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Perverse, a. pervers'. [L. perversus. See Pervert.] 1. Literally, turned aside; hence, distorted from the right. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Warped, …turned out of the true direction; perverted…
--Zeal, to a degree of warmth able to warp the sacred rule of Gods word. – Locke
Was this the way that Peter intended it? Who can say for certain, but it is obvious to many that the “visible church” has bet her very existence on it.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 08 Aug 2005 08:16:17 |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2005 : 19:55:27
|
Greetings bro Robert and thanks for your input.
NOT SLOPPY - SUBTLE!
I believe that this verse [1 Peter 2:13...]hinges on the context of what sake means in context to our Lord. It is agreed that the definitions of the words; submit, every, ordinance - on first blush do not appear to give much strength to living the faith. Why do Vine and Strong not give sake a thorough definition in their scholarly books?
Bro Robert wrote:
*** According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake”, have to obey it.
Why would God demand total obedience to HIM and then condone non-compliance and confusion through scripture? That is not his character. Perhaps the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' is a command that obedience is only required to God and if the ordinance does not offend Him ie. then just go along with it without resisting.
Generally (ie. 99.9%) I would defer to one who divides the Word as beautifully and accurately as bro Robert. My heart tells me that the Scripture is not sloppy but subtle and is:
1) read out of context with other verses within the scriptures regarding obedience to God,
2) read from a secular not Christian perspective as the authority on how to live - thats ironic the big fella sticks in one passage in the whole Book to tell us to forget the rest of the Bible and just obey man's law,
3) read from a luke-warm Christian smorgasboard perspective in which we pick and choose which parts of God's law fit into the secular law system,
4) read with the wrong definitions or emphasis on words within the verses 1 Peter 2:11-25 - which is about obedience to God and perseverance to UNJUST PUNISHMENT for your faith.
There are three categories of Christian to whom this epistle may be addressed:
1) Christians who are totally FREE in that they have not delegated any of their authority to the State in any matter.
2) Christians who are SLAVES in that they have voluntarily (chosen to be a servant) or involuntarily (slave or gaoled) put themself into subjection to pagans/State.
3) Christians who have entered into agreements and contracts with the pagans/State and are to that extent bound by their striking of hands.
The epistle is written to Christians who are living as aliens alongside pagans. Peter just finished telling the Christians don't live the pagan/unsaved lifestyle (fleshly lusts) and don't be troubled because they defame you for living a Christian lifestyle - so why would he then command the same Christians to live under the pagan laws?
Bro Robert wrote:
*** Submit (subordinate, obey) every (all, any, whole) ordinance (creation) of man (men) for the Lord’s sake…
*** According to this, if a man-made creation, i.e. a rule, law or statute, forbid one to honour Yahuwah as their Supreme Suveran, then one would, “for the lord’s sake”, have to obey it. And then to top it off Peter gives us this at verse eighteen…
*** Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
*** Servants (residents, domestics), be subject (subordinate, obey) your masters (despots) with all fear (fear, dread, terror or reverence for one’s husband); not only to the good and gentle (appropriate, mild), but also to the forward (warped, winding, persverse).
Wuest translates these verses as:
Household slaves, put yourselves in constant subjection with every fear in IMPLICIT OBEDIENCE to your ABSOLUTE lords and masters; not only to those who are good at heart and sweetly reasonable, satisfied with less than their due, but also to those who are against you; for this subjection to those who are against you is something which is beyond the ordinary course of what might be expected and is therefore commendable, namely, when a person because of the conscious sense of his relation to God bears up under pain, suffering UNJUSTLY. For what sort of fame is it when you fall short of the mark and are pummeled with the fist, you endure this patiently? But when you are in the habit of doing good and then suffer constantly for it, and this you patiently endure, this is an unusual and not-to-be-expected action, and therefore commendable in the sight of God. [1 Peter 2:18-20]
Why does Wuest use the words - implicit obedience?
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]
2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.
3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed.
Noah Webster (1828) defined submit as follows:
SUBMIT', v.i. To surrender; to yield one's person to the power of another; to give up resistance. The enemy submitted.
1. To yield one's opinion to the opinion or authority of another. On hearing the opinion of the court, the counsel submitted without further argument.
3. To be submissive; to yield without murmuring.
Our religion requires us--to submit to pain, disgrace and even death.
I have no difficulty with submit - in fact we would do contrary if we resisted or railed against an authority/power. This presumes we have delegated our God-given freedom away to the State. Yield also suggests no opposition by force.
YIELD, v.i.
3. To give way; not to oppose. We readily yield to the current of opinion; we yield to customs and fashions.
Darby translates ordinance as INSTITUTION. That is consistent with Peter telling the Christians to demonstrate their faith by accepting the pagan institutions. They may have been building codes or courts or restaurants or markets. Webster's (1828) has two main definitions for institution - no. 2 or no. 3 can both fit the context.
