Words have a tremendous impact on us. Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or evil. The basic tool for the manipulation of truth is the manipulation of words. If one can control the meaning of words, one can control the people who use those words. Likewise, the basic tool for the preservation of truth is the preservation of God's words. If one understands the original meaning of God's words, we can more easily recognize those who try to manipulate and control others through deception and the altering of the original definitions of words.
Words have been re-defined. But upon closer examination, we find another astonishing truth. What has been done is that we have adopted the words of the world to describe us, instead of using the words of Christ to define us. Some claim that the words we speak aren’t that important. But if it’s not important, why does scripture prohibit "vain babblings" (1 Timothy 6:20, 2 Timothy 2:16), "evil communications" (1 Corinthians 15:33), and "filthy communication out of your mouth" (Colossians 3:8)?
Proverbs 12:18, "...the tongue of the wise is health."
As in the health of the body, a doctor can often assess our state of health by looking at our tongues; so too in the spiritual realm. James tells us that the way a man uses his tongue is a test of his spiritual strength (James 1:26). He also says that if a man can control his tongue he is a perfect man (James 3:2). Jeremiah was told by the Lord that he could be God's mouthpiece only if he was careful about the way he used his tongue - if he separated the precious from the vile in his conversation (Jeremiah 15:19). Therefore, we should be very careful about the words that we choose to speak.
1 Corinthians 2:12-13, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
It is so very important, as the above passage states, to not speak the words that we have been conditioned to speak by the spirit of the world (by what man's wisdom has taught us); but to speak the words which the Holy Spirit has taught us (to speak in a spiritual manner). These words are contained in the Holy Scripture, which are for our "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
The Importance of the Words we Speak
Out of the Ten Commandments, the third and ninth are closely related. The third declares "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" (Exodus 20:7), and the ninth states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Exodus 20:16). Both commandments are concerned with speech: the one has reference to God, the other to man. This fact shows the importance of the words we speak. Let's examine more scripture.
Matthew 4:4, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
The words that Christ spoke testified who he was (John 14:24). Our Father in Heaven told Moses he would raise up a Prophet (Jesus) and would put His words in his mouth (Deuteronomy 18:18). Jesus confirmed this by teaching that the words he spoke were not from himself, but from his Father (John 14:10).
Our Lord's words have a very definite impact, because the words of God do not pass away (Matthew 24:35). And the words that we speak must be the words that he spoke (John 14:12, Philippians 2:5, 1 Peter 2:21; 4:1, 1 John 2:6). The words Christ spoke were the same words that David spoke, which were the words of God (Psalm 119:160). And the words of God are the words of eternal life.
John 6:63, 68, "…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
This distinguishes God's Word from man's word. God's words are words of life. Man's words are words of death: i.e., "If you don't do this, then we're going to do this to you." God doesn't say that. God says, "If you do this, then this will happen to you." Everything is turned backwards with man! And death and life are in the power of what?
Proverbs 18:21, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue..."
How will we recognize the tongue of death? How will we recognize those who are ungodly? By the words they speak:
Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
But beware, people will try to trap you and catch you in your words (Mark 12:13). The ungodly will use deceptive words that are pleasing to our ears, but those words are a weapon!
Psalms 55:21, "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords."
And we are commanded to withdraw ourselves from those who do not consent to the words of Christ Jesus:
1 Timothy 6:3-5, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
But do not fear, for:
Proverbs 12:6, "The words of ungodly men are crafty; but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them."
So we see if we speak the words of rightousness, those words will deliver us, because the ungodly "can do nothing against the truth" (2 Corinthians 13:8). If we speak the Truth at all times, the words of the Lord do deliver us. This doesn't mean they are not going to persecute you, but this is simply showing who you belong to. And it's very important at all times to witness to those who may come against you.
The only way you can "proclaim liberty to the captives" and open "the prison to them that are bound" (Isaiah 61:1) is by speaking the words of God to them. Only God knows what life and power really are; we don't, because He is the author of it. We can only partake of it when we are in Him. You won't hear Christ ever saying, "I believe", and then go on with an opinion. Or saying, "The morality of this situation dictates this…" He never spoke like that. At every question that was put to him, he declared the Law, and wasted no words. This is how he was able to "slay" his enemies.
Hosea 6:5, "...I have slain them by the words of my mouth:"
Psalms 12:6, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
You can't take man's codes, rules, and regulations and shove them into a furnace and have them purified seven times…they'll burn up! They're so inconsistent with themselves. But God's Word is Truth, and even the ungodly recognize this.
John 7:46, "The officers answered, Never man spake like this man."
Even the ungodly recognized the words that Christ spoke. Words have power. God is the power, being the Word. Why not speak that word? Christ Jesus is "the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14; 19:16), and:
Ecclesiastes 8:4, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"
And using His words in our life is a shield in everything we do.
Proverbs 30:5, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
Psalms 119:114, "Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word."
Scripture tells us to speak God's words and not the words of the world. But just what are we to speak? What are we to avoid speaking? How are we to answer others? Our Father tells us.
Proverbs 22:21, "I therefore teach thee truth, and knowledge good to hear; that thou mayest answer words of truth to them that question thee."
Colossians 4:6, "Let your speech be alway with grace…that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."
Ecclesiastes 10:12, "The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious: but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself."
1 Corinthians 2:6, "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world..."
Psalms 37:30, "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom."
Proverbs 21:28, "...an obedient man will speak cautiously."
1 Thessalonians 2:4-5, "even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God... For neither at any time used we flattering words."
Ephesians 4:29, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
1 Corinthians 15:33, "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."
Proverbs 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Proverbs 13:3, "He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction."
1 Corinthians 14:8-11, "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a foreigner, and he that speaketh shall be a foreigner unto me."
When you're dealing with the natural man (those who reject the Spirit of God), you identify yourself as being of the world when you speak the words of the world.
1 John 4:5, "They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world…"
You stamp their seal on your heart by using their words. They see what's on your heart by the words that come out of your mouth.
Matthew 15:18, "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."
What are the repercussions of using wrong words innocently?
Matthew 12:36-37, "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
This doesn't mean you'll be condemned to hell, but you will condemn yourself in other ways; like when they bring you before the magistrate and throw you in jail. The day of judgment is every day, not just some specific day far distant in the future, for we set a Record of our walk here in the Court of God and it is that Record that must be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. If our Record is not there, then we were not in Him and never can partake of His Blessings. So heed this instruction from God:
Proverbs 6:2, "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."
So, if you're going to use the words of the world, be aware that you will be chastised for using those words. Therefore, words have a tremendous impact on us in doing the things we do, and in the way that we perceive things around us. If we perceive them in the way that the human being perceives them, then the world will perceive us as being one of them, as being of the world.
To avoid being perceived as being of the world, we need to speak the words of God in Truth. We need to speak about the Christ and speak as He spoke. Jesus makes a close connection between Himself and His words:
Mark 8:38, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
And it is Jesus who gave us our delegation of authority.
John 20:21, "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."
So He has sent us forth into the world to speak His words. And when we fail to do that we have failed him, and we have not honoured and glorified him. We act in His name and by His authority. So the only words that you can speak are the words that He puts in your mouth. Otherwise you're not acting in His name and by His authority, you're acting in the name of somebody else. The minister speaks as his master. When a bondman goes out and does anything, he does it in the name of his master. A third party, when they see the bondman do a particular act, they don't see the bondman doing that act, they see the master doing that act through the bondman himself. Even the heathen understand this when they go into treaty negotiations. They only speak the words that their sovereign has put in their mouth to the party sitting opposite the table from them. If they speak any other words, they're not a true ambassador, they're a phony messenger, they're a liar. And the treaty they sign is of no force and effect. All bondmen of Christ are "...ambassadors for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20), so speak like the sovereign who sent us.
John 3:34, "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God."
The great end of speech is to communicate the sense of our minds to each other. English Grammar provides a set of rules for the construction of the English Language so that man can communicate with each other and understand that communication correctly. If the rules of grammar were not defined, then it would be impossible to know what is meant by any words or statements. Dictionaries provide definitions for words and the rules of grammar define the construction of sentences in order to convey meaning and ideas clearly.
It is important to maintain as many "nouns" in the language as possible because "nouns" refer to people, places and things, and are therefore real, tangable and touchable. On the other hand "verbs" describe actions, motion and are "doing" words. Since "verbs" to not refer to "people, places and things" they cannot describe that which is real, tangable or touchable. The same goes for adjectives, adverbs, etc.
Let us briefly go over three important points to remember while reading this article:
1) The only words which have substance are nouns. Nouns have substance, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc., do not. Verbs are not substantial, they only indicate action. The substance is in the noun. For example, the word party was previously only a noun, but now it's a verb, now it's an act. Instead of saying, "let's go to a party", we say, "let's party". We see how the English language, through its evolution, changes the substance of a word into nothing. By keeping nouns as nouns, they represent the "truth". By converting nouns to verbs, they do not represent the truth, and therefore the language becomes "fictitious".
2) The way a word is spelled determines its meaning, and what law one is under. There are at least three ways to spell any one word. Let's take, as an example, the spellings of "rich," "Rich," and "RICH." The first spelling, "rich," means "wealthy." This word is an adjective and has no substance; it merely describes the person of man, but not the man himself. The spelling "Rich," on the other hand, has a completely different meaning. It is a proper name, and refers to the man himself. This word has substance. By spelling this word lawfully, it brings you under the Law that created it. Since God created man, this would bring you under God's Law. And the last spelling, "RICH," has a completely different meaning than the previous two spellings. You won't find any words spelled in all capital letters in the dictionary, because these words do not exist. They are fictions. And by spelling a name in all caps, it brings you under the law that created it; which would be the fictitious laws of man. This is why all corporations are spelled in all capital letters, because they are fictions created by man, and not substance created by God.
3) We cannot take an unclean word and make it clean. For example, let's take the word 'nice,' which is derived from the Latin 'nescire.'
Nice: "Srange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 914.
People say this is the "archaic" definition of this word, but the substance of all words are in the meaning. The meanings never change; the usages of them change, but that doesn't change the original meaning of them. When we use the word 'nice' today, we are trying to make clean that which is unclean, by trying to change its meaning to the exact opposite. But Scripture tells us we can't do that:
Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."
So we can't make clean that which is already unclean.
Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:
Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").
Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").
And here are some definitions from a law dictionary. These are from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893:
Bank: "A judge's seat; also, a court sitting for the decision of matters of law." Page 104. (Today it means, "An institution for the deposit, discount, or circulation of money").
Caucus: "See BRIBERY." Page 155. (Today it means, "a meeting of a committee of a political party or faction to decide on policy, pick candidates, etc., without bribery").
Elopement: "The act in a wife of voluntarily leaving her husband to live with another man." Page 398. (Today it means, "the act of one who is unmarried running away secretly in order to get married").
Lobbying: "Seeking to influence the vote of a member of the legislature by bribery, promise of reward, intimidation, or other dishonest means. Lobbying is a felony, by the constitution of California and Georgia." Page 636. (Today it means, "Seeking to influence the introduction of or voting on legislation or the decisions of government administrators, by honest means, and it is not a crime").
Permanent: "Does not always embrace the idea of absolute perpetuity." Page 769. (Today it means, "Lasting indefinitely without change").
Sea-worthy: "Not capable of going to sea or being navigated on the sea." Page 926. (Today it means, "Fit to travel on the open sea; sturdy").
Surcharge: "Overcharge; an excessive or unlawful charge." Page 995. (Today it means, "An additional amount added to the usual charge, lawfully).
Willful; willfully: "In common parlance "willful" means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful. The ordinary meaning of "willful" in statutes, is not merely "voluntary," but with a bad purpose. Sometimes it means little more than "intentional" or "designed." But that is not its ordinary signification in criminal and penal statutes; in them it most frequently conveys the idea of legal malice in greater or less degree – implies an evil intent without justifiable excuse." Pages 1114-1115. (Today it means, "Said or done deliberately or intentionally, without an evil intent").
Therefore, we must be careful, for we may be condemning ourselves, unknowingly, if we use the words of the world to describe us, instead of the words of Almighty God. For example, at the end of the above list, the words "willful" and "willfully" do not appear in scripture. They are created terms by the natural man, and are used for deceptive purposes. The words of the world are used to describe those who are of the world. They denote self-will, which is opposed to God's Will.
Now, let us say your neighbor died of an overdose, and you are taken to court, and are asked to take the witness stand, and the prosecutor asks you this innocent sounding question, "Did you willfully give your neighbor a banana the night he died?" Now, you may be wondering what all the fuss is about. There is no law against sharing God's creation with your neighbor, is there? Of course not. You and your neighbor shared many things together, and he liked your bananas. So, you may innocently reply with, "Yes, I admit I willfully gave my neighbor a banana the night he died."
And because you used a word of the world to describe your godly act of sharing, you just converted your righteous act into a criminal act. For you just admitted that you are guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of giving your neighbor a banana "with an evil intent, with malice, and with a bad purpose." Your neighbor might have died from an accidental overdose of aspirin, which had nothing to do with your banana. But if Caesar wants to make an innocent man guilty, the simplest way is to get him to use their words to describe his actions, and they can control you. In your case, the State has physical evidence that your neighbor died of an overdose, and now they can place you with this neighbor the night he died, along with your admission that you gave a banana to your neighbor with an evil intent (and once they establish intent, you are basically guilty). It will not take long to find you guilty of giving a poisoned banana to your neighbor. Gotcha!
Who Are You?
Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Colossians 3:9-10).
In Balantine’s Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ’s divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a ‘human being’, or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I’m an animal; I’m a monster; I’m not saved; I’m unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I’m wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I’m cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God." Dear reader, do you still consider yourself a human being?
The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."
Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint), "and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?"
The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584.
And the Word confirms:
1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws.
"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate." Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin (John 8:34). This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
The Difference between Lawful and Legal
Lawful: "The principle distinction between the terms 'lawful' and 'legal' is that the former [Lawful] contemplates the substance of law, the latter [legal] the form of law. To say of an act that it is 'lawful' implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense 'illegal' approaches the meaning of 'invalid.' For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word 'lawful' more clearly implies an ethical content than does 'legal.' The latter (legal) goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former (Lawful) usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 & 1968), page 1032.
‘Lawful’ has to do with the substance of Law. ‘Legal’ has to do with the shadow (or form) of Law. Similar to how 'character' is distinguished from 'reputation' ('Character' representing what is lawful, 'reputation' representing what is legal).
Character: "Character consists of the qualities which constitute the individual, while reputation is the sum of opinions entertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow. Character is what a person is. Reputation is what people say of him." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary, (1948), page 138.
Character means something. Reputation means nothing; it's source is hearsay. What people say about you is worthless, because God doesn’t care what people say about you, he’s not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Man sees the exterior, God sees the interior (1 Samuel 16:7, 2 Corinthians 10:7).
How will we know what is a 'lawful' word and what is a 'legal' word? How will we know which is the substance and which is the shadow? The giver of the Law will determine this. If the giver of the Law is God himself, then the words of that Law have substance, because they have their origin in Him who spoke all Substance into being. If the giver of the law is man, then the law has no substance, but is only an image, vapor, shadow, or form of law, because man really can never create law but only an image of the law, only a fiction in law, or as it is called in man's law, the "color of law."
Person and Man Compared
The term person appears in the bible, but it is not a noun, it only describes the noun.
Matthew 22:16, "...for thou regardest not the person of men."
2 Corinthians 2:10, "...the person of Christ."
When the bible uses the term person, it is translated from a Greek or Hebrew word which means "presence or countenance", it does not mean ‘man.' Here is scriptural proof that "person" and "man" are not synonymous terms, for if they are synonymous, then God is a liar.
First of all, the scripture is very clear that God is no "respecter of persons" (2 Samuel 14:14, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). God does not respect persons, period!
Now, if the term 'person' is synonymous with 'man', then there is a contradiction in the scripture, because throughout scripture, God specifically says he does respect man! For example, "the LORD had respect unto Abel" (Genesis 4:4), God had respect "upon the children of Israel" (Exodus 2:25, Leviticus 26:9, 2 Kings 13:23), and God has "respect unto the lowly" (Psalms 138:6). Therefore, "person" and "man" are not the same.
Second of all, the scripture says that if we have respect of persons, we commit sin and transgress God's Law (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19, Proverbs 24:23; 28:21, James 2:1-4, 9). But in the same breath, Paul tells the first century believers to hold Timothy in honour (Philippians 2:29), and scripture commands us to honour all men (1 Peter 2:17)! So obviously, "persons" and "men" cannot be synonymous terms.
Let us look more closely at Leviticus 19:15. Notice it says ,"thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty." It does not say, "thou shalt not respect the poor, nor honour the mighty," but only the person of the poor and the person of the mighty. In other words, we are not to respect someone just because they are the president, or a police officer, or a banker, or a priest, or wealthy. These are the 'persons' of men. We are to respect men because of what's in their hearts, and not because of their image. Jesus did not accept the person of any (Luke 20:21), neither should we.
Another example is in James 2:1-4, where these religious people were sinning because they would give the best seats in their assembly to the persons of the rich, and not to the poor. This is discrimination. They were being partial and were giving judgment to the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits. They preferred, as the more worthy, one whose "image" or "person" is one that is rich, high born, or powerful, over another who does not have these qualities.
Man's law is also in agreement that "person" and "man" are not synonymous parts of speech:
Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
Person: "...not every human being is a person." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.
"A slave is not a person." Maxim of law .
"A slave, and everything a slave has, belongs to his master." Maxim of law.
So, if you are a slave, or a bondservant of Jesus, the Christ, you don't fit that description of being the person described in the natural man's statutes. A servant belongs to his master, and our Master is the King of kings, "For ye are bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20).
Some may object to being called a 'slave' because they claim "slavery" was abolished in the US Constitution. This is not true. Only "involuntary servitude" was outlawed (see article XIII), not "voluntary servitude." Forced slavery was outlawed, not the freedom to choose to be an obedient bondman, or slave.
After the Civil War, many slaves stayed with, and continued to serve, their masters...voluntarily. Today, citizens, persons, residents, and others of like spirit are "voluntarily serving" Caesar and his "civil" world. But the bondmen of Christ Jesus choose to be an obedient slave of and to the Prince of Peace.
In truth, the English word 'person' does not belong in the bible. In scripture, the Greek and Hebrew words that 'person' is translated from mean "to reveal the man" (i.e., presence, countenance, face, etc.), whereas in man's law, the word 'person' means "to conceal the man" (i.e., the term persona means "the mask of the actor", i.e., a fictional character that substitutes for the flesh and blood man. From this word persona we get 'person,' a fictional entity). You're the actor when you become a person, because a mask (the person) covers the true character, and you become something other than who God says you are.
In addition, it can be seen that 'person' and 'man' are not synonymous by the phrase "artificial person." In man's law, this phrase is used to describe corporations and such. But, if we replace the word 'person' with 'man,' look at what we get! "Artificial man." What is an artificial man? Is it a cyborg, a half-man/half-machine or something? However, "artificial person" makes much more sense, because a person is created by man, whereas a man is created by God. God does not create artificial things, only man does.
[As a side note, we are told that a 'noun' refers to a "person, place, or thing." Well, a 'person' is not a noun, because it is only a fiction; it does not exist; it hides the true man. However a man (or woman) is a noun. Therefore, it is more accurate to say a noun refers to "people, places, or things."]
Now, the term man is found in scripture, but it has to be qualified. You are a bondman of Christ, but not a natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). Also, you can find the term mankind in scripture, but it refers only to the flesh (human beings), and has nothing to do with God or His Spirit. Remember, all human beings are monsters (as verified in man's law).
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 823, Mankind is defined as "all human beings; the human race."
Home and House Compared
Now, let's look at the difference between a home and a house. You will find the word home in Scripture, but it is not a noun, it is an adjective.
2 Samuel 17:23, "...and gat him home to his house, to his city."
Notice this verse is describing something in general (home), and then gets more specific (which is in a house, which is in a city). A house and a city are not synonymous, a house can be in a city. Likewise, a home is not a house, it is something general that can be inside the house. Also, in scripture, the word "house" is always preceded by a pronoun, which is possessive (i.e. his house, my house, the house, thine house, father's house, brother's house, etc.), whereas the word 'home' is never preceded by these terms.
The following are all the verses in the entire scripture containing both the words "home" and "house" in the same verse. Notice while the word "home" is used in a general sense, the word "house" is always used in a specific, possessive sense:
Genesis 43:16, "...the ruler of his house, Bring these men home."
Genesis 43:26, "And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house."
Deuteronomy 21:12, "Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house."
1 Samuel 18:2, "...let him go no more home to his father's house."
2 Samuel 13:7, "Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house."
2 Samuel 17:23, "...and gat him home to his house, to his city,"
1 Chronicles 13:13, "So David brought not the ark home...but carried it aside into the house."
Haggai 1:9, "...and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house."
Luke 9:61, "...but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house."
All the above verses show that "home" and "house" are not synonymous parts of speech. The substitution of one for the other is incorrect.
When you think about it, do you not say the same thing? We say, "let's go home" but we don't say "Let's go house." Sounds funny, doesn't it? Likewise, we say "it's in his car," or "it's in the car," but we do not say, "it's in car." Because a car and a house are something specific (physical), which belong to someone, whereas a 'home' is something in general (spiritual), and does not belong to anyone specifically. This is why 'home' is never preceded with a word which designates it as someone's personal property or possession.
Therefore, 'home' and 'house' are not synonymous terms. The natural man has made "home" into a noun for his deceitful purposes. Man re-defined the word 'home' to designate it as a specific, physical thing (a meaning which God never gave to it) so he may acquire jurisdiction over "the home" and its "residents."
It is imperative for the followers of Christ to learn and understand the words, such as ‘home,’ that the ‘natural men’ and ‘human beings’ have ‘incorporated’ into their ‘created’ codes, rules, and regulations. The term home within the Internal Revenue Code, § 162(a)(2), is defined as "a taxpayers principle place of business." Ellwein v. US, C.A.N.D., 778 F.2d. 506, 509.
"A person…may have his home in one town for the purpose of taxation…domicile for taxation and home are treated synonymously. Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650.
The word 'home' is not just a newly re-defined word, it was redefined from as early as 541 A.D.!
"It is settled that there is to be considered the home of each one of us where he may have his habitation and account-books, and where he has made an establishment of his business." Maxim of Law, the Code of Justinian, 50, 16, 203 (541 A.D.).
Anyone who says, "Yes, I have a home" becomes known as a ‘person with a home for taxable purposes’, a ‘resident with a permanent place of business’, a ‘corporate citizen’, a ‘consumer’, etc. But the bondmen of Christ are actually "home"less (Matthew 8:20, 1 Corinthians 4:11)! This is scriptural, because we are called to be sojourners (Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Psalms 39:12).
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 645, the term homeless means "without a permanent place of residence."
Today, the word "homeless" describes some bum laying in the gutter somewhere; that's not the homeless we're talking about. The world calls them "homeless," but really what they mean is they're "houseless"; they have the terms mixed up, because they have a home...it's in the gutter or wherever they happen to be sojourning. So, we can see how the natural man takes something clean and twists it and makes it very unclean, and we have to be able to discern the difference when we hear these words. Bondmen of Christ are here temporarily, we are not here permanently, indefinitely, and without change. We are all here temporarily on God’s earth. Therefore, we are transients, sojourners, or visitors; we are not residents.
Titles and Gifts Compared
1 Corinthians 12:28-30 speaks of the gifts of the spirit, such as 'apostles', 'prophets', and 'teachers.' This is not an invitation to call yourself something, but God gives you the gift to do something. Scripture never uses the title, "the Apostle Paul," it says "Paul, an apostle." (Galatians 1:1, Timothy 1:1). We never read of "Apostle Peter," but "Peter, an apostle." (1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1). Equally, we find the terms 'pastor,' 'shepherd' and 'evangelist,' but we do not find anyone using these terms as a title attached to their name. He's not "Evangelist Phillip," but "Philip, the evangelist" (Acts 21:8). It's not that these are the only gifts you have, because you're only teaching when you are actually teaching. Nobody calls you a sleeper just because you sleep at night, and you probably sleep more than you teach! They don't call you a breather or an eater, and that's what you predominantly do!
If somebody asks, "Are you a carpenter?" or "Are you a painter?" you respond, "No, I am not." You can do the work of one, but you’re not that thing. The terms ‘carpenter’ and ‘painter’ are verbs, not nouns. It’s something you can do, but it’s not who you are. You can work as a carpenter, or as a painter. It’s all in the words. As means "like or similar to," but it does not mean you are that commercial entity.
Jesus, our example, never answered to those commercial designations. For example, the Jews did ask Jesus, "Is not this the carpenter?" (Mark 6:3), but notice Jesus did not answer to that fictitious title, he did not give life to it. The Jews also asked, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55), but, again, Jesus ignored their man-made label, he avoided their fiction, and stayed in the Truth. He did not engage in the words of the world, but spoke the words of God.
The purpose of all these different legal personalities is to humanize you. If you use the words of the world...if you use the words that Caesar created...beware. You may be brought under their jurisdiction. When you go to one of these human being judges and say, "Well, I’m not a resident, person, human being, natural man; I’m not this and I’m not that," how can you say you’re not a human being yet speak like one? You’re inconsistent, so therefore, you can’t be telling the Truth. This is how the ungodly knows whether you’re speaking the Truth or not. They say, "You speak like one of us, and yet you say you’re not one of us." And they'll proceed to get jurisdiction over you since you are bearing false witness.
You see, in simple terms, this is the test they use: "If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!" In other words, if someone looks like they are of "the world," and acts like they are of "the world," and speaks the words of "the world," then he is of "the world!" (Remember, all are in the world, but we are not to be of the world).
The World and The Kingdom Compared
Jesus said the following:
Luke 9:23, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
If you take up the cross, it means to crucify the old man, the hu-man. And if the human is crucified, then your tie with humanity is crucified.
In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanity means "the fact or quality of being human; human nature."
Do bondmen of Christ have the nature of the human or ‘old man’? No. Do we have the nature of monsters or animals? No. We are not of the world anymore, but we’re still in the world. And those things that are of the world, we no longer answer to. You now have the standing that Christ had when he told the Pharisees:
John 8:23, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."
If you take on the ways of the world, there’s no sacrifice at all. Everything is "I want." What are you going to sacrifice? "Nothing, because I want it". What do you need? "I don’t know what I need, I just know that I have wants. I want this and I want that." In other words, you want to be the consumer that does nothing but consumes. "I’m here for my pleasures," that’s the attitude. That’s what the world is, a world of consumers. A ‘consumer’ is another legal personality. Consumers are locusts. If you read scripture, that’s what locusts are. That was one of the judgments that was put on Egypt (Exodus 10:12-14). Locusts devour the land (2 Chronicles 7:13), and that’s what we have today, a bunch of locusts devouring the land. We call them corporations, merchants, customers, welfare recipients, residents, etc., they’re all consumers.
Every kingdom has its particular language. In America, it is American English; In England, it is British English; In Japan, it is Japanese. Using the words of the Kingdom/kingdom to which you belong is evidence of who you belong to. For instance, when an American meets a Japanese, both speak their respective languages, and neither understands the other, they know that the other is not from the same kingdom. If you speak the language of the kingdom you belong to, and that separates you from the other man's kingdom, then God will turn the other man’s face away from you (police, judges, lawyers, etc.) because he doesn’t understand anything you’re saying.
If you do not belong to a certain kingdom, you are labeled or named by that kingdom to be of another kingdom.
For example, people in North America call those from the continent of South America, South Americans; from Asia, Asians; from Africa, Africans; from Europe, Europeans. But South Americans do not call themselves (one another) South Americans, Asians do not call themselves Asians. Africans do not call themselves Africans, and Europeans do not call themselves Europeans! Do North Americans call themselves North Americans? No, they don’t. If you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but you call them according to the relation between the two of you (i.e., brother, sister, mother, father, workman, labourer, minister, bishop, deacon, etc). But who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12). When people start calling themselves "a fellow American," "an American citizen," etc, they are attaching themselves to the kingdoms of the world.
Servants of Christ know the State is not God and that it must be controlled by Laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. We know that all the laws of the State must conform to God’s Law.
"Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone.
"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity". Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432.
"The law is from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).
When Christ Jesus goes looking for his lost sheep, He is looking for those who hear and respond to His voice having His Word written on their hearts, and speaking that word to Him from their hearts through their works in fullness of faith to Him, thereby bearing witness to the world that they are His. He knows who are His and those who are not of his flock.