INSTITU'TION, n. [L. institutio.]
1. The act of establishing.
2. Establishment; that which is appointed, prescribed or founded by authority,and intended to be permanent. Thus we speak of the institutions of Moses or Lycurgus. We apply the word institution to laws, rites, and ceremonies, which are enjoined by authority as permanent rules of conduct or of government.
3. A system, plan or society established, either by law or by the authority of individuals for promoting any object, public or social. We call a college or an academy, a literary institution; a bible society, a benevolent or charitable institution; a banking company and an insurance company are commercial institutions.
If one prefers ordinance as the correct definition then there is no contradiciton in what Peter tells us to do. Obey a rule established by authority of a sovereign power UNLESS it is contrary God's law which again kicks in Acts 5:29.
OR'DINANCE, n.
1. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense it is often used in the Scriptures. Ex. 15. Num. 10. Ezra 3. It may also signify a decree, edict or rescript, and the word has sometimes been applied to the statutes of Parliament, but these are usually called acts or laws. In the United States, it is never applied to the acts of Congress, or of a state legislature.
2. Observance commanded.
3. Appointment.
4. Established rite or ceremony. Heb. 9. In this sense, baptism and the Lord's supper are denominated ordinances.
There is also that little word BY mentioned in the verses. This fits into the context of Jesus being our ADVOCATE in time of need. HE is with us and will represent through faith and the Holy Spirit.
BY, prep.
1. Near; close; as, sit by me; that house stands by a river.
[L. pressus.]
3. Through, or with, denoting the agent, means, instrument or cause; as, "a city is destroyed by fire;" "profit is made by commerce;" "to take by force." This use answers to that of the Latin per, through, denoting a passing, acting, agency, or instrumentality.
10. It is used to represent the means or instrument of swearing, or affirming; as, to swear by heaven, or by earth; to affirm by all that is sacred.
13. "To be present by attorney." In this phrase, by denotes means or instrument; through or in the presence of a substitute.
The word FOR in the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' is another little word that fits the context of a legal interpretation of the verse.
FOR, prep. [L. per.; The English, for; to forbid. For corresponds in sense with the L. pro, as fore does with proe, but pro and proe are probably contracted from prod, proed. The Latin por, in composition, as in porrigo, is probably contracted from porro, Gr. which is the English far. The Gr. are from the same root. The radical sense of for is to go, to pass, to advance, to reach or stretch.]
1. Against; in the place of; as a substitute or equivalent, noting equal value or satisfactory compensation, either in barter and sale, in contract, or in punishment. "And Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for flocks, and for the cattle of the herds;" that is, according to the original, he gave them bread against horses like the Gr. Gen. 48:17.
2. In the place of; instead of; noting substitution of persons, or agency of one in the place of another with equivalent authority. An attorney is empowered to act for his principal. Will you take a letter and deliver it for me at the post office? that is, in my place, or for my benefit.
7. In advantage of; for the sake of; on account of; that is, towards, noting use, benefit or purpose.
9. Leading or inducing to, as a motive.
There is a natural immutable, and eternal reason for that which we call virtue, and against that which we call vice.
11. Towards the obtaining of; in order to the arrival at or possession of. After all our exertions, we depend on divine aid for success.
21. In favor of; on the part or side of; that is, towards or inclined to. One is for a free government; another is for a limited monarchy.
FOR, con.
1. The word by which a reason is introduced of something before advanced. "That ye may be the children of your father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good." In such sentences, for has the sense of because, by reason that, as in Number 14; with this difference that in Number 14, the word precedes a single noun, and here it precedes a sentence or clause; but the phrase seems to be elliptical, for this cause or reason, which follows, he maketh his sun to rise, &c. In Romans 13:6, we find the word in both its applications, "For, for this cause ye pay tribute also -;" the first for referring to the sentence following; the latter to the noun cause.
Now having attempted to establish that the phrase 'for the Lord's sake' may refer to a lawful Godly context I cannot read anywhere that a Christian could not negotiate terms to a contract in a civil matter which were consistent with Christian beliefs. Perhaps Peter was suggesting if you have to enter into an agreement or contract with the pagans according to their law to do so by implicitly complying with their legal system and explicitly doing according to God's purpose. In a civil matter you can't be forced to enter into a contract against your will. The option would be to negotiate out anything contrary to God's purpose in the agreement/contract.
That leaves the criminal aspects of committing an offence or being falsely accused of committing an offence against the secular laws. The duty there is to not resist the authority of the State, submit to it and plead Jesus! I see no sloppy inconsistency with that and Romans 13.