The term ‘world’ and ‘earth’ have different meanings. Jesus certainly made a distinction between ‘world’ and ‘earth’ when he said, "I have overcome the world" in John 16:33. This would not make any sense if he said, "I have overcome the earth." The "world" is the ordered things that man has created (i.e., "law and order" or "the new world order.") Order is already there under God's order. But order doesn’t necessarily mean a systematizing; orders is where one tells you to do something.
Schools and Children
In the school shootings across America, the human beings are the ones who have the "weeping and gnashing of teeth," because their sons or daughters were 'cut off' in the 'prime of life.' Well, if you're one who sojourns in Christ, you know for a fact that their life has not been cut off. And there has been a couple of parents that expressed that. Not everyone is meant to live a full life-span. Some people talk about this great 'tragedy' and the 'victims', but the words "tragedy" and "victim" are pagan terms, because with God, there are no victims. God has the rod of correction and the hand of protection. Everything is done for his Glory; how could there be tragedy and victims? The words "tragedy", "victims," and other similar terms do not even appear in scripture.
Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God."
Psalms 116:15, "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints."
John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Revelation 14:13, "...Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord…"
So, we have to be very careful in the words that we use to describe the things that we see around us. We should look to Christ for everything that we do. Tragedy is a heathen invention that means an unhappy fate of chance. Victim means that someone was cheated. God is not a cheat. Everything is done for his purposes. We may not know what they are, but that's not important.
School is mentioned only once in Scripture, wherein Paul was "...disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus" (Acts 19:9). In the Greek, Tyrannus is word #5181, and means "a tyrant." The one who ran the school is called 'Tyrannus' or, 'one tyrant.'
Schools are corrupting language by teaching the participants thereof the words of the world, and you wouldn't know what those words meant unless you were learned in their schools. Today's schools are all designed for commercial purposes. There's no need for schools unless you're planning on doing something commercially, because God has given us all of the knowledge in his creation to labour for Him. Besides, the responsibility of raising children lies with the mother and father of that child, and it is unscriptural to place that responsibility upon others, especially Caesar!
Ephesians 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
God commands the parents to raise their children, not ungodly strangers in some school run by Caesar. Do schools bring our children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord? On the contrary, they outlaw prayer from its schools, forbid the Ten Commandments from being taught, and in its place teach the false theory of evolution! Schools teach our children that they're beasts, and have evolved from some primordial ooze, to a sub-human creature, into the animal they now are. They are just one of the many kinds of animals inhabiting this little globe called earth. So we shouldn't be surprised when they behave like animals; children killing other children for tennis shoes or jackets, or because they believe they have been somehow wronged by their victims; stealing and killing for all kinds of selfish motivations; or, when these children turn into adults, using whatever means they can find to advance their careers, not caring who they hurt in the process.
It requires a strong, perhaps tyrannical, government to control that kind of a population. Governments are always glad to oblige. Maybe that's why they don't like to see prayer and scripture reading in schools. Maybe that's why they insist that schools teach we are just another animal in the long chain of the evolutionary process. Maybe that's why Human Being is defined as "a monster" and as "resembling a lower animal," and a monster is defined as "a depraved person." Sinners are depraved, not the disciples of Christ. Maybe schools are creating these lawless creatures so that Caesar will acquire jurisdiction over them by teaching them the words of the world instead of the words of Christ?
By the way, do you have kids; or do you have children? Scripture calls the offspring of man children, not kids. In scripture, kids always refer to the offspring of goats (Genesis 27:9,16, Leviticus 16:5, Numbers 7:87), not man. Therefore, if you call your children "kids," you are saying they are goats, animals, and ungodly. Listen to what Christ said:
Matthew 25:31-34, 41, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand [sheep], Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand [goats, kids], Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
In scripture, "kids" are defined as the offspring of goats, and goats are symbolic for the ungodly. By calling your children "kids," you will be describing your children according to the words of the world, instead of defining them according to the words of God. If you must call them by the name of an animal, at least call them 'sheep', instead of 'goats.' For Christ is our shepherd, and we are his sheep (Hebrews 13:20). Or, to be more accurate, instead of a "kid" (the offspring of goats), one should call their children by the term that describes the offspring of sheep...which is a "lamb." Jesus, too, was called a Lamb (John 1:29,36).
We're not saying that children who are called "kids" will be rejected by God, but it's the spiritual implication we're stressing. We must stop using the words of the world (such as "kids") and use the words of His Kingdom (such as "children") to describe those who belong to God. Otherwise, if we speak the words of the world, we are of the world (1 John 4:5). We understand it's done out of ignorance, but until we start using the words of His Kingdom, we're going to continue using the words of the world, which is not favored by the Lord.
Slaves and Contracts
We are bondmen of Christ, we are servants to the one who bought us, and we are "bought with a price" by Him (1 Corinthians 6:20). Going to the law of slaves, you cannot make a contract with anybody if you're a slave, and we are all slaves of Christ.
"... a slave can have no rights adverse to those of his master; he can neither sue nor be sued, nor can he make any contract or acquire any rights under a deed which either a court of law or of equity can enforce." Wicks v. Chew, 4 H. & J., 547; State v. Van Lear, 5 Md. 91.
"[These slaves] ..were incapable of making any contract by reason of their bondage." Bigstaff v. Lumpkins, 16 S.W. 449.
Entering into contracts with Caesar's world is the downfall of most, because most contracts are on Caesar's terms. Promises (i.e. contracts) that are made on Caesar's terms are forbidden, because all promises are to be on God's terms (Leviticus 18:2, Jeremiah 22:9).
Man's law, in this case, is in complete agreement with the scriptural principle that "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13).
"Each principle is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters."' Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1837), 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 202.
Bondmen of Christ are slaves, or bondservants, of Christ Jesus, and therefore are bound by the same law. Being the bondservants of Christ, we have no power to contract with the strangers of our Covenant with God, unless these contracts are in accord with God's ways.
Matthew 10:24, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord."
Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. Who is your master, dear reader? God or man?
Question: But in our society, it's almost impossible to not make contracts!
Answer: The society you talk about is "the world," and that's the last place you want to be found. That's why God said, "Come out of her my people" (Rev.18:4). "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:17)
Question: But we live in society.
Answer: Being in society is one thing, being of society is another. That's not saying you don't witness to the world, because that's one of our purposes here, to witness to that world. But that doesn't mean you become part of the world.
Question: But if you buy a house, you have to sign a contract.
Answer: Who said that we have to buy a house? Is the mortgage company, the surveyor, or the contractor mentioned in the scripture? There's nothing wrong with having a house, but when the only way to have a house is to enter into contracts with the ungodly, it becomes obvious the Lord would not have us do that. So we have to find the alternatives, and the alternatives are in scripture.
Question: But you still have to deal with them in our society.
Answer: Do you want to stay in society? Society is where the problem is. Just as where "the world" is where the problem is, and partaking of the things of the world.
Question: Well…how would you deal with it?
Answer: We don't! Did Christ deal with it? No. He avoided it. Matthew 8:20, "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." That doesn't mean you don't have a bed where you sleep, that simply means you do not attach yourself to those things. There's nothing wrong with having a house, it's the way you go about aquiring the house. Are you doing it according to the ways of the Lord, or are you doing it according to the ways of the world? Those aren't easy answers to give, but if you continue to walk by faith and follow the ways of the Lord, He will provide those things for you and you don't have to go chasing them by entering into contracts with others.
Did the apostles deal with it? No. 1 Corinthians 4:11, "Even unto this present hour...we have no certain dwellingplace." The apostle Paul was homeless too! The apostle Paul did not "own" a house, he rented a house from time to time, depending on where he happened to be sojourning at the time (Acts 28:30).
"Society" is a creation of man. "Contracts" are mostly a creation of man. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 322, a contract is defined as "a promise or a set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other." This is wrong. Why? Here are two reasons.
Firstly, because our Covenant (agreement) is with God (not with the heathen), and the agreements we have with others should not conflict with that. And secondly, because we are not to make promises with anyone. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring, and to think about making a promise to do something tomorrow, when only God Himself knows what tomorrow will bring, is evil.
Matthew 6:34, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
Every day brings its own cares; and to anticipate tomorrow is only to double them. He who neglects the present for the future is acting opposite to the order of God, his own interest, and to every dictate of sound wisdom. We must not perplex ourselves inordinately about future events, because every day brings along with it its own burden of cares and grievances.
So, how do you start walking out of society? How do we avoid contracts? A beginning is:
Romans 13:8, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another:"
That's how you start walking out of society, by owing no man anything. Contracts bind you to owe man something. Contracts are for the heathen because they don't love one another, nor trust one another. They're always at war with each other. And when you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world to meet those obligations. We must go back to the old paths and walk in the good way.
Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORD…ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls."`
Bondservants of Christ cannot enter into any contracts which would make us slaves to the heathen.
Servitude: The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.
So when you enter into a contract with the heathen, you become bound to that heathen; it creates a legal duty. When the bondmen of Christ make "arrangements" with one another, we ought to phrase our words like, "I'll see you next month, by God's Grace," or, "Lord Willing, I'll do this for you tomorrow."
James 4:13-15, "...ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow...For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that."
This way, we do not make any "obligations" that we cannot keep if something unforeseen happens, such as a sickness, an emergency, etc. We don't know what tomorrow will bring, and we don't know what the Lord has in store for us. Therefore, we should express promises in this way:
Acts 18:21, "...but I will return again unto you, if God will..."
1 Corinthians 4:19, "But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will,"
1 Corinthians 16:7, "For I will not see you now by the way; but I trust to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit."
Romans 1:10, "Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you."
Romans 15:32, "That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed."
Hebrews 6:3, "And this will we do, if God permit."
Are bondmen of Christ citizens of any place in this world? No, we are not. Our citizenship does not reside in any Country or State because we are "...fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). Therefore, we can't say, "I'm a fellow citizen with the saints and the household of God, but I'm also an American citizen." Well, that's the same thing as saying "I serve two masters," because citizenship has a very specific meaning; and that is "Who are you subject to?"
It is customary to have registers of citizenship, in which were entered the names of citizens, both natural and adopted (Luke 2:1-5). Heaven is represented as a city (Revelation 3:12; 21:2,10), and its citizens are registered (Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27). When one is deprived of citizenship his name is erased from the roll of citizens (Exodus 32:32, Psalms 69:28, Revelation 3:5). Bondservants of Christ are citizens with the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19, Phillippians 3:20).
Citizen: "A native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. A civilian..." Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1992, page 248.
Now, let's ask a question. Do you, as a member of God’s kingdom, owe allegiance to God, or do you owe allegiance to man's government? Can you picture Christ Jesus pledging allegiance to the government of Israel in the first century? No. To any government today? No. Then why should we pledge allegiance to a governmemt? Since the above definition of "citizen" is synonymous with "civilian," let us look at this definition:
Civilian: "A private citizen, as distinguished from such as belongs to the army and navy or to the church." Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968, page 313.
A citizen or civilian does not include soldiers or those who belong to the church! This is the Law! Why not? Because the government recognizes that one cannot serve two masters. You can owe allegiance only to one Lord. For us, that’s the God Almighty. We are not considered citizens of any country, nor are we considered civilians, because we are both soldiers (2 Timothy 2:3-4, Philippians 2:25, Philemon 1:2) and we belong to God's church, or to put it accurately, His ekklesia. Just like Jesus would not pledge allegiance to Israel or Rome, we, who must walk as he walked, cannot pledge allegiance to any country either. For the laws that all bondmen of Christ follow are contained in the Scripture. We need no other Lord over our lives. Least of all men that sin in Washington D.C. What right do sinners have to tell the bondmen of Christ how to live their lives?
"Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage or any other particular incident, but it does imply incorporation into the body politic." The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, p.358 footnote.
"A person may be a citizen for commercial purposes and not political purposes." 7 Md. 209. [This makes merchandise of us (2 Peter 2:3)]
Citizenship implies incorporation (corporate citizen). Incorporation into what? To the United States, which is defined as a Federal Corporation in 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15).
Some people claim that if you call yourself a "freeman," you are free from bondage. In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 538, the term freeman means "a person not in slavery; a person who has full civil and political rights; citizen". A freeman refers to one who is not a slave, but since the servants of Christ are slaves to God, we cannot be freemen. Civil Rights are created by man, and can be changed or abrogated at will by the creator of those rights (which is man). You will not find "civil rights" in scripture. A freeman is also defined as a citizen, and the bondmen of Christ are not a citizen of any worldly place. A freeman and citizen are synonymous.
People: "A group of persons; the citizens or electorate of a state; human beings, as distinct from other animals. Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 1001,
Pagan: "Heathen, rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian, district, country, landmark fixed in the earth. The Christians, calling themselves 'enrolled soldiers of Christ,' members of His militant church, in regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, (1966), pages 640-641.
Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
Person: "It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person." 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
Private Person: "An individual who is not the incumbent of an office." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), p.1359. [Note: followers of Christ are ministerial officers vested by Christ's Testament, and hold the office of Christ in His stead].
The following court cases are evidence that not every human being is a "person," thus proving that the terms "person" and "man" are not synonymous. And this will also show that courts have no jurisdiction to bring you into their courts if you are not a citizen, resident, person, etc., unless you voluntarily submit to their jurisdiction by your words or actions.
"Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens [followers of Jesus, the Christ], may be persons. But not every human being is a person [followers of Jesus, the Christ], for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights [legal personality defined by statute, code, rule, or regulation], as was the case with slaves in English law [or with slaves of Christ Jesus]." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.
"…[A] court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence with the state, except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. The modern law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant ["person"] is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will render judgment against him for default of appearance." Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook on Common Law Pleading (1923), page 23.
"[A government is] sovereign within its own territories. Necessarily, its jurisdiction is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. This is the result of its independence. It may be conceded that its actions should accord with natural justice and equity. If they do not, however, our courts are not competent to review them. They may not bring a foreign sovereign [Jesus, the Christ, or His ministers and ambassadors] before our bar, not because of comity, but because he has not submitted himself to our laws. Without his consent he is not subject to them. Concededly, that is so as to a foreign government that has received recognition." The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287; Porto Rico v Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, 16 Ann.Cas. 1026; Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc.Rep. 511, 61 N.Y.Supp. 939, aff'd 173 N.Y. 645, 66 N.E. 1110; Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass. 349, 83 N.E. 876, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 276, 125 Am.St.Rep. 371, 14 Ann.Cas. 574; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch.Div. 351; Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 44 L.T. 199.
The first objection people usually say is that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen".
Acts 21:39, "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."
Some people might say, "Well, it must be okay to be a citizen because Paul said he was a citizen." On the surface, that looks like a tough argument, but it's not, and we'll see why it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century; in the first century, "citizen" did not have the same maning it has today. At that time, all it meant was that you were a citizen of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the French word "cite," which means "city." Here is further evidence from the Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city."
City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?"
Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman."
And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:
Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.
Note there was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, and it only meant protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "license" (Acts 21:41). A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal to do. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth on it. This was only a verbal "license" or permission. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions on words that were used in the first century, and this includes the terms "license" and "citizen."
"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and has no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."
In Smith's handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election, or by some form of naturalization."
Notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a citizen of that country, one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
This is easily explained by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law that the parents have submitted themselves to.
How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of our mouth, but it also has to do with our walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you serving the State (by partaking of its benefits)? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster, the heathen, like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.
Just because one is born in a country it does not make one a citizen of that country; especially when it comes to ambassadors:
"Citizens are natives or naturalized. All persons born in the United States are not citizens. The exceptions are 1) children of foreign ambassadors..." Bouvier's Institutes of Law, 1851.
Bondservants of Christ fit this description. We are children of God, and we are ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20). Therefore, this is further evidence that ambassadors are not considered citizens of a country, even if born in that country. Also, as ambassadors for Christ, we can not participate in the politics of the nation.
To put this citizenship thing in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:
"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.
This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which Christ says is impossible.
The United States and America
The way a word is spelled determines what Law one is under.
"The spelling of the term ‘state’ is distinguished from the terms ‘State,’ ‘State of,’ or ‘STATE.’ The state (lower case spelling) is entirely general and refers to a large group of people. "By the word State (capitalized) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson’s Elementary Law (1882), note, p.xxxiv. [Consistent with the rules of English usage].
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term ‘state’ is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people…constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
Here is a United States Supreme Court ruling:
"There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several  States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.
And here is a State Supreme Court Ruling:
Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785: "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state". NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.
And here are two definitions from federal law:
The United States is defined as "A Federal Corporation" in the United States Code, Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Subchapter A - Definitions and general provisions, § 3002 - Definitions, at number 15 (a).
"The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).
Also, in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, the United States is defined as "the District of Columbia," which is in Washington D.C. This is confirmed in the US Constitution, in Article I, § 8; the jurisdiction of the United States is "over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)," and is also over federal territories purchased by the federal government. Washington D.C. is not a state.
"The District of Columbia is not a `state' within the meaning of the constitution." U.S. v. Virginia, 1805
Also, look at the name of the country in the Declaration of Independence. The name of the country is spelled as follows: "the united States of America." The term "united" was spelled in lower case letters, and was used as an adjective to describe America, it was not the name of the country. It is not a noun. You will see the same thing in the U.S. Constitution, which uses the term "several States" in place of ‘united States’, it was used as an adjective. And the U.S. Constitution is not the name of this document! It starts with "We the People" and ends with "the united States of America".
The name of the original Republic was "America." Notice, in all of these words and definitions of the "United States," the term 'America' is always left out . You never see the "United States of America" defined, you only see "United States" defined by man's codes, rules, and regulations. Ask yourself "why?" The reason is because the "United States" is not the name of a country, but of a federal corporation, located in Washington DC, which has nothing to do with a country. A corporation is always engaged in profit.
The bondmen of Christ are not ‘Americans’ either. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. The term American is defined as, "of or pertaining to the United States." And in Oxford's Dictionary, 1933, the term American means "Belonging to the United States."
Dear reader, do you belong to "America" (or whatever country you're in)? Or do you belong to God? You cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).
So, what "state" is the follower of Christ a part of? If you look up the word "state" in the dictionary, the primary definition is "the existing condition or position of a person or thing." The word is derived from "status," which has to do to with our "relation to others." Bouvier's Law Dictionary says it is "a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community." The original Latin implied "the place where a person is located, to fulfill the obligations which are imposed upon him." So a state is a much more abstract concept than a nation or country, and it has absolutely no relationship to land or geography at all. From the law definition, it is possible for the Christ's assembly (church) to be its own state, and some law dictionaries explicitly say this. Thus the "separation of church and state" is merely an acknowledgement of the fact that the Christ's assembly can be a self-sufficient community entirely independent from the "body politic." There can be more than one state within a geographic territory or, like the church, a state can span multiple territories. So a state merely describes the political affiliation of a group of people, but says nothing about where they are physically located.
For the bondservant of Christ, we are in, of, and from the state of Christendom.
Democracy and Voting
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide!" Samuel Adams.
Democracy is not a scriptural principle for God’s people. Democracy is a deceitful word. Every man believes he has a right in the outcome of the destiny of society. This is a myth. If God directs men to move in a way that’s led by God, then no vote can change the Will of God. The "voter registration" is secular man’s faulty reasoning that he, in and of himself, can save all, if you just give him enough power, more money, more…more…more…and still more. As soon as you put your "X" on that ballot and vote for some politician, you become part of the world, you voted to be ordered around. The politician needs your consent to crack a whip over your head and make you feel like the animal that you have partaken of. You are now part of the zoo of humanity.
When you elect people to tell you how to live and how things should be done, then you give up that authority that the Lord has given you and you put it in the hands of the heathen. You're choosing to have evil men rule over you rather than Almighty God who created you. When elections come up, people usually choose between "the lesser of two evils.” They always decide between "the lesser of two evils." Think about that. We have to remember that there is no such thing as the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil (James 2:10). Therefore, when somebody votes between the lesser of two evils, they are still voting for evil. Period.
Law is not based on a popular vote. It never has been and never can be. Bondmen of Christ cannot vote because that would be violence or force. We are not into using force, you cannot force the Kingdom of God, you cannot force people to love, you cannot force your love on others, you cannot force people to be free, because that requires violence to enforce it. And "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4).
In the Old Testament, the people "voted" to kill Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14:10). Right after they voted, God said, "...How long will this people provoke me? ...I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them," (Numbers 14:11-12), but Moses asked for mercy and God pardoned their evil ways. In the New Testament, during the trial of Christ Jesus, Pontius Pilate let the people "vote" between Barabbas and Jesus as to who they wanted set free (Matthew 27:17). The Pharisees whispered lies in the people's ears so they would vote the way they wanted them to vote. And that's the same thing that's going on today with voting; it's all manipulated by those who have the power to sway people. This "voting privilege" crucified our Lord!
Another example is in 1 Samuel 8. God's people were ruled directly by God at this time, but the people "voted" to be ruled by a human king instead of God, just like the heathen nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5,20). Right after they "voted", "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" (1 Samuel 8:7). Israel was now a democracy, and their voting privilege kicked God out of their country.
There is a tendency on the part of many to assume that if the vast majority of Christians hold a certain belief, then it must be right. Not necessarily so. Truth is not determined by majority vote, but by the Word itself. God's people should not look to "democratic principles" for Truth, but to God.
Democracy: "That form of government where the people rule. But the multitude cannot actually rule: An unorganic democracy…naturally becomes a one-man government. The basis of the democracy is equality…but equality itself is no guarantee for liberty, nor does equality constitute liberty. Absolute democracy existed in antiquity and the middle ages: they have never endured for any length of time. And absolute democracy is anything rather than a convertible term for liberty." Bouvier’s Law Dictionary , 1914.
The following definition is taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department on November 30, 1928, setting forth the truthful definition of Democracy. This definition was published by the authority of the United States Government. This precise and scholarly definition of Democracy is carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. This definition takes precedence over any "definition" that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical modification to please the powers in office.
Democracy: "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobacracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequence. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. Democracy is the direct rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success." Citizenship, Training Manual No. 2000-25, War Department, Washington, November 30, 1928, prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff, [A.G. 014.33 (4-28-28).], By order of the Secretary of War: Official: Lutzwahl, Major General, The Adjutant General, C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff.
What's in a Name?
Proverbs 22:1, "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,"
Ecclesiastes 7:1, "A good name is better than precious ointment;"
A name has a life of its own. To know the name of someone gives insight into the nature of the one in question. The name is not only a label, but a description. Our modern tendency to give nicknames often is an attempt to describe someone. Knowing someone's name places him in your power; he is compelled to hear and obey when his name is called. He has to respond when his name is spoken. After all, if you call someone's name, doesn't he or she stop and turn around? In short, he whose name is known could be controlled.
The value of a name is easily seen in everyday attempts to communicate. We give things a name to avoid the need of describing the item every time we refer to it.
The Miracle Worker told of Ann Sullivan's heroic struggle to educate Helen Keller. She determined to bring the child, Helen, out of her soundless, sightless dungeon of isolation. Patiently and persistently Ann brought the little girl into touch-contact with countless articles, slowly tracing out the letters in the name of the item into Helen's open palm. Countless times the routine was repeated without the message coming across. Ann felt that if Helen could only catch the idea that everything has a name, then real communication could begin. The name would be the mental link-up with the physical object. The mind could retain the name, the hands could explore the object, and the corresponding link-up would be the lesson. But the key to understanding was the name. Finally, one day, while water was running across her hand and Ann was patiently tracing "w-a-t-e-r" across the palm, the realization came to Helen, "It has a name, and its name is water." After that, the floodgates to learning were literally opened and her questing mind eagerly absorbed everything.
In scriptural times, someone's name stood for the whole character of the one involved. To know a name was to know all about ones character. It served as a window into one's nature and personality. The name represents the character. To tell someone your name was to tell him a great deal about you. Anyone who knew a great deal about you had some power over you. He knew your strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. In short, he knew what made you tick. You were vulnerable. You were in his power. To give someone your name was to take him into your confidence. You would not do that unless you trusted him. In other words, a name was valuable, so it was guarded very closely in ancient times.
One of the comforts allowed to the saints of the Old Testament was that they were assured that God knew them by name. Thus the Lord said to Moses, "Thou hast found grace in My sight and I know thee by name" (Exodus 33:17). This does not mean that God merely knew who Moses was, but something much more important, namely, that He knew what Moses was. When God calls us by name He is really saying two things: the first, that we are His creation; and the second, that He knows us perfectly, our hopes and our fears, our strengths and our weaknesses, our past and our future.
Scripturally, a name represents one’s character. This is why God changed the names of his servants (Genesis 17:5,15; 32:28; 35:10, 2 Samuel 12:25, Acts 13:9), and told parents what to name their unborn child (Genesis 16:11; 17:19, 1 Chronicles 22:9, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 1:4,6,9, Matthew 1:21,24, Luke 1:13,31), and why men have chosen one name over another for their child (Judges 6:32, Genesis 35:18, Luke 1:59-60), and why name's of cities have been changed (Genesis 28:19): to reflect their new character!
In the case of Paul, we have an example of the absolute sovereignty of God in effecting His will even when the subject himself was utterly opposed to it. When Saul was converted (Acts 9), however, he did not immediately receive a new name, for he was still being referred to as Saul after that (Acts 13:2) He continued to be called Saul until there came the significant words, "then Saul who was also called Paul, being filled with the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 13:9). Such was his character thereafter that he never looked back, never returned to his old way of life, and never longed to be anything but this new man: and thereafter he is never again referred to as Saul.
In our culture, the first thing we do when we meet someone is tell them our name. Our names are little more than a social convenience now. That's why we have so docilely accepted being assigned numbers in place of our names, such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, drivers license numbers, etc. Our names are no longer intended to describe us, but merely to identify us, personally.
But God calls his servants by name (Isaiah 43:1; 45:3; John 10:3, Revelation 2:17). Everyone's name is sacred, an icon of the follower of Christ. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it, having received it from the One who gave it. Your God-given name does have dignity and you can't throw it around and attach things to it. And beware, there will be those who will try to replace your name and give you a new name.
The giving of names is an act of dominion; which, therefore, parents do to their children. This is why Almighty God promises to give His children new names (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17;3:12). According to the custom of slaves, masters impose new names upon their slaves, as a sign of servitude. This change of names is a mark of their dominion and authority over them. According to the custom of conquerors, they changed the names of the great men they took captives in war, in token of their supremacy.
If somebody (i.e., kings, governments, masters, etc.) wants to acquire jurisdiction over you, the first thing they must do is re-name you; to mark you as their property. That’s the first thing that king Nebuchadnezzar did with Daniel and the three young men he brought into his kingdom. He re-named them, so that he would be able to have, or acquire, jurisdiction over them (Daniel 1:7). But all he had was jurisdiction over the name that he created. Had the young men not answered to that name, then there would be no substance behind the form that he created. Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it’s a dead thing.
As in the case of Daniel above, Pharaoh re-named Joseph to mark Joseph's new relation to Pharaoh's government (Genesis 41:45). Likewise, in the case of Eliakim, the king of Egypt re-named Eliakim to mark Eliakim's new relation to Egypt's government (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4). Also, in the case of Mattaniah, the king of Babylon re-named Mattaniah to mark Mattaniah's new relation to Babylon's government (2 Kings 24:17). This mode of changing the name is common when someone of greater power puts another under himself. In all four cases above (Daniel, Joseph Eliakim, and Mattaniah), the change of the name was by the king's command, to show his authority and supremacy over them and their subjection to him; to mark them as the property of the government of man.
But notice this important fact. When scripture continues to refer to these four godly men, it does not refer to them by the name imposed upon them by the governments of men, but continues to call them by their godly name given to them by the True Governor among the nations (Psalms 22:28)! Which shows us today that we should continue to use our godly names (i.e., Christian names or given names), even when the governments of men try to replace our names with another of their own creation.
Whenever someone's name is replaced, it is usually spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This is what the translators of the King James Bible did; they replaced God's name with ALL CAPS. The name for God, "YHVH" (Hebrew word #3068) originally appeared in the Old Testament texts 6,519 times! But God's name was replaced, at some point in history, with a title. In the King James Bible, when you see the word "GOD" or "LORD" in all capital letters, it means this was where the name for God, "YHVH," originally appeared in the Hebrew texts. And when "God" or "Lord" are spelled in upper and lower case letters, they were translated, not from "YHVH," but from the corresponding Hebrew titles of 'God' and 'Lord.'