SAKE, n. [Heb. to press or oppress. The primary sense is to strain, urge, press or drive forward, and this is from the same root as seek, essay and L. sequor, whence we have pursue and prosecute. We have analogous words in cause, thing, and the L. res.]
1. Final cause; end; purpose; or rather the purpose of obtaining. I open a window for the sake of air, that is, to obtain it, for the purpose of obtaining air. I read for the sake of instruction, that is, to obtain it. Sake then signifies primarily effort to obtain, and secondarily purpose of obtaining. The hero fights for the sake of glory; men labor for the sake of subsistence or wealth.
The word sake is consistent with the word cause.
CAUSE, n. s as z.
1. A suit or action in court; any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand, or by which he seeks his right or his supposed right. This is a legal, scriptural and popular use of the word, coinciding nearly with case from cado, and action from ago, to urge or drive.
The cause of both parties shall come before the judges. Ex. 22.
2. That which produces an effect; that which impels into existence, or by its agency or operation produces what did not before exist; that by virtue of which any thing is done; that from which any thing proceeds, and without which it would not exist.
Cause is a substance exerting its power into act, to make a thing begin to be.
3. The reason or motive that urges, moves, or impels the mind to act or decide.
For this cause have I raised up Pharaoh. Ex. 9.
And David said, is there not a cause? 1 Sam. 17.
4. Sake; account.
I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong. 2 Cor. 6. [See Sake.]
5. That which a party or nation pursues; or rather pursuit, prosecution of an object. We say, Bible Societies are engaged in a noble cause. [See the first definition.] Hence the word cause is used to denote that which a person or thing favors; that to which the efforts of an intelligent being are directed; as, to promote religion is to advance the cause of God. So we say, the cause of truth or of justice. In all its applications, cause retains something of its original meaning, struggle, impelling force, contest, effort to obtain or to effect something. 6. Without cause, without good reason; without a reason or motive to justify the act.
They hate me without cause. Ps. 35. 69.
Bro Robert wrote
*** Was this the way that Peter intended it? Who can say for certain, but it is obvious to many that the “visible church” has bet her very existence on it.
That is one conclusion, however, my current understanding is that Peter was encouraging the Christians to live by faith in Jesus as the cause of truth and justice - the end purpose for our living a christian lifestyle. Just because the scholars and churches interpret the verse within their comfort zone doesn't mean their interpretation is 100%correct.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2005 : 20:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I believe the common interpretation of Romans 13 and all sloppy copies fail to account for Paul's war by propaganda against Rome - Christianity. In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.
I have conversed with a rabbi who told me outright, "You know we are to subject ourselves to whatever law of the land where we live." Of course! The Jews (and Christians until the Return; Messiah ben David) are in Diaspora.
Regards,
David Merrill.
I agree, but what is the law of the land? Common Law by Retention of full rights; or entering into another jurisdiction by delegating your authority away by licence or contract. That word subject implies a conscious decision on our part to submit not enforced slavery to the State. Restricting Jesus to the status of a Jew is limimting it a bit.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2005 : 21:46:06
|
In the parameters and scenario I wrote that post, the law of the land is Babylonian rule by capture. The advisement the rabbi was following would trace directly to Jeremiah's advice to the captured Israelites.
Get comfortable and be like your captors.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeed.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_ChosenSeedReferences.jpg
Excerpt from endnotes The Other End of the World by Roger Rusk
Therefore we find the Israelites were fighting the Jews when they were sent back to build the Temple walls by Darius. The Jews had to have one man defending one mason. It is not explained explicitely why the Israelites detested the Jews but one may easily infer it was a distaste for the Babylonian culture they had taken up. Even today the Jews revere the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2005 : 06:17:37
|
Short one first.
Dear David Merrill:
Peace be unto the house.
“In other words a good Christian will submit. That is the Jewish way and Jesus was a Jew.”
“Even today the Jews revere the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud.”
It is our humble opinion that one should clarify precisely what a “Jew” is, in his mind, before making blanket statements like the above two. You appear to be indicating that Christians and Jews have the same “ways”, is that what you think? If not, your statement reads like (similar to) this: A good dog obeys his master. That is the horse’s way and MR. ED was a horse.
And, if you believe that Christians and Jews are essentially the same, then you reciprocally must be implying that Yahushua [JESUS] both reveres the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud and that our Principal Officer submitted, are these your teachings? Please clarify, we wouldn’t want newbies like downhomepraise being confused by such calloused misstatements [IMHO], now would we?
Further you would judge one of our brothers or sisters who labels himself/herself a “Christian” and who refused to submit to the adversaries’ colorable jurisdiction, who was nazar, as not a “good Christian”? or were you (hopefully) just being facetious?
Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Government Statutes don't apply to the ecclesia