Dear reader, has your name been replaced as well? Has the government re-named you? Here's a question for you. Have you ever, in your entire life, 'signed' your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? When you write to your family or friends, do you refer to yourself in an all caps signature? Of course not! Haven't you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. At Law, this lets others know you are an entity created by God, and not an entity created by man.
Now there are, believe it or not, entities created by man. Corporations, for example, are known as 'persons' created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those artificial persons created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this person does not have a soul, but this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit. Corporations are engaged in capital, thus, by spelling incorporated names in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, this shows the world that they are involved in capital, in profit.
The following six definitions are taken from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.
Capital: "Wealth (money or property) owned or used in business by a person, corporation, etc. Any source of benefit or assistance". Page 207.
Capitalize: "To print or write a word or words in capital letters." Page 208.
Capitalization: "Converting something into capital. Using capital letters in writing and printing." Page 208.
Now, compare how a "CORPORATION'S NAME" is spelled with how someone's "Proper Name" is lawfully spelled:
Capital Letter: "Used to begin a sentence or proper name". Page 208.
Proper: "Designating a noun that names a specific individual. ["Donald," and "Rover," are proper nouns, sometimes called proper names] (opposed to common)." Page 1078.
Common: "Belonging equally to, or shared by, two or more or by all (as opposed to proper)." Page 281.
Notice very careful that a capital letter is used to begin a proper name or proper noun. A corporation is not a proper noun, because it does not exist, except in fiction. You cannot touch it, see it, hear it, smell it, or taste it. It is brought into existence by a piece of paper. Corporations, in fact, can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest. Also, the name of a corporation is shared by two or more people, because a business cannot be incorporated unless there are two or more people running that business. So it is a 'common' name (see above definition), and is not a 'proper' name.
Now, if you look at all documents issued by the government, you will notice the names that appear on them are spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! (Please pause for a moment and look at your "name" on your drivers license, social security card, credit cards, utility bills, bank statements, permits, etc., right now). What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this piece of paper is engaged in capital! It is a creature of the government (now having "legal" personality), and not a created vessel of God. In order to get a license or other documents from the government, one must substitute one's lawfully spelled name for a fictitiously spelled name. You must deny the name given to you by God, and accept a name given to you by Caesar in its place. Your name is not spelled in all capital letters, therefore, this name is not yours! That is not who you are. And you must lie and say that this name is yours to get a license, permit, certificate, document, etc. Dear reader, you have been re-named by those who want dominion over you; your name has been replaced! The name that appears on all pieces of paper issued by the government is called a misnomer, at law.
Misnomer: "The act of applying a wrong name…to a person. An error in naming a person or place in a legal document." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 867.
Misnomer: "Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to a person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Under rules of practice in some states, such is ground for dismissal by motion. In most states, however, as well as in the federal courts, such misnomer can be corrected by amendment of the pleadings." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 1000.
"Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody. And…if the defendant has been arrested by a wrong name, the court will set aside the proceedings…and discharge him if in custody." 4 Bacon's Abridgment, (D) of Misnomer, and want of Addition (1832), page 7.
For those of you who believe that it does not matter how your name is spelled, and that a court will not dismiss a case in which the name of the accused is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, read this clipping from the front page of The Wall Street Journal, which is read world wide:
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? A man said government court filings referred to him in bold, capital letters, instead of upper and lower case letters. Thus, he said, those filings were aimed at someone who is "either a dead person or a corporate fiction," not him. The court disagreed and dismissed his case." The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, page 1.
Some people may ask you, "What's the difference if your name is spelled in both upper and lower case letters or in all caps?" You may simply reply, "One is my name, the other is not."
Occasionally, one's name is spelled in upper and lower case letters, but always with a middle initial! In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 867., an initial is defined as "a capital, or uppercase, letter." In other words, an initial indicates capital, or commercial activity. In this case, the Godly name is still denied because the courts have ruled "that an initial cannot be regarded as a Christian name." Reg. V. Bradley, 3E. & E. 634. "An abbreviation is no part of the description." Reg. V. Tugwell, 3 Q.B., 704.
For example, if you abbreviate your (First Middle Last) name, so that there are only three letters total (i.e., F.M.L.), would you claim that these three initials are your name? Of course not. And neither is a middle initial a name. You were not given an initial at birth, you were given a name. An initial is given by Caesar, your name is given by God. (However, if your middle name is indeed a single letter, don't put a period after it, because that would indicate that your single letter is an initial). Therefore, a Godly name with an initial in its place is a misnomer, in law.
"We are of the opinion that the word 'misnomer', which means a naming amiss, is wide enough to cover the faulty indication of a Christian name by means of the initial. That it was not a mere case of misnomer, because the initials were no name at all." The Queen v. Plenty, Court of Queen's Bench, 4 C.Q.B. 46. Vide, Bacon's Abridgment of the Law, Misnomer.
"A person's name consists in law, of a given or Christian name, and a family surname. It has been said that a description or abbreviation [initial] is not the equivalent of a name…The Christian or first name is, in law, denominated the "proper name," and has been used from early times to distinguish a particular individual from his fellows…Originally, it was the only name which was recognized in law, and consequently, it has always been considered an essential part of a person's name. The giving of a wrong Christian or given name to a person, in legal proceedings or in conveyances, generally constitutes an error which may invalidate a judgment or deprive the record of an instrument of its effect as notice. It has been held that the law knows but one Christian name of a single individual." 57 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections 1 and 4.
One's 'Christian name' is one's given name. A servant of Christ does not have a last name. The last name, or family name, belongs to your family. It existed long before you were born. Therefore, it is not you and it does not describe you. It is not a 'God-given name', but a name designated by your family relating, usually, to a previous craft or commercial profession, or to a parent's name, former master, or to a place of residence (i.e., "Davidson" from David's son; "Smith" from a shortened trade, such as an ironsmith or blacksmith). In addition, since a family name is a common name, shared by two or more people, and not a proper name (see definitions of 'proper' and 'common' above), it is considered an incorporated name under man's law. Thus, a family name is a corporation, it's an incorporated name, a family name is combining a group of people into a unit.
Incorporated: "Combined into one body or unit; united." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 684.
In short, a family name is considered a 'legal fiction' in man's law. Your family name describes your relationship to a lineage for historical purposes, but your only lineage that is important, in Law, is that relating to our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. That is not to say that your family is not, or should not be, important to you. But it is man's law that makes these distinctions important. They look to earthly connections to attach 'legal personality' to you. This is the mark of 'the old man' of the world, better known as a 'natural man,' 'natural person' or 'human being.' This is how they acquire jurisdiction over the servants of Christ.
Notice these three definitions taken from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.
Christian name: "The baptismal or given name, as distinguished from the family name". Page 249.
Family name: "Surname. A name or epithet added to a person's given name". Page 489.
Surname: "The family name, or last name, as distinguished from a given name". Page 1347.
This is why, when marriage occurs, the woman keeps her given name, but leaves her last name with her family, because her last name belongs to the family, and not to her. This is why adopted boys leave their last name with their former family and adopt, or 'incorporate', the name of their new family, but they keep their given name. This is why all characters in the Scripture (David, Abraham, Moses, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Simon Peter, etc.) use only their given names, and not their family names, because last names belong to the earthly family. Even in all the genealogies of family trees listed throughout the entire Scripture, the family names are never mentioned in these genealogies! Jesus said one's true family are those who do the will of God (Matthew 12:49-50, Luke 8:21), and not necessarily those who are blood related. So, by using a last name, surname, or family name, you are stating that your conversation is of the world, and not of heaven (Philippians 3:20).
"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court…Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names are thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to "The Law of Names," by Anthony Linell (1938).
Avoid giving a Name
James 2:7, "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"
A bondman in and of Christ Jesus has a name given to him by God (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17). He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification," or asks for your name, let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be rendered unto him (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25).
The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of Washington D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating. Names are very important and, when you give your name, you have to give it to those who are not going to control you because you give it to them.
When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' you should not deny or confirm it, because that would cause "joinder", joining you to the controversy. This is a trick question, since the name that comes out of their mouth is spelled differently but sounds the same as yours. A "yes" or "no" answer would be fatal, because they could use your "yes or no" answer against you. For example, if you reply "Yes," they will have jurisdiction over you, since you answered to the fictitious name on their papers. If you reply "No," and they discover your godly name, they will accuse you of lying since your godly name sounds like the name they inquired about, and since God's people are to speak the truth, and you lied, you bore false witness and they will acquire jurisdiction over you.
You must answer as our Lord answered many trick questions; with a question! "I also will ask you one thing." In this way, you transfer the burden from yourself to the intruder. What that question is that you ask will be put in your mouth by the Holy Spirit; it is not for me to put words in your mouth.
However, possible responses to those who ask if your name is 'so and so' may be, "Who do you minister for?" or "Who told you I was?" or "Whatever gave you that idea?" or "You don't know who I am?" or "You say I am," or "I can only render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Since I do not have a name given to me by Caesar, I do not have a name that can be rendered to you," or simply say, "You don't know who I am and I don't know who you are, therefore I have nothing to say to you because you are a stranger and I don't talk to strangers," and it can be continued by importing God's Law into the situation by saying "Let's search the Scriptures and find out who is who here."
The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "It is okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when the Roman soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the King James Version with the original Greek text, Jesus did not answer to the name.
John 18:4-8, "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:"
Note that in the King James Version text, the "he" in "I am [he]" is interpolated (added by the translators; does not exist in the Greek text). And we see that the first time he said "I am" to the Roman soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at:
Exodus 3:14, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."
And note that our Lord asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to the name of "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking? And the reason "they went backward, and fell to the ground" was because of the power of "I am." And that's all he was saying; "I am."
Now, when one asks your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister for. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from being "conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29) to being "conformed to the image of Caesar," and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings, and others of like 'species.' As they put it, you become one of their "right and duty bearing units."
Legal Definition of Names
Name: "A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known." A Dictionary of Law, (1893), William C. Anderson, Page 694.
In Caesar's eyes, if you give them a name, you are describing yourself as a "natural person," which is the same thing as saying that you "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:14), which is to say that you have no soul. You are saying you are a "thing."
"Names are the symbols of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', page 2149.
"Names are the marks of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', Page 2148.
"A name is as it were a note of a thing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', Page 2148.
Dear reader, are you a 'thing'? When you are asked, "What is your name?" by Caesar, and you give him a name, you are identifying yourself as a 'thing'. The name that Caesar gives is a mark, note, and symbol of 'things'. Things don't have a soul. And because a name refers to a 'thing', it does not refer to the bondman of Christ, for we are not 'things'. Nor are we 'individuals.'
Individual: "Any thing regarded as something single, as a unit. Especially a person, a human being." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1996), page 272.
When you say you're a resident, you are calling yourself a 'thing'. In A Dictionary Of Law, William C. Anderson, 1893, page 886, Res is defined as "a thing, or things", and identifying the thing is something that's of the world. Res-ident = a thing identified. The bondmen of Christ are not residents; we are transients, visitors, and sojourners with Him. And residence is opposed to transient visitation.
"Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation." The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, page 358 footnote.
When we "identify" only with Christ and become one with Him, we are not to be identified by the heathens as being a "resident" of their ungodly nation (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
"The voice of the legislators is a living voice to impose laws on things and not on words" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim.' P.2142.
"We impose laws, not on words, but upon things themselves." Black's Law dictionary, (4th, edition, 1957 & 1968), p. 1205.
So we see that all of the laws of the natural man are for their own, for their "things." This is how the 'police power' attaches to those who do not sojourn in Christ. Those dead to Christ are made after the image that created them. For example, under man's law, 'the State' is a corporation, and a corporation has no soul. Therefore, it's a dead thing, and they are dead to Christ, and they are made in the image of Caesar, because they live by all the corporate laws that Caesar creates. Corporations, or the corporate governments, always mark their property, or 'things', with 'legal descriptions.' (More detail on this later in this article, under the sub-heading 'Corporations').
Why these Fictitious Names?
Is the spelling and usage of a proper name defined officially by the U.S. government? Yes! The United States Government Printing Office in their Style Manual, March 1984 edition, provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing. Chapter 3, Capitalization, prescribes rules for proper names:
§ 3.2: "Proper names are capitalized… [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."
Notice the examples given are spelled in upper and lower case letters (not ALL CAPS). At Chapter 17, Courtwork, the rules of capitalization, as mentioned in Chapter 3, are further reiterated:
§ 17.1: "Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section; otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."
In section 17, there are no other references that would change the grammatical rules and styles specified in Chapter 3 pertaining to capitalization. At section 17.9, this same official U.S. government manual states:
§ 17.9: "In the titles of cases the first letter of all principal words are capitalized, but not such terms as defendant and appellee."
Section 17.12 is also consistent with the aforementioned section 17.9 specification that all proper names are to be spelled starting with capital letters, and the balance of each spelled with lower case letters.
From the above, we have established that courts are required to abide by the standard rule of law governing the use of English grammar and the correct capitalization of proper names. The following court cases also evidence this truth.
"The parties to a suit must be specifically mentioned (Com. Dig. Pleader, C. 18), and actions to be properly brought must be commenced and prosecuted in the proper Christian and surnames of the parties." Seely vs. Schenck and Denise, Crandall vs. Denny & Co, 1 Penn., Rep. 75. Tomlinson vs. Berke et al (5 Haisl. Rep. 295). Oregon Supreme Court Record, Book No. 1, 1844-1845, page 58.
"The object of the description of persons in all legal proceedings is to identify them, or to designate their office or the character in which they are to be viewed [perceived] in the proceeding. All persons are presumed to have what is called a Christian or given name, and for the purpose of identifying parties, it is a primary rule in practice and pleading, that the full Christian name and surname should be given at length, unless averred to be unknown. Under our criminal code, as well as the old practice in this State, the Christian name of the defendant, if known, must be set out in full in the indictment or information." Gardner v. The State, 4 Indiana 632; Bricknell Criminal Practice, 84.
"If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to all legal instruments…and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian without a name of baptism, or that such a person should have two Christian names...and therefore if a person enters into a bond by a wrong Christian name, he cannot be declared against by the name in the obligation, and his true name brought in an alias, for that supposes the possibility of two Christian names; and you cannot declare against the party by his right name, and aver he made the deed by his wrong name." New Abridgment of the Law, by Matthew bacon, 1846, Volume VII, published by Thomas Davis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
So what we see here is that they have to bring these suits against you in your full Christian name, but instead, the State only addresses you in an all caps name. This is because all States are corporations, and corporations have no soul, and the only way they can bring suits against anyone is to make you just like them, by spelling your name in all caps and creating the same kind of fiction they are. That's how they join you to them. The government cannot legally communicate with you unless you are identified in all upper case letters. Since the names that appear on all government documents are fictitious names, and since the courts disregard the standard rule of law governing the use of English grammar and the correct capitalization of proper names, let us see what this fictitious name means.
Pseudonym: "A fictitious name." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, Page 1085.
Nom De Guerre: "War name. A pseudonym." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, Page 920.
Nom: "[French. 'name']. Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name; esp. a nom de guerre, lit. 'war name,' a name assumed by, or assigned to, a person engaged in some action or enterprise." The Oxford Universal Dictionary, (1964), page 1333.
A fictitious name is a pseudonym, and a pseudonym is a nom de guerre, and a nom de guerre is a war name! This name is both "assigned to" someone by Caesar, and "assumed by" that someone to be theirs (i.e., "oh, yes, that's my name"). When courts issue a judgment against a defendant, the Order is always typed in all capital letters and a middle initial which, according to the rules of law governing the English language, has no meaning at all! Yet, the courts are required to use the rules of English by their own Rules of Court! Why does the government convert our godly name into a war name? The reason our name is changed into a war name on all government documents is because all parties to an action during war cannot appear in their own name!
"An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during war, in his own name." See 'alien' in Wharton's Pa. Dig., Sec. 20.94. Cited in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989, published by Clarendon Press.
Today's courts cannot deal with real people because, being bound by International Law and the Law of War, such courts can only deal with fictitious persons. Thus, all parties agree to be named with a fictitious name spelled in all capital letters, and/or with a middle initial, i.e., a nom de guerre (war name). But it's only because they are, as Oxford puts it, "engaged in some action or enterprise" ("action" has to do with war, and "enterprise" is strictly a commercial term). So to really join you to their courts, you have to be engaged in the same thing that they're engaged in, which is war or commerce (both of which has to do with plunder).
For example, all IRS forms and letters to taxpayers use a nom de guerre by the initial in the name, and regularly violate the rules of English. They request only a middle initial, not a full name, be used on all their forms (see the instructions to any IRS form).
And what is the purpose of them doing this? Any law dictionary will confirm that the purpose of these fictions is to give the court jurisdiction! But we must remember that when one is not engaged in carnal warfare (action) and not engaged in commerce (enterprise), the fictions that a court or government may attempt to attach to you will not "stick." When one walks according to the Spirit, in full faith, a line is drawn in the sand; the world and its things cannot and will not attach, by the Grace of God.
Fictio: "In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. Such was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse [challenge]…The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 623.
Fiction: "Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object [i.e., to trick the unsuspecting into submitting themselves to an unlawful court]." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 624.
James 2:6-7, "…Do not rich men [merchants] oppress you, and draw you [with contracts] before the judgment seats [courts]? Do not they blaspheme [deny, mis-spell] that worthy name [Godly name] by the which ye are called?"
Matthew 7:6, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
When you give that which is holy (your Godly name) to the dogs (Caesar), and cast your pearls before swine, it will be converted into something dead of the State's creation (a misnomer, a fiction) which will give standing in its courts, because the law that the State declares is the one written in its books. Caesar gives you a name in all capital letters, which marks you like an animal. Caesar is now re-defining you in terms of 'the person' described in its codes, rules, and regulations. The other indicia are a birth date, address, social security number, etc. This is how the State courts acquire jurisdiction over you. Now it can proceed to tame you.
This "mask" itself is the thing that's defined in man's codes, rules, and regulations (i.e., person, human being, individual, business, corporation, partnership, organization, etc.). These terms are all a persona, which means "the mask of the actor" (i.e., a fictional character that substitutes for the flesh and blood man). From this word persona we get 'person,' a fictional entity created by the government. This is a necessary use of the word because Martial Law powers can only deal with fictions (i.e., persons). You're the actor when you become one of those things. You become something other than who God says you are.
Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:"
The Christ is, in deed, seen in you and does not identify with (confirm) that character on the paper offered before the court. The surety for the fictitious person is not found; and a warrant is issued under their "testament" for the pagan, citizen, patriot, infidel, natural person, human being, or other private person having that lawless character who will ignorantly stand as surety for that fiction. The fiction has no economic value without the ignorance of the followers of Christ. Please remember that fictions are not the Way, Truth, and the Life for the minister of Christ, and it is no sin to stand mute when questioned on whether you are surety for their kingdom (Matthew 27:12-14, Mark 15:3-5). Silence cannot be misquoted. However, you are mandated to confess Christ to avoid the malicious plans of men.
Always remember, Confess Christ to Avoid and Justify so you may be Excused. The technique is to confess the Law of Christ to justify your lawful act(s) and to avoid the consequences of their purported law.
A book has been prepared in co-operation with the Canadian Government to define the writing "styles" to be used in Canadian English, as well as by lawyers. The book is entitled The Canadian Style (ISBN 1-55002-276-8). According to Chapter 4 in this book, and specifically Section 4.03, Personal Names are to have the first letter capitalized only, such as John Doe. In Section 4.13 it discusses Military Terms, and reads:
§ 4.13: "In Department of National Defence documents, the specific part of an excercise name is written entirely in upper case, e.g. Exercise SILENT DEFENDER."
This is the only reference in the entire book to the use of ALL CAPITAL letters. Therefore, by inference, if Personal Names are to have only the first letter capitalized, which we have known since birth, then why do ALL CAPITAL names exist on our Government associated documents? Could it be the military connection? After all, most court cases are conducted in military courts, since we are in a state of war.
Are We in a State of War?
The first Executive Order was issued by President Abraham Lincoln, and it brought martial law (military law) into America because of the Civil War. It has never been repealed and is still in effect.
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule…And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency". Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash D.C.
According to the Supreme Court, "Congress has made little or no distinction between a state of national emergency and a state of war." Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.
According to the Law of Nations, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself."
And according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all."
Since martial law is no law at all, they are lawless. Thus, they cannot bring a Lawful minister of Christ into its courts, since he stands on God's Law. This is why the government cannot bring anyone into their courts using their lawfully spelled Godly name, and must convert it into a fictitious name. The United States is at war with its people, and to get jurisdiction over them, the government must convert them into something lawless, like 'corporations' and 'persons' for example. Governments only have jurisdiction over the lawless, and that's why they try to convert the bondmen of Christ into lawless entities by getting them to incorporate themselves, or by getting them to accept the marks of corporations, by making us sign contracts with them.
In the early 1930's, President Roosevelt extended 'emergency powers' by Executive Order and declared all citizens of the United States, living in the States, enemies of the United States. This was done by the simple act of changing only one word in the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of 1917. He changed the word 'without' the United States, to 'within' the United States. Congress rubber-stamped Executive Order numbers 2039 and 2040 into law without debate.
Military Flags indicate Military Rule
When you walk into any court today, you will see a gold-fringed flag. This flag is placed on a flagstaff, and the flagstaff head (the decorative ornament at the top of the flagstaff) is an image of an Eagle. What does such a flag signify? First, we will examine the yellow fringe. The answer is found in Eisenhower's Executive Order (#10843, August 21, 1959), the Code of Federal Regulations (at 24 C.F.R. 6865), & current law:
"… A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and by his capacity as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces." 4 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Sections 1,2, and 3; Executive order No.10834.
"Placing of fringe on national flags…are within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Attorney General, 483 (1925).
And the continued use of a yellow fringed flag is prescribed in current Army regulations:
"…the Flag is trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 ½ inches wide. The [military] flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for…each military installation….each military courtroom. " United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, Chapter 2, October 1, 1979.
A yellow fringe flag always indicates a military flag!
As far as the flagstaff head finial being an eagle, the answer to what this means is in the United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, Chapter 8, § 2(a)(1), October 1, 1979. When an Eagle is placed at the top of the flagstaff, it indicates, "Eagle - Presidential Flagstaff."
Dear reader, the president is the Commander in Chief of the military. If the flag of the Commander in Chief is flown in all court rooms today, this indicates that the law of that court is under the Commander in Chief! Which, again, confirms military law!
So why does this military flag fly in all Federal, State, County, and City courtrooms if they are not military courtrooms? The truth is, all government courts today are military courts. They sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians, and are governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial. Just to clarify the question as to whether or not the people of the United States are considered alien enemies of the United States and subject to military courts, read the definition of "Enemy" in the above manual.
Enemy: "Enemy" includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. "Enemy" is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other. Manual for Courts-Martial," U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art.99, (c)(1)(b), page IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
The Constitution doesn't apply in courts today, and governments can take a citizen's property without permission or due process of law, like they do under the current 'forfeiture laws,' because of the following law:
"When a citizen is arraigned before a military commission on a criminal charge he is no longer under the protection of the law, nor surrounded with those safeguards which are provided in the Constitution. The accused may be sentenced to death, and the sentence may be executed without a judge. A sentence which forfeits all the property of the accused requires no approval." 12 Op. Attorney General 182 (1867).
Does anyone want their day in 'court' now? Even the Scripture specifically says that we are not to go to courts of "law before the unjust" nor "before the unbelievers" (1 Corinthians 6:1,6). The reason is because we are to separate ourselves from the unjust. How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice!
Let's see where military law comes from. Read these two definitions from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.
Mars: "God of war." Page 829.
Martial Law: "Temporary rule by the military authorities over the civilian population when civil authority has broken down." Page 830.
Now, what is the connection between military courts and contracts? This is the clincher!
"In maritime law: it is the law of that nation or country whose flag is flown. On a ship or government office or in a courtroom or wherever it is displayed gives notice by this flag to all who enter into contracts with the master that he intends the law of that flag to regulate such contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him." Black's law dictionary, 4th Ed., under ..flag, law of.
When a military flag is placed somewhere, it is giving notice to all who enter that all contracts within that place are governed by military law! And we have the choice of binding ourselves to that law, or to not contract with them.
Police enforce these military contracts, such as drivers licenses and registration contracts. A military flag flies in all drivers license buildings. Police happen to be all military, which is why they use military designations in all of their positions, such as Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Colonel, etc. You might ask, "Can someone be part of a police department and still be a servant of Christ?" Well, is the policeman there as a minister of God to thee for good, or is he there for the benefit of the state and to meet a quota? If he's there as a minister of God, and you're doing the Will of God, and he sees that in you, he won't write out the ticket. He won't do anything that will violate the Word of God because he himself recognizes a brother doing the Will of the Father. But if he's an ungodly man he will write out the ticket and will basically say, "I'll let the judge sort all this out." Which means he didn't recognize the Truth when it was brought to him. His faith was in the State, not in the Word of God. His god is the god of war...Mars.
Matthew 7:14, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
This is the minimum contact doctrine. The way is narrow and difficult.
2 Corinthians 6:14,17, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"
Believers cannot join with the wicked and profane. There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolaters, a danger of being defiled. Therefore, the exhortation is to "come out from among them" and keep at a due distance, to "be ye separate" as one would avoid those with leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and to "not touch the unclean thing," lest we be defiled (by minimum contacts).
Revelation 18:4, "...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins."
Jesus went to the synagogues of his day, but he did not join them. The Pharisees sought to kill Jesus because he didn't preach the same thing they were preaching. The Pharisees and Jews joined Caesar (Luke 23:2, John 19:12,15, Acts 17:7), but Jesus remained separate from Caesar's world and the glory and powers thereof (Matthew 4:8-10, Luke 4:5-8).
Minimum Contacts: "A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state." International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.
That gives a very good definition of what minimum contacts are, which is, if you're partaking of their system they have jurisdiction over you. It's just that simple. If you're partaking of their plagues, they're going to take a look at you and see how infectious you are.
Now, servants of Christ are 'non-residents' to the 'forum state' (Caesar's world) known as 'The United States.' It is important to avoid these 'minimum contacts' with the 'state', for it will bring you under the 'court's personal jurisdiction'. If anyone has these 'minimum contacts' with that 'forum state', he will be looked upon as belonging to that state and be fully regulated thereby.
You see, we are not affected by the words in man's law, unless it can be shown that we are connected to them in some way. If it cannot be shown that we have these "contacts" with them, it cannot be proved that those words are binding upon us.
“No person is to be affected by the acts or words of others unless connected with them, personally or by those whom he represents or by whom he is represented." State v. Beaudet, 54 Conn. 541 (1885).
Some examples of 'minimum contacts' are as follows: any government identification, drivers license, social security number (also called Social Insurance Number in Canada, or S.I.N. for short); voter registration card; free delivery of mail to your home, business, or Post Office box; bank accounts and loans; credit cards; government or corporate employment; insurance policies; automobile registration; property registration; or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition (the unclean things), will contradict and nullify your Godly witness. When one accepts a benefit of the State, one accepts the control of the State as well.
Now, when you read these things, you might say, "Man! How am I ever going to get out from beneathe it? I can't operate without all those things." Well, that's a lie. The world has just convinced you that you can't do anything without them. And, of course, when we really look at them and put the Word of God next to them, we understand that they're not of God, but they're of the world. And, as bondservants of Christ, we cannot attach ourselves to those things because they're not of God. The reason is, the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Godly name. You may profess to be a servant of Christ all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you are not a disciple looking to Christ for salvation, but a humanist looking to the State for safety and approval.
All of the minimum contacts mentioned above, and many others, are commercial in nature. That commercial nature is what brings you into their jurisdiction. It is 'presumed' by Caesar that you are within 'his' jurisdiction. But all presumptions are rebuttable, if you can evidence that you are not the 'person' they presume you are. A presumption cannot be rebutted if you have the political ties to the government, such as those listed above. The reason it cannot be rebutted concerns the maxim of law, "No man can serve two masters." In other words, Caesar says "if you look to us for your rights and privileges to do an act, we are your absolute master; you belong to us and you will do as we say." God gives us everything we need, we don't need benefits and privileges from man. If you apply for benefits and privileges from the government, you are a 'natural person' in their eyes, and will be treated as such.
"Those applying for benefits from civil government may be classed as 'natural persons.'" Public health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, Fla., 531 So. 2d. 946, 948.
So when you go to government for some kind of benefit from them, you are a natural person in their eyes, you are the natural man of scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14, "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God"). This being the case, why would any bondman want to stay in commerce? The answer is, because they do not take God's Word seriously. Even when it is pointed out, time and time again, that Scripture opposes such practice, they will first look to find some way around the clear meaning of the Scripture, rather than repent of their error; for the current life of most 'Christians' is just far too comfortable, convenient, and makes the "good life" easy. This is the real reason why there is a reluctance on their part to repent.
And as long as they accepts "benefits" from the government, they cannot free themselves from the yoke of allegiance (bondage) to the government:
"Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves." Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).
Free Mail Delivery Service
Here's an example of using just one of the many minimum contacts; the benefit of free mail delivery service by the U.S. Postal Service. The stamp on an envelope pays for delivery of that envelope from the sender's post-office to the receiver's post-office. It does not pay for the costs when that envelope leaves the area behind the clerk's desk and gets delivered to the receiver's address, This is a "free" service. How does using this service convert you into a lawless person and place you under their jurisdiction? Well, first of all, the term 'service' is commercial in nature. When you are the partaker of a 'service,' you are engaged in commercial activity.
Secondly, free mail delivery:
"...brings benefit to every citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country." United States Postal Policy, by Clyde Kelly, a member of the Post Office and Post Roads Committee in Congress (1931).
The key word here is 'benefit.' Receiving a benefit from the government will jeopardize your standing as a bondman of Jesus the Christ. When one accepts a benefit of the State, one accepts the control of the State as well, which places one under its jurisdiction. Thus, a maxim of law comes into play: "He who accepts the benefit must also bear the burden." So when you look to government for benefits, a burden is placed on you, that heavier yoke (Matthew 11:28).
"When it is said that a valuable consideration for a promise may consist in a benefit to the promiser, 'benefit' means that the promiser has, in return for his promise, acquired some legal right to which he would not otherwise have been entitled." Woolum v. Sizemore, 102 S.W. 323, 324.
In short, free mail delivery service is a benefit, the use of which places one into a commercial venue, and thus surrenders a legal right to the government, which it would not otherwise be entitled to, i.e., an unalienable right. People often say, "Well, I have my unalienable rights!" But what they don't understand is that 'unalienable rights' is a term created by man, and anything that man creates he can give and he can also take away. And what he has determined on unalienable rights is that unalienable rights are surrendered when one enters into commerce.
Unalienable: "Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 3350.
Unalienable: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1959), Vol.2, p.610.
Unalienable does not mean you can't lose them, but one can voluntarily opt for something else (i.e., a free benefit from the government), thereby changing ones status from unalienable to alienable, in commerce. When you are outside the Lex Mercatoria (Law Merchant, commercial laws), then you have what they call 'unalienable rights,' but what they're saying is you have God given protection. In other words, the natural man cannot regulate you because you're under God's protection, but once you start partaking of Caesar's benefits then he becomes your master. When you receive a benefit from him, there is a duty attached to it, and he'll make sure you provide that duty to him. If you receive a benefit, the government expects a return from you. Thus, the Income Tax Return is the money they collect from you for the 'services' they are giving you at your request. Again, this is commercial activity.
Let's examine the concept of a 'benefit' in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.
Benefit: "Profit." Page 129.
Profit: "Gain, advantage, benefit." Page 1074.
Income: "Gain or benefit received." Page 683.
Capital: "Any source of benefit." Page 207.
Merchant: "A person whose business is buying and selling goods for profit." Page 843.
Commercialize: "To make use of mainly for profit at a sacrifice of other values." Page 280.
Mercury: "God of commerce. Cleverness. Thievery." Page 848.
By accepting a benefit, one is receiving gain, capital, income, and profit. If you're receiving a profit, you are a merchant, which means you are engaged in commercial activity, which means you are a thief, because you are making a profit at a "sacrifice of other values." And if you are sacrificing Godly values to make a profit, you cannot serve God.
Matthew 6:24, "...Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
The term mammon means "riches, wealth, or material gain." If you are serving mammon, you are serving the god of commerce, Mercury, and you'll be subject to regulation under the commerce laws (the lex mercatoria).
Hosea 12:7, "He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress."
Revelation 18:23, "...for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."
Additionally, once someone accepts a free benefit from the government, it is considered a 'quasi-contract'. In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 1101, a quasi-contract is "an obligation, equivalent to a contractual obligation, created by law in the absence of a contract, to prevent unfair gain at the expense of another." Quasi-contracts involve gain! As discussed before, we cannot engage in contracts because this brings you out of your Godly venue and into a commercial venue, as the following cases show:
"But to whom may the quasi-contract attach? In order for a quasi-contract to attach, a benefit must be conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant must have displayed an appreciation of the benefit so an to make it inequitable for him to retain that benefit without payment for the value of the benefit." Moll v. Wayne County, (1952), 332 Mich. 274, 50, N.W. 2d 881.
"A person confers a benefit upon another as respects liability in quasi-contracts for restitution if he gives to another possession of or some interest in money, land, chattels, or chooses an action; performs services beneficial to or at the request of another; or in any way adds to the other's security or advantage; and he confers a benefit not only where he adds to the property of another but also where he saves the other from expense or loss." Olwell v. Nye & Nissan Co., 173 P.2d 652; Chandler v. Washington Toll Bride Authority, 137 P.2d 97.
As you can see, there is a quasi-contract involved when you accept the benefit of free mail delivery, and the government has to prevent unfair gain (from you) at the expense of the Postal Service, which is why they become attached to you under the guise of a quasi-contract. In addition, it does not matter if the statutes enforcing quasi-contracts upon the people are constitutional or not, because once one has accepted its benefits, one voluntarily waives all the protections of the Constitution (if you look to it for protection), because rights cannot be taken away by law, it can only be voluntarily waived by consent. This is proven in the following United States Supreme Court Cases:
"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 US. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.
So once you partake of a particular benefit that a statute is offering, you cannot challenge it and say, "Well, you know, I've got my constitutional rights! You can't do this to me!" Well, once you partake of the benefits of that statute, you give it life because you've entered into a quasi-contract with the government, and your so-called constitutional rights (if you look to them) are null and void.
An example to illustrate this is the use of a zip code. Under the U.S. Postal laws:
"Zip codes may be omitted from pieces mailed by the general public." Domestic Mail Manual, § A010, 1.2(e).
As you can see, zip codes are voluntary. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled that by using a zip code, you have surrendered protections of the Constitution (Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581). So, by using a zip code, one has voluntarily waived rights secured by the Constitution. Since there is not a law requiring you to use a zip code, the government is not forcing you to waive your rights. You are waiving your rights of your own free will (self-will), or out of ignorance.
You might ask, "But how is receiving a harmless thing like free mail delivery service contradicting the Law of God? How am I sacrificing Godly values?" Well, in addition to the verses already mentioned in this article, which we won't repeat, we will show one other thing. To receive free mail delivery, one must have an address. An address uses numbers forced by the government (i.e. the house number, street number, box number, zip code number, etc.). The Scriptures forbid the use of such numbers for identification.
Here are two scriptural examples, one from the Old Testament, and one from the New Testament.
In the Old Testament era, King David gave a command to number the people (1 Chronicles 21:2). Joab warned King David that he would "be a cause of trespass to Israel" if he numbered the people (verse 3). But King David numbered the people anyway, knowing it was a trespass against them (verse 4). God was displeased with King David for numbering the people, so God smote Israel (verse 7). David admitted he sinned greatly (verse 8), and because the people themselves willfully took numbers from their government, God sent a plague upon those people and 70,000 were killed (verse 14) [See also 2 Samuel 24 for a parallel account].
In the New Testament era, we are told that governments will, likewise, try to mark all people with a number. God says those who take this mark will be punished by Him (Revelation 14:9-11; 16:2; 19:20). [Note: the term "beast" is defined as the government of a people; specifically as kings (Daniel 7:17, Revelation 17:10-12), and kingdoms (Daniel 7:18,23, Revelation 16:10) that have power to make war and kill (Revelation 11:7; 17:14)]
Basically, by MARKing your house with a number, you are placing a number issued by the government on your house, which marks it as their property. All addresses are defined as commercial in nature under man's law. And putting "in care of" on an envelope that has an address on it will do no good either. We are "in care of" the Lord. If we are in care of some address, we are saying we are in care of Caesar, since Caesar created the address.
In addition, numbers are a fictitious creation of the State, just like fictitious names are. According to the rules of law governing the English language, all numbers must be spelled out. This is why all numbers in the Scripture are always spelled out (with the exception of chapter and verse numbers, which are not part of the original texts, but were added by man later for reference). That's why on dollar bills, you see the amount of the dollar bill spelled out completely (i.e., FIVE DOLLARS). If the writer of a check does not spell the amount of the check completely, the bank will not cash that check, because it is not a lawful document until all numbers are spelled out according to the law.
So what is the alternative to receiving free mail delivery service? We simply go to to post-office ourselves and pick up our mail there, which is kept behind the clerk's desk. This is what they did up until the Civil War; the outside of the envelope had just three words; a name, city, and state. It would be delivered to the main post-office of that city, and the people would go there to pick up their mail.
"Man has been created by, in, and for, the Word of God, and this makes him the being who is responsible. Masses, collectives, and species have no responsibility; they are not capable of assuming responsibility." 10 Rep. 32 b.
To settle the question as to whether States are corporations:
"All States whatever are corporations." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall.(US) 419, 468, 1 L.Ed. 440.
To settle the question as to whether all corporations are dead under the law, and if all corporations have no souls:
"They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls" 10 Rep.32 b.
Corporations are, therefore, dead to Christ. Those who put their trust in the State are just like it - dead to Christ. Those who put their trust in corporations are, likewise, dead to Christ. When you join yourself to corporations, you are joining the living to the dead (i.e. you're joining yourself to the dead). Human beings, persons, residents, individuals, citizens, civilians, and corporations are all the same under the law, they're all considered 'things.' They are all considered 'dead'... spiritually dead.
Psalms 115:8, "They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them."
There you have it. If you trust in something that man has made, you are made like to his image. Do you trust in the State? Are you the image of Caesar? Or are you the image of Christ?
Hosea 8:6, "...the workman made it; therefore it is not God."
Isaiah 17:7-8, "At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made..."
So, if the workman made it, and it is not God, it must be dead, because there's no life breathed into it by God himself. Corporations are made by man, so corporations are not God. The laws regulating corporations are made by man, so those laws are not part of God's Law. If their laws are not of God's Law, those corporations are not of God, and we cannot put our trust in them.
Under federal law, the "United States" is defined as a federal corporation [see 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)]. Now, since the United States is a "federal corporation," anyone who is a 'citizen' of that corporation, i.e., a 'citizen of the United States' or a 'US citizen,' becomes incorporated themselves. When you become incorporated, you are considered a 'corporation', a 'person', or a 'natural person', with no soul. You are dead in law. Therefore, you cannot be a minister of God if you're dead and have no soul, both spiritually and physically speaking.
"Human beings are called 'natural persons' to distinguish them from 'artificial persons' or corporations. To acquire the status of artificial or legal personality, the group seeking it must be incorporated, i.e., must obtain a formal state license. In modern civil law, while incorporation is necessary for some purposes, chiefly in commercial law, a group of persons, acting as a unit, may be treated as an artificial or legal person." Warren Co. v. Heister, 219 La. 763, 54 S.2d 12." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), page 249.
Notice that "a group of persons acting as a unit may be treated as an artificial person." If you use a family name, you are part of a group of people acting as a unit, and, therefore, you are no longer a servant of Christ in the eyes of government, but a member of a corporation with legal personality! Governments only have the power to regulate commercial activity and ungodly persons, because both are condemned in Scripture. Now, for clarification, labouring as a workman and getting paid compensation for your labor is Godly in the eyes of God. It is only when the motive is to make a profit (i.e., "for filthy lucre sake"), when you focus on just the gain of money aspect, that God disapproves of.
When you sign a piece of paper to a name in all capital letters, you stand as surety for that fictitious entity created by the State. Similar to how a man stands as surety for his corporation (meaning, if the corporation does something wrong, the man will go to court and answer to the charges against his corporation). This is what you do when you stand as surety for that fictitious name on that license issued by the State. But the Scripture is clear that we are not to stand as surety (Proverbs 6:1-2; 11:15, Romans 13:8), At 2 Kings 18:23,31, the people refused to stand as surety (pledges) for their king (government). Remember, the courts have jurisdiction over the 'person' (fictitious name, corporation, etc.), but not the 'surety', until the two become one flesh by merging together.
Look at any Church on any block, you will see the name of the Church spelled in all capital letters, which designates it as a 501(c)(3) commercial corporation, that is advertising for business. But the corporation may say, "We still haven't accepted the mark of the beast on our hand or forehead!" But can they, as a corporation, buy or sell without the numbers and fictitious names, add or remove anything from 'their Church' without a permit number, conduct any transaction without an account number, send their children to a public school without a Social Security number, get their plumbing, electrical wires, or TV fixed, or do even the most mundane thing, without it all being numbered and tracked commercially? The answer is obviously, No!!! If you look to the ways of the world, you can't do anything without a number anymore.
Think for a moment. You've already accepted a mark without which you cannot buy or sell anything! Do you really need a mark on your hand or forehead when you have already volunteered to carry one in your pocket??? No one forced you to take it. You volunteered for it, because the same commercial Church leaders you've always listened to told you to obey all authorities, and both you and they thought that meant obeying even ungodly laws, codes, ordinances, rules, statutes, and regulations.
Traffic Laws - Voluntary or Mandatory?
2 Peter 2:3, "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words [in their law books] make merchandise of you:"
Proverbs 12:6, "The words of ungodly men are crafty; but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them."
There are only two types of laws in existence; mandatory and voluntary. The way you can tell if a law is mandatory or voluntary is very simple. If it is voluntary, your signature is requested, a contract is required. If it is mandatory, no signature or contract is required.
For example, do you sign a piece of paper saying you will not kill anyone? Or steal from anyone? No. These are mandatory laws, and don't require your permission or signature to enforce them. Mandatory laws don't require a contract. Mandatory laws don't require your signature. They only require the presence of your body for enforceable action against you.
When you are asked to sign a piece of paper, it must always be done voluntarily. To illustrate, let's use an example of a signed confession. A signed confession must be done voluntary. If a policeman took you in a back room, put a gun to your head, and threatened to kill you if you didn't sign a piece of paper, that paper would not be signed voluntarily by you.
Now, the same applies to every piece of paper. If any man threatens you in any way to sign any piece of paper, then it is not signed voluntarily by you. Additionally, if anyone says to sign something, and threatens to take your car, or take your house, or fine you, or put you in jail, if you don't sign it, then this paper is not signed voluntarily. It is signed under threat, duress, and coercion.
Now, think of every time the government asked you to sign a piece of paper. Does the government threaten you in any way? Do they say, "If you don't sign this paper, then we will do (threat) to you?"
For example, does the government say to you, "If you don't put your signature to a drivers license, registration, and these insurance papers, well then, we will have to do some terrible things to you. When we pull you over, we will take away your liberty by arresting you and throwing you in jail, steal your car by impounding it, and extort your money by fining you. And if your kids are in the car with you, we'll take them from you and put them in a foster home, and if your pets are in the car with you, we'll bring them to the humane society and have them terminated. And, oh yea, we'll cancel your library card!"
Yes, they do threaten you like this. Why does Caesar have to intimidate you into signing papers? Because there is no law requiring you to sign anything! Are deceit and threats compatible with the character of God? (Lamentations 3:22-25).
If there was a law requiring you to do something, no signature would be required! If there was a law stating you were required to sign something, then this would mean they can use force, "legally," to get you to sign anything they want. If they can use force legally, then you are not signing a contract voluntarily. So, that police man who took you in the back room and "held a gun to your head" (threatened you), he would be doing his job legally by forcing you to sign a piece of paper. There is no law which forces you to sign a confession, but it makes it a lot easier to prosecute you if you do sign something "voluntarily." There is no law requiring a signature from anyone, but it makes it a lot easier for the government to convert you into something that you are not.
When you sign a drivers license (or, for that matter, any paper from the government), this signature is not required by law. For they 'ask' you for your signature. If it was the law, your signature would not be required. Only contracts and permits require a signature. Governments only have the right to regulate commerce, and commerce is regulated by contracts, licenses, and permits. These are all voluntary. This is why the government must force you to accept a mark identifying you as being engaged in commercial activity.
For example, are you engaged in 'traffic'? The following definitions are from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1914.
Traffic Regulation: "Prescribed rules of conduct to promote the orderly and safe flow of traffic". [What does traffic mean?]
Traffic: "Commerce, trade, sale, or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities…. The subjects of transportation… See Commerce". [What does transportation mean?]
Transportation: "The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier". [What is a carrier?]
Carrier: "Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire". [To hire someone means to get paid for services.]
Commerce: "The exchange of goods…buying, selling…Intercourse by way of trade or traffic".
Stop Sign: "A legally erected and maintained traffic signal requiring all traffic to stop before entering into or crossing an intersection."
Traffic lights and stop signs are to regulate those engaged in commercial activity. However, this does not mean you can freely run these signals and signs without stopping first! For obvious reasons.
Notice that "traffic" is never, ever defined as what we normally associate it with...cars on the road. Traffic is defined as trade in man's law. In the scripture, "traffick" is also defined as trade! Trade means gain, profit, and riches.
1 Kings 10:15, "Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants."
Isaiah 23:8, "Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth?"
Ezekiel 17:4, "He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants."
Ezekiel 28:5, "By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:"
Notice that traffic (trade) increases riches, which begets pride, which is considered iniquity (Ezekiel 16:49). Here are a few cases which spell out who are, and who are not, required to hold a drivers license and registration:
"The Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1913, p.639) is not unconstitutional…in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all others operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation." In re Stork, (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A chauffeur…is one who is paid compensation for his services." Hunton v. California Portland Cement Co. (1942), 50 C.A. 2d 684, 123 P.2d 947.
A license is "a permit granted by an appropriate governmental body generally for consideration to a person, firm, or a corporation to pursue some occupation, or to carry on some business, which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal. App. 2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
Is exercising God's Law "subject to regulation under the police power"? When God commands you to go from place to place and do Godly works, are these Godly works "subject to regulation under the police power"? Are the way you do these Godly works "subject to regulation under the police power"? No! Only those engaged in a business or occupation are subject to them..
Mercury: "Merchandise. A Roman deity…the god of trading and thieving, the presider over roads." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Revised and Edited by C.T. Onions, Volume I, page 1235.
Notice traders and thieves are on an equal basis here. And this is why commerce must be fully licensed, regulated, and taxed. Thieves deal in speculation (i.e., inflation, deflation, market trends, etc.), to derive benefit in the form of gain or profit to the detriment of the public. To accept a drivers license means you are engaged in commercial activity, which means you are a trader and a thief. You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24). One who takes a license must serve "another" master, since the ruling law is now that of the Roman god, Mercury, who is the presider over roads, traffic, traders, merchants, and thieves. But our Creator says:
Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
And you can be taken to jail for not worshipping the god of commerce, Mercury, with your sacrifices (money offerings). It's all about money. They are trying to charge us with a crime, right? What is a charge? To charge is to demand a price for a record of debt, or of something borrowed (scripture prohibits both debts [Romans 13:8, Nehemiah 5:3-5] and borrowing [Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:12]).
And where is this charge paid? At the bank! And where is this bank located?
Bank: "A judge's seat; also, a court sitting for the decision of matters of law." A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893, page 109.
When you are taken to jail by the 'road patrol', these jails are engaged in commercial activity. They make money for each prisoner they have in their jails. The motive is profit. However, without a name, address, birth date, birth place, social security number, signature, etc., the COUNTY is not able to bill the STATE for the cost of keeping you in their facilities! So, they will most likely release you to avoid losing 'profit'. This is their great weakness. If they feel they can't steal anything from you, they'll leave you alone.
2 Peter 2:3, "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:"
The State is trying to make merchandise of you by bringing you out of your Godly venue and into a commercial venue, and their means of doing this is with "feigned words" and by the deceptive definitions of the words they use. Since, under the Law of War, it is legal to deceive the enemy, we must expect that all government officers will use deceit to get what they want, which is to compel their own (and the followers of Christ) to serve Caesar, and answer to fictitious words which describe them as those 'persons' who are engaged in commercial activity, who are spiritually dead, and who have no souls.
Remember, those who seek "benefits" from the government are seeking the "favour of rulers," but scripture says:
Proverbs 29:26, “Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord.”
What should a follower of Christ think about human laws? It is irrelevant, because we look to the one lawgiver for answers (Isaiah 33:22). There is only ONE lawgiver (James 4:12). As long as we obey God's Law, human laws have nothing to do with the servants of Christ (1 Timothy 1:9-10). If God is writing his Law in our inward parts (Jeremiah 31:33), then the law that is written in codes, rules, and regulations have nothing to do with God. Jesus and the apostles answered questions with, "It is written," and, "Have ye not read," and the apostles also answered with, "The Scripture saith," ignoring the laws, ordinances, commands, and views of man. Jesus did not use man's codes, rules, and regulations for the things he did, and neither should we use man's codes, rules, and regulations for the things that we do.
If you read the laws of man, you will notice that all the words used in their laws are consistently outside Scripture. For example, a statute might read, "Persons have rights to lease property." But you won't find the word 'property,' 'lease,' or "rights" in scripture. You won't even find the word 'persons' in scripture as the natural man uses that term. All these words are outside Scripture, so it's a new kingdom outside of God's kingdom. There's a distinction between man-made laws and God-given laws.
Human Laws: "Laws which have man for their author, as distinguished from divine laws, which have God as their author." Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 54 Am. Dec. 217, 220. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, by James A. Ballentine, 1948 Edition. Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, Rochester, New York.
The office of the Christ denotes a ministerial act of execution; doing, acting, carrying into effect, or "fulfilling the law." If you are under grace and not under God's Law, what office do you occupy, and whose Will do you execute? Because all offices are under the law that created them. And if you're not under God's law, what office do you fill? All offices are in law, and the Will is the Testament establishing the office.
Isaiah 8:16,20, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
This is the yardstick by which the followers of Christ judge all law. Any purported law which has not this purpose is a lie and is no law at all. It falls short of the standards set by God. Even the laws of man agree with this Truth:
"Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone.
"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity". Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432.
"The law is from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).
Yes, this is in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures, which declare:
Acts 5:29, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us."
James 4:12, "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"
Jeremiah 17:5, "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man."
Psalms 118:8-9, "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes [governments of men]."
Psalms 146:3, "Put not your trust in princes [governments of men]."
Ecclesiastes 12:13, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God [not man], and keep his commandments [not man's commandments]: for this is the whole duty of man."
God's Rod of Correction
We've been talking about the idolatry of man's law, but now we'll talk about the purpose of it. As we know, everything the Lord allows to exist is for His purposes. Why does man's law exist? Why do people look to it for truth? It's simply because they've turned their backs on the Lord and His Law.
In the plan of God, the humanist has always been God's rod to wake the sleeping disciple and get him back on course. If man is the center of 'the world,' and he created all these legal personalities, then the police power is God's rod of correction to get you out of the world, to make things a hotbed of coals to where it is uncomfortable for you to stay there. So, if you're going to come out of the world, then you shed, what is called, all those legal personalities that the world has placed upon you, and you do not answer to them anymore, because your mind has been renewed in the mind of Christ (Ephesians 4:23, Colossians 3:10).
An officer does need a warrant in law to do what he is doing. However, if you're in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, and partaking of the unclean things, then that man (who you say is ungodly, doing ungodly things against you) is actually God's rod of correction to drive you back to where you should be. If you're not chastened by our Father, then you're a bastard, meaning you're a son of the world, and you will not share the privileges of God's children.
Hebrews 12:8, "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."
Job 5:17, "Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:"
What is the purpose of man's law? It is God's rod of correction. God uses man's law to chasten His people. God uses heathens to chastine His people.
Psalms 125:3, "For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity."
Psalms 106:39-48, "Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. He made them also to be pitied of all those that carried them captives. Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph in thy praise. Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD."
Ezekiel 31:11, "I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness."
Ezekiel 39:27-28, "When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen..."
So, even though you may be righteous and you're following His ways, as soon as you put your hands into iniquity, "the rod of the wicked" (that's His rod) will be there to drive you back to Him.
2 Samuel 7:14, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And when he happens to transgress, then will I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men:"
Even though we're His son, if we walk away from His Law, He will use "the rod of men" to chasten us and drive us back to Him. Gentile and Pagan armies may be God's armies. For example, the Chaldeans who destroyed Zion are called "His army" (Joel 2:11); the Assyrians are called "the rod of mine anger" (Isaiah 10:5); and the Medes under Cyrus are termed God's "sanctified ones" and "mighty ones" for His anger (Isaiah 13:3,17). Likewise, Jacob (i.e. the nation of Israel) is the Lord's "battle ax" and "weapons of war" that He uses to chastise other nations (Jeremiah 51:20).
Proverbs 22:15, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
It is foolish to partake of the ways of the world, and "the rod of correction" will drive that from us. What's interesting is that scripture shows us how God will use the ungodly as a rod of correction, but the natural man doesn't realize that they're there for His purpose. Isaiah 10:5-15 shows that even though God will use the king of Assyria to drive His people back to Him, the king doesn't know it. He boasts about how powerful he is and attributes everything to himself, but he's actually God's rod of correction, just like all governments are.
What is the purpose of God's rod of correction?
Jeremiah 5:3, "O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return."
So, we see His rod of correction is to return us to Him. And we also see from this passage that there are many who will not be driven back to Him by it. But don't despise His chastening.
Proverbs 3:11-12, "My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."
It is important to understand that the purpose of God allowing "Caesar" to be in power is to test and prove His children, to see if they will keep the Laws of God or the laws of the heathen (Judges 2:21; 3:4).
This article has, in part, attempted to explain how the people of God have stepped off their original foundation and taken on the words of the world to re-define themselves. When you re-define yourself, Christ no longer defines you. Many have adopted the ways of the world and adopted its words to describe themselves. When the humanist interprets reality around him, he has only his own categories of thought to use as a reference for meaning, but the bondmen of Jesus the Christ have His Spirit and His Words.
Ephesians 4:17-18, "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles [the natural man] walk, in the vanity of their mind [reason], Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance [of not knowing the Power of Words] that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:"
So we really have to look to the Lord for everything and He will remove that blindness of the heart. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:14), therefore his heart remains blind.
We know that the governments of men exist to keep the 'low and lawless forms of humanity' from doing violence to all, including themselves, and as our Father's rod of correction for His children. God uses Caesar to regulate corporations and the natural man. Corporations and ungodly men do not live by God's Law, thus they are both 'low and lawless' in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of man, and to control them, they must be under some kind of law, or there will be anarchy. Without the law of God in you, a regulatable personality must be created to protect others from you! This is the purpose of legal personalities.
Therefore, if you use the words of the world, or do the deeds of the world, they will perceive you to be of the world, and Caesar will acquire jurisdiction over you. To avoid being regulated by Caesar, all one must do is avoid the things of Caesar and fully partake of the things of God.
To become able to identify the things that are Caesar's, and thereby avoid them, we will reiterate that Caesar has no-thing but an image, and it is that image that gives the power unto him. That image is only established and kept alive by those who live, move and have their being in that distorted image. If you're a 'thing', you're not made in the image and likeness of God, but you're made in the image and likeness of someone else who put his seal on you, who does his own will instead of the will of Almighty God. Labels are one of those things to bring a bondman of Christ into the house of bondage to the world (Galatians 2:4; 5:1, Hebrews 2:15, 2 Peter 2:19). In short, that which is outside Christ are the things that belong to Caesar, and are the things of death.
Labels are images, as was the superscription on the silver coin shown to Christ (Mark 12:15-17). Here, Christ said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." In this example, the Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. Since the Scripture says, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts" (Haggai 2:8), that means, in truth, the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. The substance of the coin itself was part of God's Creation. However, those who look to Caesar for their well-being will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. They don't look at the substance of the coin, they only look to the image on the coin.
If you worship that image, then everything you have belongs to Caesar, including the substance. Jesus was showing the blindness of the people who were looking to the image of Caesar, and not to the substance of the coin; and that's why they all marvelled at him (Mark 12:17). Jesus spoke the Truth, that truth being...if you look to Caesar you're going to render unto him; if you can only see the superscription, the image, the outward, the flesh, then you're going to render unto Caesar.
It is those people who keep that image alive, and it is that image which gives power unto Caesar. We are not to partake of the image of Caesar. For those that do not, "Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:54) in the Lord. Look to His image only and all the hidden and veiled images will disappear.
2 Corinthians 3:16-18, "Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
Colossians 3:1-2, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."
Wisdom of Solomon 6:11, "Wherefore set your affection upon my words; desire them, and ye shall be instructed."
May God give us the wisdom and knowledge to understand the difference between
the Words of His Kingdom and the Words of the World.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 Winter 2005 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making Sanja Zgonjanin CUNY School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons The CUNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact email@example.com. Recommended Citation Sanja Zgonjanin, Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making, 9 N.Y. City L. Rev. 31 (2005). Available at: 10.31641/clr090102 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision- Making Acknowledgements The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. This article is available in City University of New York Law Review: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol9/iss1/3 QUOTING THE BIBLE: THE USE OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING Sanja Zgonjanin* INTRODUCTION The use of religion in judicial decision-making is the subject of an ongoing debate.1 Whether and to what extent a decision is based on religious argument or influenced by religious convictions is a difficult question to answer. While scholars disagree on the appropriateness of religious arguments or influences in judicial decision- making,2 they commonly recognize that explicit reference to religious authority in a written opinion is problematic.3 Many * J.D. Candidate, City University of New York School of Law, May 2006; M.A., Columbia University, 2000; M.L.S., Queens College, 1999. The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. 1 See Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). 2 Scholars differ on the issue of the appropriateness of religion in judicial decision- making. However, most legal literature on the issue is written from the perspective advocating the use of religion in judicial decision-making. That viewpoint is shared by moderates and conservatives alike. See generally MICHAEL J. PERRY, RELIGION IN POLITICS: CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL PERSPECTIVES 102-04 (1999); KENT GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND POLITICAL CHOICE 239-41 (1988) [hereinafter GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS]; Scott C. Idleman, The Concealment of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 91 VA. L. REV. 515 (2005) [hereinafter Idleman, Concealment]; Teresa S. Collett, “The King’s Good Servant, but God’s First”: The Role of Religion in Judicial Decisionmaking, 41 S. TEX. L. REV. 1277 (2000); Mark B. Greenlee, Faith on the Bench: The Role of Religious Belief in the Criminal Sentencing Decisions of Judges, 26 U. DAYTON L. REV. 1 (2000); Daniel G. Ashburn, Appealing to a Higher Authority?: Jewish Law in American Judicial Opinions, 71 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 295 (1994). 3 GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 239 (“Judicial opinions are formalized justifications for decisions. Opinions are supposed to refer only to what is legally relevant . . . . What is legally relevant is generally conceived to be the same for all judges, so neither personal religious convictions nor any other idiosyncratic convictions are legally relevant. Given this understanding about judicial opinions, it follows that opinions should not contain direct references to the religious premises of judges.”); Mark C. Modak-Truran, Reenchanting the Law: The Religious Dimension of Judicial Decision Making, 53 CATH. U. L. REV. 709, 814 (2004) (“In addition, judges are not insincere by leaving their religious or comprehensive justifications out of their opinions but consistent with the Establishment Clause (i.e., the ‘rule of law’) and a proper understanding of religious pluralism. Leaving out religious justifications also facilities [sic] consensus on legal results and lower-level legal rules and principles without raising the thorny philosophical, theological, and hermenuetical [sic] questions implicated by religious justifications.”); Scott C. Idleman, The Limits of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 537, 542-43 (1998) (“In fact, given that religious bases may be less than universal in their acceptance among the relevant audiences to the opinion, it is quite sensible that the judge would not necessarily 31 32 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 judges are religiously active and outspoken about the impact of religion on their work.4 Some well-known Supreme Court justices were, and are, deeply religious.5 Unlike the past, today’s Supreme Court Justices, such as Antonin Scalia, speak publicly about their religious faith.6 Some judges have explicitly stated in their opinions that “[c]ourts must recognize that the state is but one of several spheres of government, each with its distinct jurisdiction and make reference to them in the act of justification.”); Bruce A. Green, The Role of Personal Values in Professional Decisionmaking, 11 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 19, 35 (1997) (“One would expect that a savvy judge who bases his or her decision on personal morality will not do so explicitly, but will cite only legally relevant grounds for the decision.”); Kent Greenawalt, Religious Expression in the Public Square—The Building Blocks for an Intermediate Position, 29 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1411, 1419 (1996); see generally David Barringer, Higher Authorities, A.B.A. J., Dec. 1996, at 68. 4 See, for example, Raul A. Gonzalez, Climbing the Ladder of Success—My Spiritual Journey, 27 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 1139, 1157 (1996), in which Texas Supreme Court Justice Gonzalez describes his religious re-awakening and the impact his faith had on his decisions, including Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1984); Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984); In re Unnamed Baby McLean, 725 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1987); Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1988); Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church, 836 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1992), Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993); Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. 1993); Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1996); and Krishnan v. Sepulveda, 916 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. 1995). He concludes: In each of the above cases, my relationship with God impacted the way I considered and wrote about the issues presented. How we experience God and our level of religious commitment (or lack of commitment) impacts our work. One’s views on how the world began, sin, forgiveness, and redemption influences our attitudes, behavior, and everything that we do. Gonzalez, supra, at 1157. 5 See generally James W. Gordon, Religion and the First Justice Harlan: A Case Study in Late Nineteenth Century Presbyterian Constitutionalism, 85 MARQ. L. REV. 317 (2001); Thomas C. Berg & William G. Ross, Some Religiously Devout Justices: Historical Notes and Comments, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 383 (1998); Stephen L. Carter, The Religiously Devout Judge, 64 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 932 (1989). Some judges believe that they have a right to use religious references in justifying their decisions. Judge Griffen, who is also a Baptist pastor, explains why he thinks he has that right: Finally, devout judges must remain sensitive to the important role that religious values and their proper expression serve within a pluralistic society. If the devout judge does not remind society that certain conduct is condemned as offensive to domestic tranquility, contrary to the laws of nature, or inconsistent with truth, then society is denied the value of that information and judgment in its pursuit of justice. The give-and-take of competing moral, behavioral, intellectual, and cultural philosophies is how a pluralistic society operates. The devout judge, as a citizen of two societies, helps society remain pluralist by thinking and acting in a holistic way, not by trivializing religious conviction. Wendell L. Griffen, The Case for Religious Values in Judicial Decision-Making, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 513, 520 (1998). 6 See Joan Biskupic, Scalia Makes The Case for Christianity; Justice Proclaims Belief in Miracles, WASH. POST, Apr. 10, 1996, at A1; see also, e.g., Michael Stokes Paulsen & Steffen N. Johnson, Scalia’s Sermonette, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 863 (1997). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 33 limited authority granted by God,”7 and “that God, not the state or any government established by man, is the source of all our rights.”8 Some judges use religion as an alternative to traditional sentencing such as jail or rehabilitation for drug and alcohol offenders. 9 Other judges go as far as prohibiting the parents in a divorce decree from exposing their child to “non-mainstream” religious beliefs and rituals.10 Despite the unprecedented presence of religion in the lives of ordinary American citizens,11 some scholars12 continue to maintain “a modern myth that religion is somehow persecuted in American life.”13 Responding to the argument that explicit religious references are rare or absent from judicial opinions,14 this Article will demonstrate that judges’ personal religious beliefs and religious education very often find a place in decisions they write.15 A quick 7 Ex parte G.C., No. 1040001, 2005 WL 1793345, at *22 (Ala. July 29, 2005) (Parker, J., dissenting). 8 Id. at *14 (Bolin, J., concurring specially). 9 See Alan Maimon, Judge Lets Some Defendants Attend Worship as Sentencing Option, COURIER-J. (Louisville, KY), May 31, 2005, at A1. Michael Caperton, a Laurel district judge since 1994 and a devout Christian, offered the option of attending worship for ten services “about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders.” Id. 10 See Kevin Corcoran, Father Appeals Anti-Wicca, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, May 26, 2005, at A1. 11 See generally Faith Based and Community Initiatives, http:// www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html (last visited Jan. 24, 2006). In the field of legal theory, one author suggested it is time to develop a Christian jurisprudence. Jonathan Edward Maire, The Possibility of a Christian Jurisprudence, 40 AM. J. JURIS. 101, 101-02 (1995). 12 Paulsen & Johnson, supra note 6, at 867 (commenting that Justice Scalia’s speech at a prayer breakfast at the First Baptist Church in Jackson, Mississippi, on April 9, 1996, was “about the clash of world views between Christianity and today’s dominant culture. It was about the difficulties of being a Christian in a secular world—our culture and, especially, our legal culture.”). 13 Biskupic, supra note 6, at A7 (quoting James Dunn, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs). 14 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 520 (“To most observers of the American legal system, including its participants, the absence of overt religious language or reasoning in judicial decisionmaking is unremarkable. In all likelihood, it is not even noticed.”); Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 786-87 (“[e]xplicit religious references rarely appear in judicial opinions.”); Berg & Ross, supra note 5, at 387 (“Note, however, the limits on the importance of religious arguments. First, such arguments do not appear as often as one might expect in an age of pervasive Christianity: one can basically count them on two hands.”); Richard H. Hiers, The Death Penalty and Due Process in Biblical Law, 81 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 751, 752 (2004) (“Biblical texts occasionally are even cited as authority in judicial opinions.”). 15 See generally J. Michael Medina, The Bible Annotated: Use of the Bible in Reported American Decisions, 12 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 187 (1991). This annotation collects cases where a court directly cites a biblical passage, and the author lists the following doctrines for which the Bible is cited as the foundation: “the sequestration rule, punitive damages, forgiveness of debts, due process, forfeiture, alien rights, statutory construc34 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Westlaw online survey of federal and state cases for the use of biblical books, such as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, produces a high number of results.16 Interestingly, courts of the nineteenth century rarely quoted the Bible, despite the fact that many judges were devoutly religious and active in their local congregations. 17 Quoting the Bible is much more characteristic of twentieth-century American courts and is a matter of great concern to anyone who believes that judicial decision-making should not be based on comprehensive doctrines such as religion.18 The first part of this Article discusses the judicial use of the Bible in criminal sentencing by trial courts. The second part examines some of the ways in which courts undermine the religious character of biblical quotations. The third part examines the variety of purposes for which courts use biblical quotations. The fourth part is a case study of judicial use of two specific biblical tion, basic agency doctrine, tenancy by the entirety, the two-witness rule, the right of confrontation, judicial impartiality, criminalization of sodomy, the necessity defense to criminal charges, the right of free travel, usury, eminent domain, impeachment of witnesses, the law of apportionment, property tax exemptions, double jeopardy, and various elements of past and present domestic relations law.” Id. at 189-91. 16 For example, a Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 resulted in the following: Genesis 1 is quoted in 10 state and 11 federal cases; Exodus 21 is quoted in 59 state and 27 federal cases; Leviticus 24 is quoted in 5 state and 8 federal cases; Deuteronomy 19 is quoted in 16 state and 7 federal cases. In the same search, the word Leviticus appeared in 126 state, 89 federal, and 4 Supreme Court cases; the word Deuteronomy appeared in 173 state, 100 federal, and 5 Supreme Court cases. This author’s review of search results showed that only a small number of quotations are part of the facts of a case. Due to the lack of more precise search methods in Westlaw and Lexis databases that would allow comprehensive inquiries of biblical quotations, this Article was limited to a discussion of a very narrow scope of biblical quotations in judicial opinions. 17 See infra Appendix. 18 John Rawls based his theory of justice on the concept of public reason shared by all citizens, “independent of opposing and conflicting philosophical and religious doctrines,” and “an overlapping consensus of reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.” He said: The religious doctrines that in previous centuries were the professed basis of society have gradually given way to principles of constitutional government that all citizens, whatever their religious view, can endorse. Comprehensive political and moral doctrines likewise cannot be endorsed by citizens generally, and they also no longer can, if they ever could, serve as the professed basis of society. JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 9-10 (1993). Rawls viewed the Supreme Court as the best exemplar of public reason in a society of constitutional regime with judicial review and argued that public reason is “well suited to be the court’s reason in exercising its role . . . .” Id. at 231. But see generally GREENAWALT, Publicly Accessible Grounds of Decision and Religious Convictions, in RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 49-84; and Richard Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1637 (1998). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 35 passages, Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. The fifth part considers the judicial use of religious references other than the Bible. The Article concludes that the use of religious references in judicial decision- making should be prohibited.19 “The Christian state knows only privileges.”20 Christian faith is privileged in the United States.21 Because a privilege is not a right, the government is under no obligation to confront the injustice and discrimination created by it.22 On the contrary, since the religious beliefs of a majority of Americans are associated with Christianity, 23 such privilege is largely invisible and sustained by the power it creates.24 As is often the case, the characteristics of the majority become so internalized that they are considered the social norm.25 In a way, they “domesticate” the minority.26 Additionally, 19 “The justices cannot, of course, invoke their own personal morality, nor the ideals and virtues of morality generally. Those they must view as irrelevant. Equally, they cannot invoke their or other people’s religious or philosophical views.” RAWLS, supra note 18, at 236. 20 KARL MARX, On The Jewish Question, in 3 KARL MARX & FREDERICK ENGELS: COLLECTED WORKS 1843-44, at 146, 146 (Jack Cohen et al. trans., 1975). 21 Joseph R. Duncan, Jr., Privilege, Invisibility, and Religion: A Critique of the Privilege that Christianity Has Enjoyed in the United States, 54 ALA. L. REV. 617, 626 (2003). See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952) (upholding a New York City program permitting public schools to release students to attend religious instruction and stating, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”); Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892) (holding that a statute prohibiting the contracting of foreigners to perform labor and services did not apply to clergy, and stating that “this is a Christian nation”). 22 See Duncan, supra note 21, at 621. 23 See BARRY A. KOSMIN ET AL., THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 12 (2001), http:// www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf (on file with the author). According to the most comprehensive study of religious identification of American adults, done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 76.5% of the U.S. population self-identifies as Christians. Id. See also Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America, http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html (last updated Jan. 24, 2006). 24 Duncan, supra note 21, at 622. See also Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). Applying Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the court held that the county board’s invocation policy excluding a county resident’s Wiccan religion was constitutionally sound and that the Wiccan religion was not monotheistic, did not “fit broadly within ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition,’” and lacked “the unifying aspects of our heritage.” Id. 25 See Stephanie M. Wildman with Adrienne D. Davis, Language and Silence: Making Systems of Privilege Visible, 35 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 881, 890 (1995). See also STEPHANIE M. WILDMAN, PRIVILEGE REVEALED: HOW INVISIBLE PREFERENCE UNDERMINES AMERICA 141 (1996). [O]ur social system is not supposed to privilege organized religion or religious belief over the secular realm. But this protection of the secular creates a peculiar vacuum, in which religion is supposed to be invisible, yet Christmas is a national holiday. Even the phrasing ‘church [but 36 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 religious practices and expressions are widely accepted and sanctioned by courts based on their context27 or tradition.28 It is now accepted that religious practices and expressions that are deeply embedded in the nation’s history and tradition do not violate the Constitution.29 They include, among others, opening the Supreme Court session with “God save the United States and this honorable not synagogue or mosque] and state’ privileges Christianity as the defining religion for constitutional drafting. Systems of privilege and the religious/ secular dichotomy intertwine with the rule of law to contribute to the undermining of justice. Systemic privileging and oppression remain invisible and undiscussed, in accordance with the unwritten rules of our society. The rule of law does nothing to end this invisibility and may even contribute to its continuation. Thus the very act of seeing that the rule of law and systems of privilege undermine justice is itself problematic. A full attack on privileging and oppression can begin in earnest only when the legal profession recognizes this privileging dynamic. But this reality—privilege—that we must see has not even found articulation in legal vocabulary. Id. 26 The term “domestication” is borrowed from lesbian legal theory. “Domestication also describes a process of substituting one way of thinking for another. Domestication has occurred when the views of the dominant culture, in this case legal culture, are so internalized they are considered common sense.” Ruthann Robson, Mother: The Legal Domestication of Lesbian Existence, 7 HYPATIA 172, 172 (1992). 27 See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 621 (1989) (holding that a display of the cr`eche in a county courthouse violates the Establishment Clause while the display of a menorah in front of a county building, in a particular setting next to a Christmas tree, does not); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (holding that “notwithstanding the religious significance of the cr`eche,” its display by the city did not violate the Establishment Clause). Justice Burger stated: It would be ironic, however, if the inclusion of a single symbol of a particular historic religious event, as part of a celebration acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, by the Executive Branch, by the Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so “taint” the city’s exhibit as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol— the cr`eche—at the very time people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools and other public places, and while the Congress and legislatures open sessions with prayers by paid chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and to our holdings. Id. at 686. 28 See Freethought Soc’y of Greater Phila. v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 269 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that a Ten Commandments plaque affixed to a courthouse is not a real threat to the Establishment Clause). The court noted that “the age and history of the plaque provide a context which changes the effect of an otherwise religious plaque.” Id. at 264 (citing County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). 29 See Marsh, 463 U.S. at 788-89. Justice Burger held that a century-old practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with public funds does not pose a real threat to the Establishment Clause. Id. at 795. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 37 Court;”30 opening a legislative session with a prayer;31 recognizing the nation in the pledge of allegiance as “one Nation under God;”32 and printing “In God We Trust” on our money,33 and posting it in court rooms, Congressional chambers, and other places of government business. After all, “In God we trust” is our national motto,34 and Thanksgiving and Christmas are national holidays.35 President Reagan even once proclaimed 1983 the year of the Bible.36 The privilege of Christian religion is also affirmed and supported by Congress. For example in 2005, members of Congress introduced a House resolution directing the Speaker of the House to display the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber in case the Supreme Court was to rule that the government display of the Ten Commandments in public places is unconstitutional.37 Advanced by Representatives King, Chabot, Bartlett, Norwood, Pitts, Westmoreland, Blackburn, Fox, Gingrey, Hostettler, Goode, and Alexander, the resolution was introduced in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on two Ten Commandment cases argued during the April 2005 term: Van Orden v. Perry38 and McCreary County v. ACLU.39 The resolution states, among other things, that the House “recognizes that posting the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber is a constitutionally protected expression of our Nation’s heritage and the foundation of our laws.”40 The statement that biblical commands are the foundation of our laws may come as a surprise to law school students who, upon entering law school, first 30 County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reaffirming the secular purpose of “ceremonial deism” of the phrase, “God save the United States and this honorable Court,” which, despite its religious roots, does not convey endorsement of a particular religious belief). 31 Marsh, 463 U.S. at 795. See also Simpson, 404 F.3d at 282 (applying Marsh, which “teaches[ ] legislative invocations perform the venerable function of seeking divine guidance for the legislature”). But see Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2990 (2005) (holding that the Town Council’s invoking of Jesus Christ while excluding deities associated with other faiths was “not constitutionally accepted legislative prayer like that approved in Marsh”). 32 4 U.S.C. § 4 (2000). 33 31 U.S.C. § 5112 (2000). 34 36 U.S.C. § 302 (2000). 35 5 U.S.C. § 6103 (1990). 36 S.J. Res. 165, 97th Cong., 96 Stat. 1211 (1982). 37 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 125 S. Ct. 2854, 2864 (2005) (holding that the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas state capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause). 39 125 S. Ct. 2722, 2745 (2005) (holding that displaying the Ten Commandments at a Kentucky county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause). 40 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 learn about the history and sources of American law. One of the most popular law school books on this topic is the Historical Introduction to Anglo-American Law in a Nutshell.41 In tracing American legal history, this book starts by pointing out that most of the concepts of Anglo-American law were developed in the last eight hundred years,42 thus excluding the Bible as a direct source of our laws. The book also lays out two main sources of law upon which the American legal system relies: cases and statutes.43 The Bible is not mentioned as a source of American law. The privilege of Christianity as the predominant religion in the United States is vigorously supported by the media. While the author was working on this Article, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005.44 Shortly thereafter, on April 11, 2005, Maurice Hilleman, one of the greatest scientists of modern times, died.45 While Pope John Paul II was considered by many to be one of the most important “spiritual leaders and moral teachers of the Modern Era”46 and probably one of the most famous people in the world, microbiologist Maurice Hilleman remained “the world’s best kept secret.” 47 The discrepancy in the print media coverage of the deaths of these two important persons speaks for itself and is stunning. A search of the term “Pope John” in the “Major Newspapers” section of the Lexis News & Business online database produced 1086 entries for the period between April 2, 2005, when the Pope died, and April 3, 2005, when the news was announced. In contrast, a search for “Maurice Hilleman” in the same database for the period between April 11, 2005, when the scientist died, and April 12, 2005, when the news was released, produced only four results: the Balti- 41 FREDERICK G. KEMPIN, JR., HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW IN A NUTSHELL (3d. ed. 1990). 42 Id. at 2. 43 See id. at 95-125. For a detailed explanation of sources of Anglo-American law, see generally CARLETON KEMP ALLEN, LAW IN THE MAKING (1927); and SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW BEFORE THE TIME OF EDWARD I (2d ed. 1923). 44 See After 26-Year Reign, Pontiff Dies at 84, CNN, Apr. 2, 2005, http:// www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/02/pope.dies/index.html; Ian Fisher, Pope John Paul II Dies at 84, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 3, 2005, at A1. 45 Lawrence K. Altman, Maurice Hilleman, Master in Creating Vaccines, Dies at 85, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 12, 2005, at A1. 46 S. Res. 95, 109th Cong. (2005). See also S. Res. 94, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. Res. 186, 109th Cong. (2005). 47 Patricia Sullivan, Maurice R. Hilleman Dies; Created Vaccines, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at B6. Maurice Hilleman “invented over 40 vaccines, including those for mumps, chickenpox, measles, rubella, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, and countless variants of the flu virus.” Caroline Richmond, Obituary, Maurice Hilleman; Inventor of More than 40 Vaccines, INDEPENDENT (London), Apr. 20, 2005, at 35. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 39 more Sun, the New York Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Seattle Times. While religious expression is recognized as part of American tradition and history, no court has yet provided a reasonable explanation of how the passage of time makes religious expression less religious and more secular so that it becomes a primary source of constitutional legitimacy.48 The proposition that religious practices and expressions do not violate the Constitution because they are accepted by a majority of society or are somehow “secularized” is a dangerous one.49 The government’s endorsement and use of religion encourages the oppression of minorities because it makes religious privilege invisible, allowing the majority in power to use the law according to its own beliefs.50 Congress is the biggest threat today to both judicial independence from religion and the court’s traditional role as the interpreter of the law. Members of Congress introduced the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.51 48 Charles Gregory Warren, No Need to Stand on Ceremony: The Corruptive Influence of Ceremonial Deism and the Need for a Separationist Reconfiguration of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, 54 MERCER L. REV. 1669, 1691-92 (2003). See also State v. Ceballos, 832 A.2d 14, 55 (Conn. 2003) (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). [N]ot all religious references, including allusions to the Bible, God or other biblical characters, are impermissible. This is because many words and phrases traditionally viewed as religious in nature or derived from religious sources have become, over time, an integral part of the English language, and no longer may be recognized by either prosecutors or jurors as having purely religious connotations or derivations. Consider, for example, the phrases “raising Cain” and “for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Both phrases are common expressions derived from the Bible. Still other expressions, such as “an eye for an eye,” have both religious and secular origins. Id. (citation omitted). 49 Warren, supra note 48, at 1692-93. 50 See generally Duncan, supra note 21. 51 S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); see also H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). The Constitution Restoration Act was first introduced during the 108th Congress. See S. 2082, 108th Cong. (2004); S. 2323, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 3799, 108th Cong. (2004). During the 108th Congress, many other bills and resolutions were introduced recog40 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 By imposing its own religious values, the conservative religious right movement is destroying two of the most important values of American society: tolerance and pluralism.52 Attempts by conservative members of Congress to deprive the Supreme Court and the federal courts of their jurisdiction in solving disputes with religious subject matter are without precedent in our history. These attempts undermine the long-standing principle of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison.53 At the same time, courts’ use of religious references and religious convictions in their decisionmaking is on the rise.54 It is hardly worth noting that, in a society with a Christian majority, the majority of judges are Christians.55 The power of the nizing the privilege of Christianity. See also H.R.J. Res. 39, 108th Cong. (2004) (constitutional amendment proposing “[a] law that prescribes the Pledge of Allegiance or provides for United States coins or currency is not a law respecting an establishment of religion because it refers to God in the Pledge or includes a reference to God on coins or currency.”); S. 1558, 108th Cong. (2003) (Religious Liberties Restoration Act proposing: the power to display the Ten Commandments on government property; the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on government property; the power to recite the national motto “In God We Trust” on government property; and the power to except this subject matter from the jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court); S. Con. Res. 91, 108th Cong. (2004) (proposing to designate April 2005 as American Religious History Month and requesting that “the President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the year with appropriate ceremonies and activities”). 52 Abraham H. Foxman, Foreword to ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: THE ASSAULT ON TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM IN AMERICA, at iii-iv (1994). This book provides an insight into the grassroots organizing and political commitment of the religious right that led to its enormous power and influence over all three branches of the government in the 1990s. The author defines the religious right as an: array of politically conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to influence public policy based on shared cultural philosophy that is antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation. The movement consists mainly of Protestants, most of them evangelical or fundamentalist, a far smaller number of Catholics, and a smattering of Jews. Id. at 7. 53 See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Id. 54 See infra Appendix. 55 The first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court, Louis D. Brandeis, was appointed in 1916 by President Wilson. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg, From Benjamin to Brandeis to Breyer: Is There a Jewish Seat?, 41 BRANDEIS L.J. 229, 233 (2002). See also Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html (last modified Jan. 31, 2006) (noting that with the confirmation of Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court consists of seven Christian (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas) and two Jewish (Breyer and Ginsburg) justices). Statistics show that the Supreme Court is 78% Christian, with a Catholic majority of 56%; while 76.5% of the total U.S. population is affiliated with Christianity. Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 41 courts to use religious references as they see fit should not be underestimated. Speaking about the power of judicial review, Alexander Bickel once said, “[t]he least dangerous branch of the American government is the most extraordinarily powerful court of law the world has ever known.”56 Judges should be mindful of the power they are vested with and the public trust in their impartiality and refrain entirely from using religious references in their decision-making. Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which, in addition to its canons requiring that judges uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary,57 clearly states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.58 The arbitrariness, inconsistency, and lack of law on the use of religious references in decision-making are some of the main reasons why such use should be proscribed. I. RELYING ON THE BIBLE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING While the use of religious references in judicial decision-making is generally unjustified and inappropriate, the most disturbing and harmful invocation of the Bible takes place in criminal sentencing decisions. The Bible is regularly quoted during the criminal sentencing phase of trials by prosecutors and defense attorneys. In their closing arguments, both sides often invoke the Bible in order to convince juries that defendants deserve or do not deserve punishment. Even those defendants who do not wish to use biblical passages in their closing arguments, or for whom such use may be inappropriate, are coerced into doing so in response to prosecutorial use of religion. Such biblical invocation poses a great threat to a defendant’s constitutional rights.59 However, attorneys 56 ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 1 (2d. ed. 1986). 57 ANNOTATED MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canons 1 & 3 (2004). 58 Id. at Canon 3 (B)(5). 59 See generally Marcus S. Henson, Carruthers v. State: Thou Shalt Not Make Direct Religious References in Closing Argument, 52 MERCER L. REV. 731 (2001). But see Elizabeth A. Brooks, Thou Shalt Not Quote the Bible: Determining the Propriety of Attorney Use of Religious Philosophy and Themes in Oral Arguments, 33 GA. L. REV. 1113 (1999). 42 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 are not alone in quoting the Bible. They are increasingly joined by trial judges, who use religious references in their decision-making process and their written opinions.60 While no court has yet specifically addressed whether judicial reliance on religious convictions in written opinions violates the Establishment Clause,61 some courts have considered the issue of whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated when judges rely on religious convictions or religious texts during the sentencing phase. In one well-publicized case, televangelist James O. Bakker, convicted of fraud and conspiracy, challenged his forty-fiveyear sentence claiming a due process violation because the trial judge made personal religious remarks during sentencing.62 The Fourth Circuit held that the trial judge’s comment, “[h]e had no thought whatever about his victims and those of us who do have a religion are ridiculed as being saps from money-grubbing preachers or priests,” made during sentencing, violated Bakker’s due process.63 The Bakker court recognized that the Constitution does not require judges to relinquish their religious beliefs when they assume the office, but it stated that “[c]ourts, however, cannot sanction sentencing procedures that create the perception of the bench as a pulpit from which judges announce their personal sense of religiosity and simultaneously punish defendants for offending it. Whether or not the trial judge has a religion is irrelevant for purposes of sentencing.”64 While Bakker does not involve explicit religious reference by a judge, it serves as a good example of a decision validating the utmost importance of judicial impartiality. However, judges differ on their approach to the use of religious references by their colleagues. The Ohio case of James Arnett is illustrative of the opposing views that judges hold about the use of religious references in judicial decision-making. James Arnett was sentenced to fifty-one years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts of rape and one count of pandering obscenity to the minor daughter of his live-in girl- 60 See Lis Wiehl, Judges and Lawyers Are Not Singing from the Same Hymnal When It Comes to Allowing the Bible in the Courtroom, 24 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 273, 274 (2000). 61 Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 783. For a discussion about the lack of Establishment Clause violation challenges in capital cases involving religion during the penalty phase, closing arguments, and jury deliberations, see Gary J. Simson & Stephen P. Garvey, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: Rethinking the Role of Religion in Death Penalty Cases, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 1090, 1104-30 (2001). 62 United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740 (4th Cir. 1991). 63 Id. at 740-41. 64 Id. at 740. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 43 friend.65 On appeal, the court remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge acted outside the state’s sentencing guidelines and that she violated the defendant’s due process when she used a specific text from the Bible as a determining factor in sentencing.66 The trial judge explained to the defendant that when she had recently imposed a twenty-year sentence for a murder, at least the victim was gone and there was no pain to suffer, but in his case the victim would hurt for the rest of her life.67 The judge proceeded by describing her struggle the night before the sentencing decision about what sentence to impose when she found the answer in a biblical passage.68 The judge then quoted a passage from Matthew 18:5-6: “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, [sic] receiveth me. But, [sic] whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that [sic] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”69 It is interesting to note that Judge Painter, who wrote the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion, added a footnote after the above quotation, in which he noted: We must quote from the trial transcript, which is not entirely consistent with the Bible, King James Version. The notation “sic” indicates instances where words should have been italicized and where commas should not have been added. We assume that the court reporter added these errors and that the judge read the passage correctly.70 The apologetic tone of this footnote about quoting from a nonauthoritative version of the Bible and the care taken to achieve compliance with the King James Version is most striking. The authoritativeness of the King James Version71 appears to be self-evident for readers familiar with Christian religious texts, but this is most peculiar for someone who does not belong to that majority. It is not entirely clear why the judge took such care to correct the 65 State v. Arnett, Nos. C-980172, C-980173, 1999 WL 65632, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 5, 1999), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 66 Id. at *2. 67 Id. at *1. 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 Id. at *1 n.1. 71 More than fifty English translations were printed before the King James Bible was published in 1611. DAVID CRYSTAL, THE STORIES OF ENGLISH 271-75 (2004). The King James Version, popularly known as the “Authorized Version,” was selected to be read in churches. Id. Most of its vocabulary and phrasing derived from the first English translation by William Tyndale, printed in 1525-1526. Id. 44 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 errors, namely italics and misplacement of commas, or why there was a concern with whether the judge read the passage correctly. It seems almost as if there was a legal requirement that when a court cites the Bible, the King James Version must be used. After the state appealed, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the sentence, holding that a sentencing judge’s quotation of a religious text and the acknowledgement of its use during the deliberation process is not impermissible per se and does not violate a defendant’s due process.72 The defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause and his due process rights.73 The district court held that the First Amendment claim was waived due to failure to include it in a brief and argument before the state appellate court, but that the judge’s reliance on a biblical passage as the final source for determining the sentence warranted conditional habeas relief until resentencing by a different judge.74 Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the habeas petition, holding that the trial judge’s quotation of Matthew 18:5-675 in determining the sentence did not violate the defendant’s due process right because the biblical passage relied upon was just an “additional” source, rather than the “final” source of the decision.76 However, the dissent noted that the trial judge’s reliance on the New Testament provision to determine the sentence was dispositive because, according to the record, the judge admitted that her struggle over the final sentence was answered by this biblical passage. 77 Relying on Bakker, the dissent concluded that the use of a religious text as an authoritative source for reaching a legal result violated the defendant’s fundamental expectation of due process and expressed this related concern: If the Constitution sanctions such direct reliance on religious sources when imposing criminal sentences, then there is nothing to stop prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers from regularly citing religious sources like the Bible, the Talmud, or the Koran to justify their respective positions on punishment. The 72 State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793, 804 (Ohio 2000), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 73 Arnett v. Jackson, 290 F. Supp. 2d 874, 875 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The court found that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the standard of review set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Id. at 877-78. 74 Id. at 878. 75 Arnett v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 681, 684 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 76 Id. at 688. 77 Id. at 689 (Clay, J., dissenting). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 45 judge would be placed in the position of not only considering statutory sentencing factors, but also deciding which religious texts best justify a particular sentence. Under this approach, the judgments of trial courts could begin to resemble the fatwas of religious clerics, and the opinions of appellate courts echo the proclamations of the Sanhedrin.78 The Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that “[t]here is nothing in the totality of the circumstances of Arnett’s sentencing to indicate that the trial judge used the Bible as her ‘final source of authority,’ as found by the district court,”79 is contrary to the trial judge’s own words: Because I was looking for a source, what do I turn to, to make, to make that determination, what sentence you should get . . . . And in looking at the final part of my struggle with you, I finally answered my question late at night when I turned to one additional source to help me.80 Although the trial judge said she turned to “one additional source,” she used the words “make that determination” when she referred to the sentence to impose.81 More importantly, she used the words “final part” and “finally answered” which clearly emphasized that the finality of her sentencing decision was solved by that one additional source.82 The plain meaning of the language “final” and “finally” was simply dismissed by the Sixth Circuit. The court justified its conclusion by reasoning that, “The [b]iblical principle of not harming children is fully consistent with Ohio’s sentencing consideration to the same effect.”83 The fact that the judge did not impose the maximum sentence commanded by the Bible proved that she did not actually sentence the defendant based upon her religious belief.84 As is obvious from the Arnett case, courts often justify the use of religious references on the grounds of consistency with the statutory law applied in the case. That is an unnecessary and disturbing practice. In considering the defendant’s due process 78 Id. at 691 (Clay, J., dissenting). 79 Id. at 688. 80 Id. at 684. 81 Id. In discussing what constitutes reliance on religious convictions, Kent Greenawalt states, “[t]he clearest instances of reliance on religious convictions occur when the person is certain that he would make a different choice if he disregarded those convictions. . . . A person is clearly not relying on religious convictions when his choice rests firmly on independent grounds.” GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 36. 82 Arnett, 393 F.3d at 684. 83 Id. at 688. 84 Id. 46 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 violation claim in Arnett, the Sixth Circuit used the Supreme Court rule that a defendant’s due process rights are violated when the death sentence is based on “factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process, such as for example the race, religion or political affiliation of the defendant.” 85 The Sixth Circuit then said, without any additional explanation, that the trial judge in Arnett did not base her decision on an impermissible factor, and that the factor used was not “totally irrelevant” because it was consistent with the sentencing statute.86 Nevertheless, before it reversed and remanded the case, the Sixth Circuit recognized the following: “We reach this conclusion despite the fact that reasonable minds could certainly question the propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision.”87 Whether the biblical passage quoted in an opinion is consistent or inconsistent with the statutory provision governing the case is irrelevant and, as such, should not be considered or included in a written opinion justifying a decision. Another example of the judicial use of biblical passages in criminal sentencing is the Nebraska case State v. Pattno.88 In Pattno, the defendant pled guilty to the sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to a minimum of twenty months and a maximum of five years in prison by the trial court judge.89 Before he imposed the sentence, the trial judge recited an extensive biblical scripture against homosexuality90 followed by the comment that he also con- 85 Id. at 686 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885 (1983)). 86 Id. at 686-87. 87 Id. at 688. 88 579 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 1998). 89 Id. at 506. 90 Id. at 505-06. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his external power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him as God, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever [sic]. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 47 sidered the “nature . . . of the defendant.”91 The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a reasonable person could have questioned the trial judge’s impartiality because he relied upon his personal religious beliefs in deciding the sentence.92 The court also pointed out that the defendant was convicted of having sexual contact with a minor, which is a crime, and not of having sexual contact with a person of the same gender, which is not a crime in the state of Nebraska.93 It is not unusual for judges to inject biblical passages in their opinions as justification for supporting the harsh punishment of certain crimes such as child sexual abuse. In People v. Jagnjic, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to no less than five and no more than fifteen years in prison.94 However, the New York Appellate Division found that, absent a professional psychiatric evaluation, the sentence was excessive. 95 In a dissenting opinion, Justice Lupiano pointed to the heinous nature of the crime, arguing that the sentencing decision should not be disturbed and quoted a biblical passage to support that view: The condemnation of crimes against the young is deeply ingrained in the ethical and moral history of western civilization. Indeed, the bible is replete with references to this universal condemnation as, for example, the following scriptural passage concerning children—“Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones . . . it were better than a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).96 Quoting the Bible in support of a judicial decision is in clear violation of the judicial code, and it prejudices defendants not only by the content of the religious reference, but by the very fact that an irrelevant, extralegal source is used in the decision-making process. Id. (quoting the Bible). 91 Id. at 506. 92 Id. at 509. 93 Id. at 508. No statute in this state criminalizes sexual contact between consenting adults of the same gender. Thus, Pattno’s crime is that he had sexual contact with a minor; not that he had sexual contact with another male. Therefore, the biblical scripture which the judge read was not relevant to the crime to which Pattno pled guilty, and it should not have been considered by the judge in determining an appropriate sentence. Id. 94 447 N.Y.S.2d 439, 439 (App. Div. 1982). 95 See id. at 439-40. 96 Id. at 443 (Lupiano, J., dissenting). 48 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 As the Arnett, Pattno, and Jagnjic cases illustrate, any reliance on the Bible as a direct or supporting source of authority in the decisionmaking process jeopardizes the integrity of the criminal justice system and, if not proscribed, encourages further use of the Bible by judges and other officers of the court. II. UNDERMINING THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES There are many cases where judicial reference to a biblical passage is justified by the use of language that undermines the religious character of the text or its authority.97 This type of qualifying statement is in direct contradiction to the actual meaning of the text and to courts’ use of the Bible to support their arguments in countless cases in which the biblical references are used in their proper meaning. It is only logical to conclude that any use of biblical references in judicial decision-making, especially in written opinions, must be entirely arbitrary. On one hand, judges invoke the Bible as serious support for their propositions, and, on the other, their use of the Bible is trivialized. Judge Hildebrandt, who dissented in the State v. Arnett Ohio Court of Appeals decision finding a violation of due process, used the “mere”98 language justifica- 97 By qualifying a statement with “mere” or “merely,” courts undermine the religious value of the source from which the quotation is taken, despite the fact that the Bible is cited as the authority. This trend is consistent with the Supreme Court’s “secularization” of religious expressions. See generally Ashley M. Bell, “God Save This Honorable Court”: How Current Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Can Be Reconciled with the Secularization of Historical Religious Expressions, 50 AM. U. L. REV. 1273 (2001). Bell criticizes the Supreme Court’s secularization approach to religious expression: In addition to being an inconsistent solution, secularization does a great disservice to both religion and society. . . . Moreover, the Court seems more apt to secularize practices derived from Christianity, thus preferring Christianity over other religions. This consequence results in ‘religious divisiveness, violating the fundamental principles behind the religion clauses.’ Thus, the entire purpose of secularization backfires in its process. While attempting to neutralize religious influence, the Court in actuality prefers some religions, namely Christianity, over others. Id. at 1305-07. This critique is consistent with the famous quote of the Supreme Court that, “The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact.” Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980). 98 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “mere” and “merely” as follows: “mere- Having no greater extent, range, value, power, or importance that the designation implies; that is barely or only what it is said to be;[ ] insignificant, ordinary, foolish, inept” and “merely-Without any other quality, reason, purpose, view, etc.; only (what is referred to) and nothing more.” SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES 1750 (5th ed. 2002). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 49 tion twice in a very short opinion. Hildebrandt stated that “[t]he language quoted from the Bible merely reflects society’s interests in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, a laudable goal that is incorporated into the sentencing guidelines enacted by the General Assembly.”99 The dissent concluded, “[t]he mere citation of scriptural material in pronouncing the sentence should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the trial judge based her decision on the proper statutory considerations and that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice resulted from the judge’s statements.”100 In reinstating the sentence, Supreme Court of Ohio Judge Cook used the “mere” language to distinguish general principles from personal beliefs: “Several state supreme courts, though they cite Bakker with approval, have declined to vacate sentences where the judge’s religious comments merely acknowledge generally accepted principles, as opposed to highly personal religious beliefs that become the basis for the sentence imposed.”101 In conclusion, the court found that “Arnett’s sentencing judge cited a religious text merely to acknowledge one of several reasons—‘one additional source’—for assigning significant weight to a legitimate statutory sentencing factor.”102 The court’s distinguishing of Bakker from Arnett is unpersuasive when it states that “Bakker merely prohibits a judge’s personal religious principles from being ‘the basis of a sentencing decision.’”103 There is no explanation of how the trial judge’s personal religious principles in Arnett were not implicated within the general principles when she turned to the book of Matthew for final help in determining the sentence. A judge’s personal perception of the meaning of biblical passages seems to be crucial in determining whether the use of the Bible is authoritative or symbolic. A judge’s use of the word “mere” often determines whether a defendant’s due process challenge succeeds. For example, in State v. Cribbs, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence of a defendant convicted of premeditated first degree murder.104 On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution’s use of biblical references to justify the death sentence violated his due process rights.105 The state argued 99 Arnett, 1999 WL 65632, at *3 (Hildebrandt, J., dissenting). 100 Id. 101 Arnett, 724 N.E.2d at 803. 102 Id. 103 Id. at 804. 104 967 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tenn. 1998). 105 Id. at 783. 50 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 that although biblical quotations were impermissible, the prosecutor’s use of the language “‘whatever a man sows, so shall he reap’ was merely a metaphor for individual accountability, rather than a justification for imposition of the death penalty.”106 Noting that a biblical reference in this case was inappropriate, the court nevertheless accepted the state’s argument finding that it did not prejudice the defendant.107 The court justified its finding by calling attention to the consistency of the biblical principle with the statute: “[W]e view the comments by the prosecutor which implied that Tennessee law embraced the principle of ‘reap what you sow’ as merely an extension of that metaphor.”108 Similarly, the dissent in People v. Harlan used the “merely” phraseology to point out the trial court’s misquoting of biblical passages in the trial record. Harlan was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, but his sentence was vacated because the jury was permitted to bring “the Bible into the jury room to share with others the written Leviticus and Romans texts during the deliberation.” 109 According to the dissent, the trial court concluded that one of the jurors used Romans 13:1, “which requires that one look at government authorities as God’s representative on earth and follow their lead as agents of ‘wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer.’”110 The dissent did not contest that the juror used Romans 13:1, but it explained that the passage “merely states ‘Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.’”111 The judge said that the trial court actually imported the language “wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer” from Romans 13:4 and criticized the majority for not correcting “these overstatements.”112 The thrust of the Romans passage is an absolute submission to the authorities—and only those established by God. The trial court’s use of language from 106 Id. 107 Id. at 784. 108 Id. 109 109 P.3d 616, 632 (Colo. 2005). This case immediately caught the attention of the media. See Kirk Johnson, Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 29, 2005, at A1; Thane Rosenbaum, Is Court a Place for Morals?, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at B11; Eric Gorski, Book, Not Faith, Broke Court Rules, DENV. POST, Mar. 30, 2005, at 1A; Suzanne Goldenberg, US Jury’s Bible Death Sentence Quashed, GUARDIAN, Mar. 30, 2005, at 11; Bible-Influenced Death Penalty Ruling Rejected, IRISH TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at 10. 110 Harlan, 109 P.3d at 635 (Rice, J., dissenting). 111 Id. 112 Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 51 Romans 13:4 about the consequences of wrongdoing that would be imposed by God’s appointees neither changed the nature of the command from Romans 13:1 nor undermined the main idea of divine authority this biblical passage conveyed. The juror’s reference to Romans 13:1 alone was sufficient as an improper invocation of an extra-legal authority and cannot be undermined by the dissent’s language “merely states.” This case exemplifies how a judge’s personal view and interpretation of the Bible may affect the outcome of a case. There are many other ways courts qualify the use of religious references in order to find it justifiable or to undermine the impact of such references. One example of the characterization of the use of a biblical passage is found in Bussard v. Lockhart.113 In that case, the court denied a habeas petition for a defendant who escaped from arrest after committing murder, remaining at-large for four years.114 The prosecutor in Bussard used a biblical passage to support the inference of guilt from the escape: “Proverbs 28:1 fits it just as clear as it can be. ‘The guilty flee when no man pursueth while the righteous stand bold as a lion.’ He fled to avoid coming to trial. That shows guilt.”115 In addressing the use of the biblical passage, the court stated: The prosecutor did not use the Bible to invoke the wrath of God against Bussard or to suggest that the jury apply divine law as an alternative to the law of Arkansas. Instead, the prosecutor simply resorted to Proverbs for a more poetic version of a commonsense connection expressly recognized by Arkansas law: flight suggests consciousness of guilt.116 The court cited two cases Killcrease v. State117 and Ward v. State118 in support of the proclamation that Arkansas law expressly recognizes that flight suggests consciousness of guilt.119 A careful reader will notice, however, that only in the Killcrease case was there an issue of flight from arrest.120 Although in Ward the court discussed the fact that the defendant fled the scene upon the arrival of the police, nowhere did the court indicate that the flight was an issue in the case, nor did it state a particular rule related to flight other than “it 113 32 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 1994). 114 Id. at 323. 115 Id. at 324. 116 Id. 117 836 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Ark. 1992) (flight from arrest corroborates other evidence of guilt). 118 816 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991) (flight from scene of crime). 119 Bussard, 32 F.3d at 324. 120 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 381. 52 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 may be considered with other evidence in determining guilt.”121 In Killcrease, the defendant was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the evidence of his arrest in Louisiana was irrelevant because no warrant was issued or any charges filed when he left Arkansas.122 The court held that it was up to a jury to determine whether the defendant fled to avoid arrest and that “[f]light to avoid arrest may be considered by the jury as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”123 In support of this rule, the Killcrease court cited two opinions, Riddle v. State and Ferguson v. State.124 The long line of cases using this rule leads to Stevens v. State, the first case that formulated it as follows: “Flight of the accused is admissible as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”125 Although many courts followed the rule as articulated in Stevens,126 the court in Ferguson changed the language by omitting the word “circumstance” from its holding that flight may “be considered as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”127 The difference between the biblical proverb used by the prosecutor in Bussard to support the demonstration of guilt and the rule as originally formulated by the Supreme Court of Arkansas is evident. The language in the proverb sends the message that fleeing is evidence of guilt, while the language of the court’s rule states that fleeing may be considered as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to prove guilt. Even if one compares the modified language of the rule that fleeing suggests consciousness of guilt, the difference is still insufficient for the court to conclude that the biblical passage was a “poetic version” of the rule. The Bussard case is an illustration of the judicial slippage from biblical text to legal rules without realizing the impact such conflation actually has on the life of a human being. Concerned with the confounding of morality and law, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his famous essay The Path of the Law, “[t]he law is full of phraseology drawn from morals, and by the mere force of language continually invites us to pass from one domain to the other without perceiving it, as we are sure to do unless we have the 121 See Ward, 816 S.W.2d at 175. 122 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 382. 123 Id. 124 Id. (citing Riddle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 708 (Ark. 1990), and Ferguson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 418 (Ark. 1989)). 125 221 S.W. 186, 188 (Ark. 1920). 126 See Smith v. State, 238 S.W.2d 649, 655 (Ark. 1951); Mason v. State, 688 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Ark. 1985); Yedrysek v. State, 739 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Ark. 1987). 127 Ferguson, 769 S.W.2d at 419. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 53 boundary constantly before our minds.”128 However, there are a variety of ways in which religious references are used in the decision-making process and in reasoning justifying decisions. Courts quote the Bible in order to support their propositions and to show that they are consistent with traditional morality. They sometimes use biblical passages as metaphors or to illuminate a particular common law principle. The Bible often becomes part of the historical explanation of a particular law or practice. In some instances, a biblical passage appears as a rule upon which a decision is based or accompanies a common law or statutory rule as a confirmation of the consistency of our law. The next part will show different ways in which the Bible is used in judicial opinions. III. QUOTING THE BIBLE FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES In some instances, judges use the Bible to express their personal religious and moral beliefs, and former Chief Justice Moore of the Supreme Court of Alabama may be the best example of this practice. In Ex parte H.H., a lesbian ex-wife was denied custody of her children despite the fact that there was evidence of her exhusband’s excessive disciplinary punishment of children.129 Justice Moore’s special concurring opinion is an illustration of inappropriate judicial decision-making using the Bible as law. He starts his opinion with a strong statement: [T]he homosexual conduct of a parent—conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender— creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.130 Justice Moore’s perspective that a parent’s homosexual conduct is unfit per se is founded entirely on religious teachings against samesex sexual relationships.131 Unlike the gender-based tender years presumption that the Supreme Court of Alabama found unconstitutional, 132 the sexual orientation-based presumption is still valid in some states.133 The main justification for the per se rule is ex- 128 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 459-60 (1897). 129 830 So. 2d 21, 25-26 (Ala. 2002). 130 Id. at 26. 131 See Romans 1:18-32 (New International). 132 See Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981). 133 See, e.g., Roe v. Roe, 324 S.E.2d 691 (Va. 1985). Some courts require that a 54 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 plained by Justice Moore: “Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated.”134 Justice Moore finds support for his proposition in Blackstone’s Commentaries135 and proceeds to quote from the Bible and various other sources condemning homosexuality.136 He concludes his opinion with the following words: “The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised likewise declares homosexuality to be detestable and an abominable sin. Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society.”137 By quoting biblical passages in support of their decisions, judges like Justice Moore perpetuate homophobia and the legitimacy of laws based on religious morality138 without any concern for the parties involved and the actual legal standards governing our society. One of those standards directly disregarded by Justice Moore in the Ex parte H.H. case is the best-interest-of-the-child standard. This case demonstrates the judicial misconduct present in invoking personal religious beliefs and morality as a basis of judgment. It is most interesting that Justice Moore was never disciplined for basing his decisions on his personal religious beliefs, but was actually removed when he refused to comply with a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument he displayed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.139 In commenting on the controversy around Justice Moore, one author contrasted the invisibility of the judicial use of religious references to the physical appearance of impropriety, making the following point: parent involved in a same-sex relationship prove absence of harm. See, e.g., Thigpen v. Carpenter, 730 S.W.2d 510, 513-14 (Ark. 1987). Other courts use a “nexus test” requiring only proof that a parent’s sexual conduct will have or has had an adverse impact. See, e.g., A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660, 664 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). 134 Ex parte H.H., 830 So. 2d at 26. 135 Id. at 32, 34, 37. 136 Id. at 33-37 (quoting biblical passages Genesis 1:27, 2:24; Leviticus 20:13). 137 Id. at 38. 138 See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Upholding a Georgia sodomy statute, the Court stated that “[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots,” referring to Judeo-Christian moral standards. Id. at 192. Concurring Justice Burger reiterated that, “Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian [sic] moral and ethical standards,” id. at 196, validating the state’s invocation of the biblical books of Leviticus and Romans to justify the sodomy statute, id. at 211 (Blackmun, J. dissenting). 139 See Glassroth v. Moore, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff’d 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1000 (2003). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 55 While the plaintiffs, media, and judicial ethicists were earnestly setting their sights on this highly conspicuous jurist, they were devoting little if any attention to the question of the proper relationship between religion and the decisions judges actually render, including religiously devout judges like Chief Justice Moore. To be sure, the Chief Justice’s fundamental mistake, at least from a job retention perspective, appears not to have been his firm and guiding belief that God’s law ought to inform human law, or even his clear expression of that belief in judicial opinions, which is to say that he was not and would not obviously have been removed from office for actually implementing and manifesting his religious beliefs in his judicial capacity. His apparent mistake, instead, was to manifest them by erecting a granite monument in his administrative, and in many respects less important or less influential, role.140 Often courts use biblical references to explain the historical background of a legal concept. For example, tracing the origin of an in rem forfeiture proceeding by the government against the property involved in or acquired by crime, the Supreme Court cited Exodus 21:28: “[i]f an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, he shall be stoned and his flesh shall not be eaten.”141 After locating the original source of this legal concept in the Bible, the Court traced the development of the forfeiture further to the common law concept of “deodand,” citing to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England and Holmes’s The Common Law.142 While it is a fact that Blackstone cited Exodus in his Commentaries,143 Holmes and other authors did not go that far.144 Other federal and state courts have also used the biblical passage Exodus 21:28 to explain not only the origin of the law of forfeiture, but also other tort actions, despite the availability of other sources of legal history upon which American law is actually founded.145 140 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 517-18. 141 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 681 n.17 (1974). See also United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 330 n.5 (1998). 142 Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 681 (citing to “O. Holmes, the Common Law, c. 1 (1881)” and “1. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *300”). See also Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 330 (citing to “1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 290-292 (1765); O. Holmes, The Common Law 10-13, 23-27 (M. Howe ed. 1963)”). 143 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *291. 144 See OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1-38 (45th printing 1923, 1909, 1881); FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 473-74 (2d ed. 1923). 145 Federal courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 295 F.3d 23, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002); United States v. Gilbert, 244 F.3d 888, 918 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. One Parcel Prop., 74 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. 785 St. Nicholas Ave., 983 F.2d 396, 401 (2d 56 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 The controversial Justice Moore of Alabama provides another example of biblical invocation in support of a historical analysis of a particular concept. Dissenting in Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, he engaged in a historical discussion of the concept of separation between the church and state, quoting from numerous biblical passages.146 Other judges also turn to the Bible in order to solidify the idea that a particular law is rooted in history. In a case involving a defamation suit, the West Virginia Supreme Court used Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 19:16-21, and Ecclesiastes 7:1 as historical evidence that slander was prohibited since the beginning of time.147 After quoting the Bible as its first source, the court proceeded by listing numerous legal sources on defamation, libel, and slander. The historical concept of subjecting “illegitimate” children to legal discrimination is also explained using Deuteronomy 23:2: “Throughout history, illegitimate children were precluded from, among other legal rights, entering certain professions. The Book of Deuteronomy states: a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to this tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deut. 23:2.”148 Supreme Court justices join lower court judges in quoting the Bible when they resort to providing a historical review of certain Cir. 1993); United States v. Seifuddin, 820 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Sandini, 816 F.2d 869, 872 (3d Cir. 1987); United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, 1218 n.4 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F.2d 453, 454 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Funds from Prudential Sec., 362 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2005); United States. v. Croce, 334 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 n.13 (E.D. Pa. 2004); United States v. Funds From Prudential Sec., 300 F. Supp. 2d 99, 100 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United States v. 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 747 F. Supp. 173, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1990); United States v. Haro, 685 F. Supp. 1468, 1473 (E.D. Wis. 1988). State courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: Allen v. State, 605 A.2d 994, 998 n.3 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992); Prop. Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dep’t v. Molomo, 583 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253 (App. Div. 1992); Duren v. Kunkel, 814 S.W.2d 935, 937 n.3 (Mo. 1991); Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe, 574 A.2d 631, 636 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990); Holtzman v. Samuel, 495 N.Y.S.2d 583, 585 n.1 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dist. Attorney of Queens County v. McAuliffe, 493 N.Y.S.2d 406, 411 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dir. of Fin. v. Cole, 465 A.2d 450, 456 n.2 (Md. 1983); New Jersey v. One 1977 Dodge Van, 397 A.2d 733, 734 n.1 (Middlesex County Ct. 1979); Prince George’s County. v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 284 A.2d 203, 205 (Md. 1971); Magrine v. Spector, 241 A.2d 637, 639 n.2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968); Robidoux v. Busch, 400 S.W.2d 631, 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966); Johnson v. Olson, 67 P.2d 422, 425 (Kan. 1937). 146 847 So. 2d 331, 350-53 (Ala. 2002) (quoting the following chapters from King James: 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, 2 Chronicles 26:18, 1 Samuel 13:13-14, Ezra 7:21-24, Matthew 22:21, Matthew 18:15-20, Matthew 16:19, 1 Corinthians 6). 147 Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70, 76 (W. Va. 1984). 148 Miscovich v. Miscovich, 688 A.2d 726, 728 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). See also Kohler v. Bleem, 654 A.2d 569, 572 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 57 legal principles. While such biblical references are usually placed in footnotes, occasionally they are prominently displayed in the main body of the opinion. For example, in Payne v. Tennessee, holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of victim impact evidence in jury sentencing,149 Chief Justice Rehnquist quoted Exodus 21:22-23, proscribing “[a]n eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” to demonstrate how the guiding principles in criminal sentencing varied over time.150 In his review of the historical principles guiding criminal sentencing, Justice Rehnquist started with the Bible before he moved on to the English law and legislative enactments.151 Sometimes, a court quotes the Bible as support for a proposition using a “cf.” as a citation signal. “Cf.” is an abbreviation for the Latin word “confer,” which means “compare.”152 Black’s Law Dictionary states, “As a citation signal, cf. directs the reader’s attention to another authority or section of the work in which contrasting, analogous, or explanatory statements may be found.”153 Such support was used in the United States v. Ryan case by a dissenting judge to interpret the statutory meaning of “the building used . . . in . . . any activity affecting interstate . . . commerce.”154 The dissenting judge argued that the statutory requirement of “activity” was missing in respect to the building in question.155 The dissent cited the Bible, stating, “The building here was just cumbering the ground. Cf. Luke 13:7 (King James). It was not being ‘used’ in any ‘activity.’” 156 The biblical passage cited states: “So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’”157 The judge used this citation assuming the reader’s familiarity with a biblical passage of this length and on this particular topic, which was listed under the chapter “Repent or Perish” in Luke. This assumption seems to be a long stretch if the extralegal authority was used as an analogy to show that there was no use for the building in question. Another example of the use of a biblical citation with a cf. citation signal is in the Conklin v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ. 149 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). 150 Id. at 819. 151 Id. 152 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 243 (8th ed. 2004). 153 Id. 154 41 F.3d 361, 369 (8th Cir. 1994) (Arnold, C.J., dissenting). 155 Id. 156 Id. 157 Luke 13:7 (New International). 58 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 case.158 Parents of a dyslexic child challenged the county’s program as not being in compliance with the Education of the Handicapped Act.159 In a footnote, discussing the fact that the board took advantage of the child’s temporary progress (which was actually due to private tutoring) to show its compliance with the statute, the court quoted this passage from the Bible when it said: “Annual grade promotion may, as a result, be a reasonable barometer for measuring the progress that this handicapped child can achieve in the coming years. . . . Cf. Matthew 26:52 (King James) (‘[A]ll they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’).”160 The court took the board’s argument and created a standard to which the board should adhere in the future, consisting of annual grade promotion and additional tutoring provided by the board.161 The court assumed that the reader was familiar with the biblical passage it partially quoted. The passage is part of the chapter on Jesus’s arrest and its idea only becomes clear if one knows its entire context: Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”162 The fact that judges resort to citing the Bible in support of their arguments shows the privilege that Christianity enjoys in our society. The invisibility of that privilege is enhanced by the judges’ assumptions of their audience’s familiarity with the Bible and by their disregard of the need for a full explanation of a cited source and its relation to the proposition at hand. Courts also use the Bible to explain the origins of a word. For example, in Bok v. McCaughn, the court explained that “[c]harity, derived from the Latin caritas, originally meant love. In the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians the revised version uses the word ‘love’ in defining the third of the three cardinal virtues, which, in King James’ version read ‘Faith, Hope and Charity.’”163 The term “sodomy” also finds its origin in the Bible, as the court noted in Stone v. Wainwright, citing Genesis 13:13 and 18:20 and quoting Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: 158 946 F.2d 306 (4th Cir. 1991). 159 Id. at 309. 160 Id. at 315 n.6. 161 Id. 162 Matthew 26:50-52 (New International). 163 42 F.2d 616, 618-19 (3d Cir. 1930). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 59 it is abomination.”164 Similarly, Justice Breyer quoted the Bible to explain the origin of the word “carries” in a drug trafficking case where the statute included the phrase “carries a firearm.”165 Arguing that the word includes “conveyance in a vehicle,” he said, “[t]he greatest of writers have used the word with this meaning. See, e.g., The King James Bible, 2 Kings 9:28 (‘[H]is servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem’); id., Isaiah 30:6 (‘[T]hey will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses’).”166 The Bible has also been called upon to determine the meaning of seemingly simple words such as “daytime.” In a criminal prosecution, a defendant moved to quash a search warrant because it was not served during daytime as required by law.167 He claimed that the warrant was served at 7:15 p.m. and that the sun set at 6:53 p.m. on that day.168 Before citing Shakespeare, Webster’s Dictionary, and finally federal and state courts, the court resorted to the Bible as its first source of interpretation: “In the Bible, Genesis 1:5, we find ‘And God called the light day and the darkness he called night.’”169 The court dismissed the motion to quash the warrant, concluding that it had no merit because of the general rule that daytime is determined by the presence of light.170 While today’s courts are comfortable using biblical passage as a rule, the courts in the past refrained from actually quoting the Bible. For example, in a famous 1872 case, the Supreme Court held constitutional Illinois’s refusal to admit a woman to practice law, stating, “[t]he paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”171 The Court did not specify what exact legal source it was referring to when it invoked “the law of the Creator.” 172 Modern courts, however, are more explicit in the invoca- 164 478 F.2d 390, 393 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1973). The text of the cited passages state, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD,” Genesis 13:13 (New International), and “Then the LORD said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous,’” Genesis 18:20 (New International). 165 Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 128-29 (1998). 166 Id. 167 United States v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341, 342 (M.D. Pa. 1932). 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 Id. at 343 (stating “it is reasonable to hold that it is daytime for at least thirty minutes after the time when the sun sets, and it is nighttime from then until thirty minutes before the time when the sun rises”). 171 Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1872). 172 Id. 60 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 tion of biblical passages when formulating rules upon which they decide cases. The Second Circuit, in a suit for a securities violation, discussed the doctrine of “offensive collateral estoppel (more recently called offensive issue preclusion),” pointing to judicial efficiency as a primary “virtue” of the doctrine.173 It then indicated its disadvantage: Its virtues do not come without a price, however. Just as occasionally ‘the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . but time and chance happeneth to them all,’ Ecclesiastes 9:11 (King James ed.), so too the results of an earlier resolution of an issue may simply be wrong.174 Some courts, when formulating standards, go directly to the Bible for support. In a dual adultery divorce suit, the husband filed a counterclaim alleging that the wife’s lesbian relationship constituted adultery.175 The court started its inquiry this way: To better understand the underlying issue it is helpful to briefly review both the legal and social standards and to distinguish between adultery as a crime as opposed to a private civil wrong. The [S]eventh [C]ommandment states that “Thou shall not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14. A biblical definition of “Adultery” is “the lying with a woman married to a husband.” See Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus, 20:10. . . . If a married man be “lying with a woman not betrothed” the biblical crime was fornication and punishment by a fine of 50 shekels of silver. Deuteronomy 22:29 (The commentators generally opine that even the thought of adultery was an offense under the biblical code, an issue which we need not deal with today.)176 After the court quoted the above biblical passages, it proceeded with common law and New Jersey statutory treatment of adultery. Despite announcing that it would review “legal and social standards,” the court started with religious moral authorities on the issue, assuming that religious morality is a synonym for a social standard. These are just some of the various ways in which courts use biblical references in written opinions. The next part of this Article will demonstrate the many different forms in which a particular biblical passage enters judicial opinions. 173 Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir. 1999). 174 Id. at 303-04. See also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fag Bearings Corp., 335 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting the same biblical passage from Monarch Funding, 192 F.3d at 303-04). 175 S.B. v. S.J.B., 609 A.2d 124, 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. 1992). 176 Id. at 125. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 61 IV. REFERENCING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”177 While the Supreme Court has never cited either Matthew or Luke, federal and state courts prominently do so when using the phrase “no man can serve two masters” to express the rule against an attorney’s dual representation.178 In Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Foster, a state court invoked the following sources of authority: “The [b]iblical mandate that ‘No man can serve two masters’ has its modern-day application in cases of this nature. See Canon 6, Canons of Professional Ethics, 31 F.S.A.”179 Canon 6 of Professional Ethics, entitled Adverse Influences and Conflicting Interests, imposes a duty on a lawyer to disclose to a client any potential interest that might adversely affect the client.180 Contrary to biblical mandate, Canon 6 does not prohibit a lawyer from representing two clients, but instead permits such representation by express consent of all parties after full disclosure of the facts.181 The invocation of a biblical mandate in this case is unclear because the court held that the insured who was represented by the insurer’s attorney was not harmed by any breach of fiduciary duty in failing to provide information about settlement offers.182 Thus it follows that not only can a man serve two masters, but even when such servitude constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, the attorney will only be liable when the plaintiff who is suing suffered harm. Some judges are willing to disregard existing legal standards, instead quoting biblical teaching as a primary source of the authority for their decision. In People v. Williams, a case charging a husband and wife for sex offenses upon their minor adopted child, a court held that there was no conflict of interest that would make joint representation of the defendant and codefendant improper. 183 Dissenting in an extensive opinion, Justice Pincham stated: Civilization’s most sacred, learned, dedicated and staunchest advocate of all times, centuries ago, admonished: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other.” The advocate was the Christ Jesus; the admonition was to his disci- 177 See infra Appendix. 178 See infra Appendix. 179 528 So. 2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (citing Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So. 2d 418 (Fla. App. 1959)). 180 CANONS OF PROF’L ETHICS Canon 6 (2004). 181 Id. 182 Foster, 528 So. 2d at 276. 183 538 N.E.2d 564, 566 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). 62 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 ples and the multitude during His Sermon on the Mount; the admonition is cited in the most dynamic, accurate and prestigious of all law books, The Holy Bible, at Matthews the 6th Chapter and the 24th Verse.184 After citing the highest authority to support his argument, the dissenting judge then proceeded to cite Canon 5 (5-1, 5-14, 5-15, 5- 17) of The Model Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association.185 A significant number of cases state that the biblical mandate “no person can serve two masters” is consistent with the Restatement of the Law on Agency and reflects the current legal framework within which courts operate. Contrary to what many judges state in their opinions, however, the Restatement of the Law of Agency does not prohibit dual servitude. The rules regulating the relation of agency explicitly provide that “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other.”186 The comments for this section further elaborate on this issue, allowing for a servant to be employed by joint masters.187 The most important issue in the servant’s relationship with a master is the master’s consent to service188 and not, as the courts suggest, whether there is one or multiple masters. The same is true for the law governing lawyers. The Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers clearly establishes that a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest189 unless the client consents to such representation.190 Consent, and not the number of clients or masters, is the key element in a lawyer’s representation of a single or multiple clients in civil and criminal litigation.191 Similarly, the ABA Model of Professional Conduct Rule 1.13 allows an attorney to represent an organization and “its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7.”192 It is also worth noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include one of the most important rules allowing for 184 Id. at 569 (Pincham, J., dissenting). 185 Id. at 569-570. 186 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 226 (1958). 187 Id. § 226(b). 188 Id. § 221. 189 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 121 (2001). 190 Id. § 122. 191 See id. §§ 128, 129. 192 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.13(g) (2004). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 63 multiple representation: Rule 23 governing class action.193 The Restatement of the Law of Agency and the Law Governing Lawyers, together with the ABA Rules of Conduct, represent legal authorities upon which judges should rely. Any extralegal authorities, especially those that conflict with legal standards established by the accepted authoritative legal sources of statutory or common law, are constitutionally suspect and their invocation in judicial opinions is unsound. V. USING OTHER RELIGIOUS REFERENCES While citations to the King James version of the Bible are numerous, courts rarely use other religious authorities. A search for the word “Talmud,” a collection of Jewish civil and canonical laws,194 returns only three results in the Supreme Court cases database in Westlaw: County of Allegheny v. ACLU,195 School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania. v. Schempp,196 and Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of New Orleans.197 The word “Torah,” the first five books of the Old Testament, appears only five times in Supreme Court opinions: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,198 Lee v. Weisman,199 County of Allegheny v. ACLU,200 Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,201 and Miranda v. Arizona. 202 The word “Halakhah,” a Jewish law book consisting of the 193 FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). 194 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1494 (8th ed. 2004). 195 492 U.S. at 583-84 (using the Talmud in describing certain Jewish practices). 196 374 U.S. 203, 273 (1963). “There was ample precedent, too, for Theodore Roosevelt’s declaration that in the interest of ‘absolutely nonsectarian public schools’ it was ‘not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools.’” Id. (citation omitted). 197 44 U.S. 589, 604-05 (1845). “In the case of The Commonwealth v. Abram Wolf, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 48, Chief Justice Tilghman affirmed the validity of an ordinance of Philadelphia, imposing a fine for working on a Sunday, against a Jew; though under the teachings of the Jewish Talmud and the Rabbinical Constitutions, the Jew deemed Saturday as the Jewish Sabbath, and felt it both as a privilege and a duty to labour for six days, and to rest on the seventh, or Saturday.” Id. 198 512 U.S. 687, 691 (1994) (part of the facts). 199 505 U.S. 577, 639 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 200 492 U.S. at 584 n.24. “A Torah scroll—which contains the five Books of Moses—must be buried in a special manner when it is no longer usable. App. 237- 238.” Id. 201 490 U.S. 680, 701 (1989). “We also assume for purposes of argument that the IRS also allows taxpayers to deduct ‘specified payments for attendance at High Holy Day services, for tithes, for torah readings and for memorial plaques.’” Id. (quoting Foley v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 844 F.2d 94, 96 (1988)). 202 384 U.S. 436, 458 n.27 (1966). “Thirteenth century commentators found an analogue to the privilege grounded in the Bible. ‘To sum up the matter, the principle that no man is to be declared guilty on his own admission is a divine decree.’ 64 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Torah and the law instituted by the rabbi, appears in only one opinion: Garrity v. New Jersey.203 The Supreme Court used the words “Koran,” “Kuran,” “Qur’an,” or “Qor’an,” a Muslim book of revelations, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,204 O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,205 Clay v. United States,206 and Lemon v. Kurtzman.207 The Book of Mormon, a Mormon scripture, is cited in two decisions: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris208 and Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.209 Statistical evidence demonstrates that the appearance of references from Jewish or Muslim religious authorities is rare. Federal and U.S. Supreme Court case law mentions “Talmud” in 63 cases, “Torah” in 155 and “Halakhah” in 4 cases.210 The same search in the state case law database produces “Talmud” in 151 cases, “Torah” in 306 cases, and “Halakhah” in 2 cases, a pale comparison with the words “King James,” which produce 599 cases in state case law, and the word “Bible,” which is not possible to search due to an extremely high number of cases in which it appears.211 The various versions of the word “Koran” produce 499 cases in federal law and 349 cases in state law, but in most of those cases the word actually appears as a personal name.212 One needs go no farther than statistical data to conclude that the Bible is by far the most bellowed religious authority that judges use in their decision-making process and their written opinions. The apparent disparity in the use of different religious sources re- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Code of Jewish Law), Book of Judges, Laws of the Sanhedrin, c. 18, ¶ 6, III Yale Judaica Series 52-53.” Id. 203 385 U.S. 493, 497 n.5 (1967) (comparing Jewish law with the Fifth Amendment). 204 536 U.S. 639, 713 n.24 (2002) (quoting the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pentateuch, and the Koran). 205 482 U.S. 342, 345 (1987). “Jumu’ah is commanded by the Koran and must be held every Friday after the sun reaches its zenith and before the Asr, or afternoon prayer. See Koran 62:9-10; Brief for Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin et al. as Amici Curiae 18-31.” Id. 206 403 U.S. 698, 708 n.2, 709 (1971) (quoting the Koran 61:10-13 to define “jihad as an injunction to the believers to war against non-believers”). 207 403 U.S. 602, 630-31 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). “The advantages of sectarian education relate solely to religious or doctrinal matters. They give the church the opportunity to indoctrinate its creed delicately and indirectly, or massively through doctrinal courses. Many nations follow that course: Moslem nations teach the Koran in their schools . . . .” Id. 208 Zelman, 536 U.S at 713 n.24. 209 490 U.S. at 709. 210 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 211 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 212 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 65 affirms the privileged status that Christianity enjoys in the United States. It is a constant reminder of the composition of the judiciary and the lack of diversity that contributes to the ongoing proliferation of the use of biblical references by the courts. CONCLUSION Language analysts recognize that the Bible had a substantial impact on standard English language.213 Many biblical passages, having been read at home and in church for generations, entered the popular linguistic milieu of the majority of Americans. However, not all of them became independent lexical units: A usage has to have achieved some degree of linguistic autonomy; it must be capable of being meaningful outside of its original biblical context, usable by English speakers who do not read (or even know) the Bible as well as those who do. (The same point applies to expressions derived from Shakespeare or any other author.) . . . A usage that does not meet this criterion is really only a quotation.214 One of the standard English expressions derived from the King James version of St. Matthew’s Gospel is, “No man can serve two masters.”215 However, courts continue to quote the Bible when referring to this expression. The variety of ways in which courts use biblical passages from Matthew and Luke is impressive.216 If the biblical passage that “no man can serve two masters” is part of folk wisdom, there would seem to be no need to quote the Bible. If, on the other hand, it is important to cite the ultimate source of this proverb, referencing the Bible seems logical. While this biblical quotation and citation to Matthew or Luke by courts may be trivial, the continuous use of the Bible by judges to support their arguments in written opinions is unjustified and should be barred. The Bible contains many passages as simple as the one above, but the scope of their impact on decision-making is impermissibly broad, including such decisions as life or death in capital cases. The arbitrariness of judicial choice to use some biblical passages as traditional folk expressions and to quote others as authoritative sources 213 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 274. See also Ashburn, supra note 2, at 343-47 (citing examples of courts using aphorisms from Jewish law). 214 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 276. “The King James Bible . . . has contributed far more to English in the way of idiomatic or quasi-proverbial expressions than any other literary source. . . . Matthew’s Gospel alone, for example, yields over forty locutions which, directly or indirectly, are part of Modern English.” Id. 215 Id. at 277. 216 See infra Appendix. 66 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 is analogous to the arbitrariness in which some biblical passages entered the everyday speech.217 Additionally, the use of the same biblical passage as a folk expression by some courts and as a biblical quote by the others creates a sense of arbitrariness and subjectivity, bringing into question judicial impartiality. The use of religious references in judicial decision-making is not rare and cannot be underestimated. The numerous ways in which the Bible finds its way into judicial opinions are a direct result of judges’ willingness to disregard the rules of judicial conduct and apparent constitutional violations stemming from such misuse. Since there is no bright line between a common expression such as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”218 and the biblical mandate “[i]f anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death,”219 courts should never use either text, especially not during a sentencing phase. Courts should be prohibited from using religious references in judicial decision-making because any reliance on extralegal sources of authority is contrary to the basic principles of the American justice system. Using religious references in judicial opinions is an impermissible exercise of a privilege that coerces the minority to accept the norms of the majority. Whether disguised as morals, proverbs, principles, tradition, or history, religious references undermine judicial integrity and impartiality. Long ago, Justice Holmes expressed one of the most creative ideas in respect to delineating morality and law. Although his idea may sound radical today to moderate and conservative proponents of the use of religion in decision-making, it is one that should resonate with any person who is genuinely concerned with the American justice system: For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether, and other words adopted which should convey legal ideas uncolored by anything outside the law.220 217 See CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 278. What is really intriguing, of course, is why some expressions entered English in this way, and others did not. Why did such similes as wise as serpents or harmless as doves ([Matthew] 10:16) not become everyday phrases? As always, when we consider lexical innovation, the bigger puzzle is to explain why so many apparently vivid or useful items did not appeal. Id. See also BARTH D. EHRMAN, MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY (2005) (discussing intentional and accidental alterations of the Bible made by translators throughout history). 218 Leviticus 24:20 (New International). 219 Leviticus 24:17 (New International). 220 Holmes, The Path of the Law, supra note 128, at 464. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 67 APPENDIX CASES USING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”221 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Matthew 6:24 (New International). “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Luke 16:13 (New International). Terms Used by Courts to Refer to “No Man Can Serve Two Masters” Admonition Familiar scriptural quotation Ancient admonition Fundamental law Ancient axiom Fundamental rule Ancient injunction Fundamental truth Ancient maxim Fundamental proposition Ancient principle General rule Ancient truth General principle Authority of Holy Writ Good Authority Authoritative declaration Gospel Axiom Hallowed petition Biblical admonition High authority Biblical advice Highest Authority has said Biblical expression Infallible declaration Biblical doctrine Biblical mandate Infallible truth Biblical quote Injunction Biblical teaching Jesus said Christ said Law for two thousand years Christian morality Legal maxim Centuries-old scriptural passage Maxim Common experience Moral maxim Declaration Moral rule Divine declaration Old adage Divine injunction Old as Holy Writ Divine precept Old principle Doctrine of the Holy Writ Old proverb Divine saying Philosophy Eternal truth Philosophy of the Galilean Expression Phrase from the Bible Fact Principle 221 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 using a sesarch phrase “can serve two masters.” 68 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Proposition of the Highest and best Scriptural references authority Scriptural teaching Proverb Statement Public policy rule Theory Quoted from the Bible Truth Rule Truth of the biblical admonition Rule of the moral law Truth of the Scriptural injunction Rule of law Unanimous verdict of mankind Saying Universal moral rule Scriptural maxim Utterance of the divine Nazarene Scriptural pronouncement Very high authority has said Scriptural quotation Wisdom of the ages SUPREME COURT CASES NLRB v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 511 U.S. 571, 595 n.14 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“No man can serve two masters. If you are negotiating a contract, a lawyer does not represent both clients. That is all that is involved here.”) Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 197 n.50 (1963) (Justice Goldberg quoting from United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961)) United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961) (Warren, J.) (“The reason of the rule inhibiting a party who occupies confidential and fiduciary relations toward another from assuming antagonistic positions to his principal in matters involving the subject matter of the trust is sometimes said to rest in a sound public policy, but it also is justified in a recognition of the authoritative declaration that no man can serve two masters; and considering that human nature must be dealt with, the rule does not stop with actual violations of such trust relations, but includes within its purpose the removal of any temptation to violate them.” (quoting Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (1914))) Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Withers, 177 U.S. 260, 269 (1900) (Brown, J.) (“But if the insured is to be now bound as having thus contracted, there must be mutuality in the contract. No man can serve two masters.”) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 69 CITING TO MATTHEW Federal Court Cases Freund v. Butterworth, 117 F.3d 1543, 1572 n.67 (11th Cir. 1997) United States v. Mett, 65 F.3d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1995) Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85, 100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1993) Sanjour v. EPA, 984 F.2d 434, 447 (D.C. Cir. 1993) United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 1989) United States v. Gambino, 864 F.2d 1064, 1074-1075 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988) U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Louis A. Roser Co., 585 F.2d 932, 938 n.5 (8th Cir. 1978) Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384, 1386 (2d Cir. 1976) Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp., 220 F.2d 593, 619 (2d Cir. 1955) Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 364 F.Supp. 2d 797, 815 (S.D. Ind. 2005) Rocchigiani v. World Boxing Counsel, 82 F.Supp. 2d 182, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Union Ins. Co. v. Knife Co., 902 F. Supp. 877, 881 (W.D. Ark. 1995) ESM Gov’t. Sec., Inc. v. ESM Group, Inc. 66 B.R. 82, 84 (S.D. Fla. 1986) United States v. Bergmann, 47 F. Supp. 765, 767 (S.D. Cal. 1942) In re BH & P, Inc., 103 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989) In re Tampa Chain Co., 35 B.R. 568, 579 n.10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) United States v. Short, 50 M.J. 370, 374 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (phrase from the Bible) 70 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 United States v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 40, 44-45 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) Kamean v. Local 363, 109 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) United States v. Agosto, 528 F. Supp. 1300, 1310 (D. Minn. 1981) United States v. Garafola, 428 F. Supp. 620, 621 (D.N.J. 1977) (Biblical teaching) Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 249 F. Supp. 33, 38 n.2 (D.S.C. 1966) United States v. Kawakita, 96 F. Supp. 824, 836 (S.D. Cal. 1950) State Court Cases Office of Consumer Counsel v. Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util. Control, No. CV020513718S, 2002 WL 31319517, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 2002) Wis. Patients Comp. Fund v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 620 N.W.2d 457, 461-62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 998 P.2d 856, 877 (Wash. 2000) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver, 980 S.W.2d 625, 634 (Tex. 1998) In re Estate of Koch, 849 P.2d 977, 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993) Geauga County Bar Ass’n. v. Psenicka, 577 N.E.2d 1074, 1074 (Ohio 1991) Friends of La Vina v. County of L.A., 284 Cal. Rptr. 171, 178 n.1 (Ct. App. 1991) (Gates, Acting P.J., dissenting) Ex parte Weaver, 570 So.2d 675, 682 (Ala. 1990) J.K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. & Blood Bank v. Morris, 776 S.W.2d 271, 284 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989) People v. Williams, 538 N.E.2d 564, 569 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (admonition) Collins v. Citizens & S. Trust Co., 373 S.E.2d 612, 617 (Ga. 1988) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 71 Swartz v. State, 429 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) SHV Coal, Inc. v. Cont’l Grain Co., 545 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) Brickner v. Normandy Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 746 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) Jim Royer Realty, Inc. v. Moreira, 363 S.E.2d 10, 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Hinds County, 445 So.2d 1330, 1356 n.25 (Miss.1984) In re Conduct of Samuels and Weiner, 674 P.2d 1166, 1171 (Or. 1983) Webb v. State, 433 So.2d 496, 499 (Fla. 1983) Ellis v. Flink, 374 So.2d 4, 5 n.4 (Fla. 1979) Conn. Comm’n on Special Revenue v. Conn. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 387 A.2d 533, 537 (Conn. 1978) Harford County v. Tatar, Lininger, Clark & Wood, Inc., 363 A.2d 501, 505 (Md. 1976) In re Runals’ Estate, 328 N.Y.S.2d 966, 978 (Sur. Ct. 1972) Onorato v. Wissahickon Park, Inc., 244 A.2d 22, 25 (Pa. 1968) Spratlin, Harrington & Thomas, Inc. v. Hawn, 156 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967) (Biblical expression) State v. 62.96247 Acres of Land, More or Less, in New Castle, 193 A.2d 799, 806 n.7 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963) State v. Brewer, 129 S.E.2d 262, 277 (N.C. 1963) Martin v. Hieken, 340 S.W.2d 161,165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) Hughes v. Robbins, 164 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1959) (“It has been well written that ‘no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) 72 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Powers v. Johnson, 306 S.W.2d 616, 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Fruchtl v. Foley, 84 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla. 1956) (admonition) Lexington Insulation Co. v. Davidson County, 90 S.E.2d 496, 498 (N.C. 1955) City of Miami v. Benson, 63 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1953) Ridgway v. Super. Ct. of Yavapai, 245 P.2d 268, 271 (Ariz. 1952) Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, 234 P.2d 678, 682 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 99 N.E.2d 839, 845 (Ind. 1951) Bossler v. Wilson, 65 Pa. D. & C. 164, 171 (Phila. Mun. Ct. 1949) City of Jackson v. McLeod, 24 So.2d 319, 325 (Miss. 1946) (“The public interest requires the undivided loyalty of police officers to the public service and we were told long ago by One whose judgment was infallible that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Barr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 200 So. 240, 244 (Fla. 1941) Century Indem. Co. v. Carnes, 138 S.W.2d 555, 560 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940) Moffett Bros. P’ship Estate v. Moffett, 137 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo. 1939) Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 182 So. 461, 464 (Ala. 1938) Whitlow v. Patterson, 112 S.W.2d 35, 41 (Ark. 1937) (“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”) Hood ex rel. N.C. Bank & Trust v. N.C. Bank & Trust, 184 S.E. 51, 62 (N.C. 1936) Olson v. Gaddis Inv. Co., 39 P.2d 744, 747 (Utah 1935) City of Leesburg v. Ware, 153 So. 87, 89 (Fla. 1934) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 73 State ex rel. Union Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 62 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo. 1933) Harris v. United Serv. Co., 32 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Ark. 1930) (general principle) Robson v. Hahn, 277 P. 507, 508 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1929) Schwartzman v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. of Liverpool, Eng., 2 S.W.2d 593, 602 (Mo. 1927) Castellanos v. Castro, 289 S.W. 104, 105 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926) (“It was said by the Great Teacher that ‘no man can serve two masters . . . .’”) Rezos v. Zahm & Nagel Co., 246 P. 564, 565 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1926) Carolina Bagging Co. v. Byrd, 116 S.E. 90, 92 (N.C. 1923) Hume v. Baggett & Baggett, 221 S.W. 1002, 1003 (Tex. Civ. App. 1920) (“This rule of law not only rests on an understanding of human nature but on the utterance of the Divine Nazarene, when he said: ‘No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Murray v. Lizotte, 77 A. 231, 238 (R.I. 1910) (“No matter how high his motives or how honorable his intention, ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Shamokin Mfg. Co. v. Ohio German Fire Ins. Co., 39 Pa. Super. 553, 556 (Super. Ct. 1908) (“It involves a question whether the same person may be an agent in a private transaction for both parties, without the consent of both, so as to entitle him to compensation from both or either. We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.“) U.S. Tel. Co. v. Middlepoint Home Tel. Co., 19 Ohio Dec. 202, 208 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1908) (“It is as true today as when first spoken in the 74 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 parable, and has become a fundamental rule that ‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Gann v. Zettler, 60 S.E. 283, 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) (Powell, J.) (“It is recorded of Him ‘who spake as never man spoke’ that, ‘seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set his disciples came unto him; and he opened his mouth and taught them; saying: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”’ So, also, is our law. Whoso, having undertaken the service of his master, counsels with another and agrees also to serve him in those same things wherewith he has been trusted, cannot claim the reward promised by his master unless he makes it plain that he has not acted privily, but that his master was consenting thereto.” (internal citations omitted)) City of Philadelphia v. Durham, No. 1, 1907 WL 3343, at *13 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 30, 1907) (“We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.”) McDowell v. First Nat’l Bank of Sutton, 102 N.W. 615, 617 (Neb. 1905) Nat’l Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., 13 Ohio Cir. Dec. 468 (Cir. Ct. 1902) Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Evans, 53 S.W. 1104, 1105 (Tenn. Ct. Ch. App. 1899) Moore v. Grow, 1 Pa. Super. 125, 127 (Super. Ct. 1896) Northrup v. Phillips, 99 Ill. 449, 454 (1881) Dickson v. People ex rel. Brown, 17 Ill. 191, 193 (1855) CITING TO LUKE State Court Cases Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, 617 S.E.2d 40, 60 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 75 Barefield v. DPIC Cos., 600 S.E.2d 256, 281 (W. Va. 2004) Rose ex rel. Rose v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 599 S.E.2d 673, 688 (W. Va. 2004) People v. Graham, 794 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Ill. 2003) Myer v. Preferred Credit, Inc., 117 Ohio Misc. 2d 8, 24 (Ct. Com. Pl. 2001) State v. Reddick, 534 S.E.2d 473, 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) Brooks v. Zebre, 792 P.2d 196, 200 (Wyo. 1990) Watkins v. Floyd, 492 S.W.2d 865, 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) Wise v. S. Pac. Co., 77 Cal. Rptr. 156, 160 (Ct. App. 1969) Pac. Indem. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 81 P.2d 572, 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938) Smith v. Harvey-Given Co., 185 S.E. 793, 796 (Ga. 1936) Jordan v. Austin Sec. Co., 51 P.2d 38, 58 (Kan. 1935) State v. Gautier, 147 So. 240, 246 (Fla. 1933) Never Fail Land Co. v. Cole, 149 S.E. 585, 588 (N.C. 1929) Patterson v. De Haven, 263 P. 568, 572 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Chippewa Power Co. v. R.R. Comm’n of Wis., 205 N.W. 900, 902 (Wis. 1925) Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 119 S.E. 315, 317 (Ga. 1923) Pagel v. Creasy, 6 Ohio App. 199, 206 (Ct. App. 1916) McCudden v. Brockmeyer, 26 Ohio Dec. 432, 436 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1915) Carr v. Ubsdell, 71 S.W. 112, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio St. 396, 399 (1881) 76 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 NO QUOTATION MARKS Federal Court Cases United States v. Freyer, 333 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (no lawyer can serve two masters) United States v. Levine, 794 F.2d 1203, 1205 (7th Cir. 1986) Ottawa Tribe v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 373, 379 (Ct. Cl. 1964) (gospel) Speeter v. United States, 42 F.2d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 1930) (old principle) Parkerson v. Borst, 264 F. 761, 765 (5th Cir. 1920) (scriptural maxim) United States v. Krafft, 249 F. 919, 928 (3d Cir. 1918) Curved Electrotype Plate Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 258, 272 (Ct. Cl. 1915) (authoritative declaration) Crites, Inc., v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 134 F.2d 925, 927 (6th Cir. 1943) (principle) Rankin v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 357, 367 (Ct. Cl. 1943) (authoritative declaration) Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (Cl. Ct. 1914) (authoritative declaration) Bramhall v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 51, 59 (Cl. Ct. 1868) Klein v. Miller, No. Civ.A.SA-02-CA-687FB, 2004 WL 1118725, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2004) (biblical advice) Costa v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 845 F. Supp. 64, 69 (D.R.I. 1994) (biblical advice) Overfield v. Pennroad Corp., 42 F. Supp. 586, 608 (E.D. Pa. 1941) In re Int’l Match Corp., 20 F. Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1937) (truth of the biblical admonition) John Conlon Coal Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y., 16 F. Supp. 93, 95 (M.D. Pa. 1936) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 77 Marshall v. Lovell, 11 F.2d 632, 639 (D. Minn. 1926) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 281 F. 222, 228 (D. Or. 1922) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 277 F. 430, 432 (D. Or. 1921) Brown v. Pa. Canal Co, 229 F. 444, 452 (E.D. Pa. 1916) In re Va. Hardwood Mfg. Co., 139 F. 209, 218 (W.D. Ark. 1905) Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Winona & Sw. Ry. Co., 59 F. 957, 961 (C.C.D. Minn. 1893) Putnam v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 4 F. 753, 760 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1880) In re Tinley Plaza Assocs., 142 B.R. 272, 279 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.1992) In re Huddleston, 120 B.R. 399, 401 (Bankr. E.D. Tex.1990) United States v. Hubbard, 43 C.M.R. 322, 325 (C.M.A. 1971) (truth of the Scriptural injunction) Midwest Farmers v. United States, 64 F. Supp. 91, 102 (D. Minn. 1945) State Court Cases People v. Hardin, 840 N.E.2d 1205, 1212 (Ill. 2005) Coronado v. Schoenmann Produce Co., 99 S.W.3d 741, 753-55 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) State ex rel. S.G., 814 A.2d 612, 616 (N.J. 2003) Barrett v. Union Twp. Comm., 553 A.2d 62, 65 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989) (moral rule) Siegman v. Bd. of Educ., 477 N.E. 2d 241, 243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) Copple v. City of Lincoln, 274 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Neb. 1979) Pa. Labor Relations Bd. v. E. Lancaster County Sch. Dist., 1973 WL 16227, at *3 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. May 18, 1973) (fundamental truth) 78 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 City of Montgomery v. Brendle Fire Equip., Inc., 279 So.2d 480, 486 (Ala. 1973) Procidano v. Mautner, 335 N.Y.S.2d 17, 24 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1972) St. Paul at Chase Corp. v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 278 A.2d 12, 25 (Md. 1971) Bd. of Educ. v. Wilton, 273 A.2d 44, 50 (N.J. 1971) Caddie v. Warden, Md. Correctional Inst., 238 A.2d 129, 129 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968) (theory) Hasbrouck v. Rymkevitch, 268 N.Y.S.2d 604, 606 (App. Div. 1966) Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 176 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. 1962) Van Dyke v. White, 349 P.2d 430, 437 (Wash. 1960) Md. Credit Finance Corp. v. Hagerty, 139 A.2d 230, 233 (Md. 1958) Jedwabny v. Phila. Transp. Co., 135 A.2d 252, 255 (Pa. 1957) (scriptural references) Coble v. Econ. Forms Corp. 304 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Aldom v. Borough of Roseland, 127 A.2d 190, 194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956) (moral rule) Jersey City v. Hague, 115 A.2d 8, 13 (N.J. 1955) Henshie v. McPherson & Citizens State Bank, 280 P.2d 937, 947 (Kan. 1955) In re Ridgely, 106 A.2d 527, 530 (Del. 1954) (injunction) Cornale v. Stewart Stamping Corp., 129 N.Y.S.2d 808, 814 (Sup. Ct. 1954) Shernoff v. Schimel, 112 N.Y.S.2d 333, 347 (Sup. Ct. 1952) Klein v. Twentieth Century-Fox Int’l Corp., 108 N.Y.S.2d 767, 768 (Sup. Ct. 1951) (fact) State ex inf. Taylor v. Cumpton, 240 S.W.2d 877, 884-85 (Mo. 1951) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 79 Petition of Topham, 58 Pa. D. & C. 649, 654 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) Nagel v. Todd, 45 A.2d 326, 328 (Md. 1946) City of Lincoln v. First Nat’l Bank of Lincoln, 19 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Neb. 1945) (moral rule) Alabama State Fed’n of Labor v. McAdory, 18 So.2d 810, 829 (Ala. 1944) Phillips v. Phillips, 13 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1943) Almon v. Am. Carloading Corp., 38 N.E.2d 362, 363-64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941) (rule of law) Cowan v. Hamilton Nat’l Bank, 146 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tenn. 1941) Jarrett v. French & Co., 3 N.Y.S.2d 227, 228 (App. Div. 1938) (theory) Valley & Siletz R.R. Co. v. Thomas, 48 P.2d 358, 383 (Or. 1935) Beatty v. Employers’ Liab. Assurance Corp., 168 A. 919, 924 (Vt. 1933) Greenfield v. Bausch, 263 N.Y.S. 19, 21 (App. Div. 1933) (fact) Elco Shoe Mfrs. v. Sisk, 183 N.E. 191, 191-92 (N.Y. 1932) Kane v. McClenachan, 159 A. 61, 64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932) Pac. Fin. Corp. v. City of Lynwood, 300 P. 50, 53 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1931) (principle) New England Oil Ref. Co. v. Can. Mex. Oil Co., 174 N.E. 330, 337 (Mass. 1931) Terrell v. Town of Tempe, 274 P. 786, 788 (Ariz. 1929) Lucas Realty Co. v. Franks, 6 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Ky. 1928) Eastham v. Stumbo, 279 S.W. 1109, 1110 (Ky. 1926) C.M. Condon & Co. v. Richardson, 232 P. 1070, 1071 (Kan. 1925) De Crette v. Mohler, 127 A. 639, 642 (Md. 1925) 80 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Smith v. Ward, 197 N.W. 684, 685 (S.D. 1924) Williams v. Bolling, 121 S.E. 270, 273 (Va. 1923) Grady v. Pink Hill Bank & Trust Co., 113 S.E. 667, 669 (N.C. 1922) In re Moses, 195 N.Y.S. 358, 360 (App. Div. 1922) (old as Holy Writ) Meeks v. Fink, 89 So. 543, 544 (Fla. 1921) Wilson v. S. Pac. Land Co., 46 Cal. App. 738, 745 (Ct. App. 1920) Clarksburg Light & Heat Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 100 S.E. 551, 555 (W. Va. 1919) State v. Nichols, 166 N.W. 813, 813 (N.D. 1918) Southampton Twp. v. Johnson, No. 3, 1916 WL 4261, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 17, 1916) Schenectady Illuminating Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 151 N.Y.S. 830, 831 (Sup. Ct. 1914) Hirsh v. Twyford, 139 P. 313, 316 (Okla. 1913) Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N.W. 847, 852 (S.D. 1913) (fundamental proposition) City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 142 N.W. 812, 814 (Minn. 1913) Hill v. Whiteside, 85 A. 425, 425 (Pa. 1912) Bell v. Riggs, 127 P. 427, 430 (Okla. 1912) (high authority) Langford v. Issenhuth, 134 N.W. 889, 894 (S.D. 1912) (fundamental law) Salene v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co. of Sioux Falls, 116 P. 1114, 1115 (Or. 1911) (principle) Cobe v. Coughlin Hardware Co., 112 P. 115, 117 (Kan. 1910) Mitchell v. Schreiner, 1910 WL 4143, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910) (quoted from the Bible) Lightcap v. Nicola, 34 Pa. Super. 189, 202 (Super. Ct. 1907) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 81 Harper v. Fidler, 78 S.W. 1034, 1035 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904) (authoritative declaration) Hier v. Miller, 75 P. 77, 77 (Kan. 1904) Edwards v. Home Ins. Co., 73 S.W. 881, 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) In re Reifschneider, 69 N.Y.S. 1069, 1074 (App. Div. 1901) Murphy v. Indep. Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob of Am., 27 So. 624, 625 (Miss. 1900) McFarland v. Gordon, 41 A. 507, 508 (Vt. 1898) Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Hardy, 34 A. 986, 987 (N.J. 1896) Shepard v. Hill, 34 P. 159, 160 (Wash. 1893) State v. Hastings, 55 N.W. 774, 789 (Neb. 1893) Huggins Cracker & Candy Co. v. People’s Ins. Co., 41 Mo. App. 530, 541 (1890) (authoritative declaration) Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y. 415, 420 (1879) Roll v. Riddle, 5 Ohio Dec. Reprint 232, 655 (Super. Ct. 1874) Ex rel. Dawson, 39 Ala. 367, 404 (1864) In re Miller, 30 Pa. 478, 494 (1858) Laight St. Baptist Church v. Noe, 12 How. Pr. 497, 497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1855) Buckles v. Lafferty’s Legatees, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 292, 302 (1843) Gayden v. Gayden, 1842 WL 2414, at *5 (S.C. Ct. App. Eq. 1842) (eternal truth) State v. Hunt, 20 S.C.L. (2 Hill) 1, 64 (Ct. App. 1834) Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361, 371 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1826) Carter v. Harris, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 199, 204 (1826) (principle) McAllister v. Marshall, 6 Binn. 338, 350 (Pa. 1814) 82 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 QUOTATION MARKS WITHOUT CITATION Federal Court Cases United States v. Bowens, 108 F. App’x 945, 971 (5th Cir. 2004) Berwind Corp. v. Fyfe, No. 89-55880, 1990 WL 208794, at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978) Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 233 (2d Cir. 1977) Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Mitchell, 190 F.2d 308, 308 (5th Cir. 1951) (scriptural pronouncement) Va. Ferry Corp. v. NLRB, 101 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir. 1939) (high authority) Turner v. Kirkwood, 49 F.2d 590, 594 (10th Cir. 1931) (infallible truth and divine saying) Crawford v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1907) Olcott v. Rice, 69 F. 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1895) (truth) McGlothlin v. Connors, 142 F.R.D. 626, 635 (W.D. Va. 1992) (biblical admonition) Schwartz v. O’Grady, No. 86 CIV. 4243, 1990 WL 156274, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1990) SEC v. Commonwealth Sec. Investors, Inc., No. 2161, 1970 WL 202, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 1970) (Biblical quote) Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Keyes, 46 F. Supp. 181, 185 (W.D. Ky. 1933) (Jesus said) United States v. Walter, 291 F. 662, 663 (S.D. Fla. 1921) United States v. Del. & Hudson Co, 164 F. 215, 258 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1908) United States v. Booth, 148 F. 112, 116 (C.C.D. Or. 1906) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 83 Symmes v. Union Trust Co. of N.Y., 60 F. 830, 864 (C.C.D. Nev. 1894) United States v. Sippel, 8 C.M.R. 698, 745 (C.M.R. 1953) (principle) In re Grand Jury Investigation, 436 F. Supp. 818, 821 (W.D. Pa. 1977) (ancient axiom) Dobbins v. Local 212, 292 F. Supp. 413, 451 n. 19 (S.D. Ohio 1968) In re W.T. Byrns, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 442, 445 (E.D. Va. 1966) Shapiro v. Stahl, 195 F. Supp. 822, 825 (M.D. Pa. 1961) (infallible declaration) Livingston v. Shreveport-Texas League Baseball Corp., 128 F. Supp. 191, 199 (W.D. La. 1955) (axiom) State Court Cases People v. Woidtke, 729 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) Winmark Ltd. P’ship v. Miles & Stockbridge, 674 A.2d 73, 87 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996) Friendship Heights Citizens Comm. v. Barlow, 329 A.2d 122, 125 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 917 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Ky. 1996) Md. Metals, Inc. v. Metzner, 382 A.2d 564, 568 (Md. 1978) In re Brown, 559 P.2d 884, 889 (Or. 1977) Drenning v. Kuebel, Inc., 327 So. 2d 571, 575 (La. Ct. App. 1976) In re Boivin, 533 P.2d 171, 174 (Or. 1975) Commonwealth v. Shank, 54 Pa. D. & C.2d 602, 605 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) Elizabeth Fire Officers Ass’n v. City of Elizabeth, 274 A.2d 817, 819 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971) Warminster Twp. Appeal, 56 Pa. D. & C.2d 99, 111 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) 84 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Claughton v. Bear Stearns & Co., 156 A.2d 314, 319-20 (Pa. 1959) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) McCall v. Johns, 294 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956) State v. Haesemeyer, 78 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 1956) (ancient truth) In re Bond & Mortg. Guar. Co., 103 N.E.2d 721, 725 (N.Y. 1952) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Ky. State Fair Bd. v. Fowler, 221 S.W.2d 435, 439 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949) (philosophy) In re Buder, 217 S.W.2d 563, 574 (Mo. 1949) Kurtz v. Steinhart, 60 Pa. D. & C. 345, 360 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) (old adage) In re Laegen’s Estate, 43 N.Y.S.2d 924, 926 (Sur. Ct. 1943) Rotzin v. Miller, 277 N.W. 811, 817 (Neb. 1938) (hallowed petition) Int’l Serv. Union Co. v. People ex rel. Wettengel, 70 P.2d 431, 436 (Colo. 1937) Haines v. Biddle, 188 A. 843, 844 (Pa. 1937) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert, 169 So. 750, 753 (Fla. 1936) (general rule) Whelan v. Bailey, 36 P.2d 709, 710 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (saying) Bland v. Smith, 33 P.2d 25, 27 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (rule) Clawans v. Ordway Bldg. & Loan Ass’n., 164 A. 267, 283 (N.J. 1933) (wisdom of the ages) Mees v. Grewer, 245 N.W. 813, 815 (N.D. 1932) Hall v. Williams, 50 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Mo. 1932) (ancient maxim) Neb. State Bank of Norfolk v. Sch. Dist. of Pierce, 240 N.W. 570, 571 (Neb. 1932) (good authority) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 85 Wick v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 1930 WL 2386, at *5 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 29, 1930) Cent. Nat. Bank of Lincoln v. First Nat. Bank, 219 N.W. 894, 895 (Neb. 1928) (philosophy) McDaniel v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 240 Ill. App. 535, 549 (App. Ct. 1926) In re Water Rights in Silvies River, 237 P. 322, 358 (Or. 1925) Shealy v. S. Ry. Co., 120 S.E. 561, 568, 575 (S.C. 1924) Koons v. Richardson, 227 Ill. App. 477, 484 (App. Ct. 1923) (rule of the moral law and expression) Tex. Ref. Co. v. Alexander, 202 S.W. 131, 134 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918) (very high authority has said) Tusant v. Grand Lodge A.O.U.W., 163 N.W. 690, 693 (Iowa 1917) (law) Kirby-Sorge-Felske Co. v. Doty, 157 N.W. 273, 276 (Mich. 1916) (infallible declaration) Peterson v. Lewis, 154 P. 101, 106 (Or. 1915) In re E. Cameron Twp. Auditors’ Report, 1915 WL 3321, at *7 (Pa. Com. Pl. Aug. 11, 1915) (statement) (general principle) In re Krauthoff, 177 S.W. 1112, 1125 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915) (Highest Authority has said) King v. Reed, 141 P. 41, 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Clopton v. Meeves, 133 P. 907, 910 (Idaho 1913) (common experience and unanimous verdict of mankind) Jacobs v. Beyer, 125 N.Y.S. 597, 599 (App. Div. 1910) (rule) Biddle v. Cumberland County, No. 15, 1908 WL 2834, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 20, 1908) Commonwealth ex rel. Kutz v. Witman, 66 A. 986, 987 (Pa. 1907) (statement) 86 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Evans v. Rockett, 32 Pa. Super. 365, 369 (Super. Ct. 1907) (infallible declaration) Commonwealth v. Miller, 1906 WL 3769, at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1906) (expression) Wilkinson v. McCullough, 46 A. 357, 358 (Pa. 1900) (infallible declaration) Leathers v. Canfield, 75 N.W. 612, 616 (Mich. 1898) (infallible declaration) Addison v. Wanamaker, 39 A. 1111, 1111 (Pa. 1898) (proposition of the highest and best authority) Deutsch v. Baxter, 47 P. 405, 405 (Colo. App. 1896) (fact) Wildberger v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 17 So. 282, 283 (Miss. 1895) Finch v. Redding, 26 A. 368, 369-70 (Pa. 1893) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Caswell v. Jones, 26 A. 529, 530 (Vt. 1893) Harkness v. Briscoe, 47 Mo. App. 196, 198 (Ct. App. 1891) (principle) Pearson v. Concord R.R., 62 N.H. 537, 545 (1883) Memphis, Kan. & Colo. Ry. Co. v. Parsons Town Co., 26 Kan. 503, 509 (1881) Haxton v. Harris, 19 Kan. 511, 512 (1878) Draper v. Moore, 1872 WL 6072, at *4 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1872) BIBLICAL MANDATE State Court Cases Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Foster, 528 So.2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (ancient principle) Kirby v. Cruce, 688 S.W.2d 161, 171 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985) (Christian morality) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 87 In re Hershberger, 606 P.2d 623, 627 (Or. 1980) (biblical admonition) Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., 600 P.2d 1212, 1217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Twp. Comm. of Hazlet Twp., Monmouth County v. Morales, 289 A.2d 563, 565 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1972) (moral rule) State v. Goode, 171 N.W.2d 733, 733 (S.D. 1969) (ancient admonition) State ex rel. Londerholm v. Schroeder, 430 P.2d 304, 314 (Kan. 1967) (ancient injunction) Riviera Congress Assocs. v. Yassky, 264 N.Y.S.2d 624, 634 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schear v. City of Elizabeth, 196 A.2d 774, 778 (N.J. 1964) (universal moral rule) Naftalin v. John Wood Co., 116 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Minn.1962) (truth of the biblical admonition) Dick & Reuteman Co. v. Doherty Realty Co., 114 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Wis. 1962) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 1959) (familiar scriptural quotation) Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (biblical mandate) Raymond v. Bartlett, 175 P.2d 288, 289 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1946) (biblical doctrine) Higginbotham v. Pub. Belt R.R. Comm’n, 181 So. 65, 71 (La. Ct. App. 1938) (biblical doctrine) In re Flavin’s Guardianship, 18 N.E.2d 514, 518 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938) (law for two thousand years) Adams v. Hearn, 178 A. 606, 611 (Md. 1935) (divine injunction) Stubbs v. Fla. State Finance Co., 159 So. 527, 528 (Fla. 1935) (familiar scriptural quotation) 88 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Mangels v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Balt., 173 A. 191, 197 (Md. 1934) (divine precept) State v. Williams, 68 S.E. 900, 902 (N.C. 1910) (scriptural teaching) Hamilton v. Allen, 125 N.W. 610, 612 (Neb. 1910) (philosophy of the Galilean and declaration) Beasley v. Swinton, 24 S.E. 313, 322 (S.C. 1896) (Christ said) Funk v. Washington Twp., No. 196, 1893 WL 2925, at *4 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 15, 1893) (authority of Holy Writ) Pa. R.R. Co. v. Flanigan, 4 A. 364, 367 (Pa. 1886) (authority of Holy Writ) Everhart v. Searle, 71 Pa. 256, 259 (1872) (authority of Holy Writ and principle) Scheible v. Bacho, 41 Ala. 423, 450 (1868) (Divine declaration) Herman v. Martineau, 1 Wis. 151, 158 (1853) (doctrine of Holy Writ) PRINCIPLE OR PROPOSITION State Court Cases People v. Dobrino, 592 N.E.2d 391, 401 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) People v. Arnold, 577 N.E.2d 1355, 1362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) Fed’n of State Cultural & Educ. Prof’l v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 147, 150 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988) People v. Spreitzer, 525 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ill. 1988) State v. Basham, 170 N.W.2d 238, 255 (S.D. 1969) (principle) Batson v. Strehlow, 59 Cal. Rptr. 195, 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Holmes v. McKey, 383 P.2d 655, 664 (Okla. 1963) In re Guardianship of Angell, 167 N.E.2d 711, 713 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960) Battle v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 168 N.E.2d 915, 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 89 Fred Tuke & Son v. Burkhardt, 156 N.E.2d 490, 491 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1958) State v. Hambrick, 196 P.2d 661, 667 (Wyo. 1948) Callahan v. Jones, 93 P.2d 326, 330 (Wash. 1939) Gallin v. Nat’l City Bank of N.Y., 273 N.Y.S. 87, 101 (Sup. Ct. 1934) Rossi v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J., 165 A. 16, 18 (Pa. 1932) Garibaldi Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Atlantic City v. Garibaldi, 162 A. 419, 423 (N.J. Ch. 1932) Swearingen v. Moore, 280 P. 295, 299 (Okla. 1929) Johnson ex rel. McCarter v. Nippert, 144 A. 404, 406 (Pa. 1928) Adams v. Kennard, 253 P. 1048, 1049 (Or. 1927) Quell v. Boyajian, 90 Pa. Super. 386, 389 (Super. Ct. 1926) (ancient principle) Murray v. Stuart, 247 P. 187, 188 (Colo. 1926) (ancient principle) W.R. Pickering Lumber Co. v. Sherritt, 233 P. 179, 180 (Okla. 1924) Rowe v. Freeman, 172 P. 508, 511 (Or. 1918) Livermore Falls Trust & Banking Co. v. Riley, 78 A. 980, 981 (Me. 1911) Wolford v. Upper Salford Twp. Sch. Dist., 46 Pa. Super. 1, 4 (Super. Ct. 1910) Clark v. Hubbard, 44 Pa. Super. 37, 42 (Super. Ct. 1910) (public policy rule) Edwards v. Meyers, 76 A. 510, 511 (Pa. 1910) Marshall v. Reed, 32 Pa. Super. 60, 61 (Super. Ct. 1906) (declaration and general principle) Maxwell v. West, No. 603, 1900 WL 4333, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Feb. 3, 1900) 90 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Cincinnati, H. & D. R.R. Co. v. Morris, 10 Ohio C.C. 502, 520 (Cir. Ct. 1895) Rice v. Davis, 20 A. 513, 514 (Pa. 1890) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Bensley v. Moon, 7 Ill. App. 415, 421 (App. Ct. 1880) Bassett v. Monte Christo Gold & Silver Min. Co., 15 Nev. 293, 299 (1880) (general principle) Eur. & N. Am. Ry. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277, 277 (1871) Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R.R. Co., 52 Barb. 173, 173 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1868) PROVERB OR MAXIM State Court Cases In re Estate of Shano, 869 P.2d 1203, 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Dev. Co., 502 So.2d 1034, 1040 (La. 1987) Alexander v. Super. Ct., 685 P.2d 1309, 1315 (Ariz. 1984) Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1052 v. Pub. Employment Relations, 630 P.2d 470, 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) In re Adkins’ Estate, 319 P.2d 512, 515 (Mont. 1957) (old proverb) Shell Oil Co. v. Bd. of County Com’rs, 231 P.2d 220, 224 (Kan. 1951) (maxim) Engle v. Dist. Ct., 85 P.2d 627, 629 (Utah 1938) In re Union Real Estate Inv. Co. First Mortgage 6% Gold Bonds Due July 1, 1941, 1 A.2d 662, 666 (Pa. 1938) Howard v. Potts, 233 N.W. 909, 912 (S.D. 1930) (moral maxim) Horan v. Varian, 265 P. 263, 267 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Cameron v. White, 262 P. 664, 668 (Okla. 1927) Salata v. Dylewski, 207 N.W. 895, 896 (Mich. 1926) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 91 Farnsworth v. Hatch, 151 P. 537, 541 (Utah 1915) In re Ramsey, 123 N.W. 726, 728 (S.D. 1909) (moral maxim) Casey v. Donovan, 65 Mo. App. 521, 529 (Ct. App. 1896) Burke v. Bours, 32 P. 980, 981 (Cal. 1893) Piatt v. Longworth’s Devisees, 27 Ohio St. 159, 195 (1875) (legal maxim)https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=clr City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 ...
Translation It takes the average person about 90 days to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three doses pe...