Gideon Caleb: Gordon
Mark 12:17, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
Render to Caesar is often quoted as the definitive answer to how much authority Caesar has over us. But does something belong to Caesar simply because he says it does? For example, if the income tax rate is raised to 100%, do we hand over our entire paycheck? If not, what number is the magical dividing line above which Caesar is asking too much and we are compelled to hold back the remainder for God and for our own needs? A meaningful answer, if there is one, cannot come in the form of something as arbitrary as a percentage. So the surprise is that there is a clear answer, and that it can be found hiding within the very structure of modern law.
Since law is an area that few will ever study, some background is necessary. We will use the country of New Zealand as an example, and will reveal an illusion at work that keeps most people ignorant of how the law really works. For starters, the law is presented as a singular beast that you are either obeying or disobeying, when in fact all English speaking nations have at least two distinct systems of law presently operating.
Statutory Law or Statutes
The law we are all familiar with consists of millions of pages of statutory regulations governing every aspect of modern life imaginable. From taxes to car registration to protecting the environment, we either deal with these laws as an accepted part of life or hear about their effect on us regularly. Elected officials get to sit in the Capitol, decide what is best for us, and change the laws according to their whims. In New Zealand, the latest evil the politicians are determined to eradicate through law is bovine flatulence. So if Caesar says the air is his and cows are no longer allowed to pollute it, a new statute removes the air from God's domain and places it under Caesar's. If you don't like it, all you can do is vote for someone who might do better. For some reason no one can explain, the trend is for these laws to get less beneficial to us over time. Compare the ever changing nature of these laws with a well known example from scripture:
Daniel 6:12-15, Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day. Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree which the king establisheth may be changed.
How is it that king Darius, the ruler of a vast empire, could not change his own law when he clearly wanted to, yet our legislatures simply have to cast a majority vote and the rules change again? Which one of these is consistent with the definition of the word law?
LAW: "n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed ] 1. A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule." Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
God's Law and the Common Law
The Bible has always been known as God's Law, and until recently was known as the law of the land throughout the former British Empire. This law never changes, as no one on earth has the authority to change one word of it. If God says something is wrong, it was wrong six thousand years ago, and it is still wrong today. This is consistent with God's character:
Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not;"
Similar, though not identical to God's Law is the common law of Britain.
Common Law: "That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
Common law is based on the traditions of men, but cannot be radically altered as that is the nature of tradition. As long as you obeyed the Ten Commandments, the government mostly left you alone. This stands in stark contrast to the intrusive and ever-changing statutes we think of as law today.
Two New Zealands
Today we are told that God's Law has been replaced by statutory law, and on the surface this certainly appears to be true. However, all law is based on precedent, so you cannot throw out a system of law without a revolution of the kind as has never occurred in the English speaking world. So what actually happened? If you can accept that there are two laws, maybe you are prepared to hear that there are also two New Zealands. As this is true in most places you can freely substitute the name of the Country, State, Province, or other political entity you are trying to figure out.
The Nation or Country of New Zealand
We have no trouble thinking of nations in geographic terms. Land on the beach, cross a river, or step over an imaginary line in the sand, and you are suddenly in another country or nation. Once there, so we are told, we are bound to obey all their laws. If we don't like those laws, the inhabitants are quick to tell us, we should find somewhere that suits us better. They have accepted those laws without question, and so must we. A place like New Zealand is quite easily defined geographically, so how could there possibly be more than one New Zealand?
Emergence of the Nation-State
We learned in school that the countries on the globe are nation-states and that this is a relatively new phenomenon in history. What is new about this arrangement is something we were not told. Because Americans, Australians and others call the various regions with their nation States, most think of a State as merely a smaller territory within a nation. As it turns out, the words nation and state mean very different things, and their combination into the idea of the nation-state may be the greatest illusion ever foisted upon mankind.
State: "n. 1 the existing condition or position of a person or thing." Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth edition.
State, "government. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community " Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
State, condition of persons. If we inquire into its origin, it will be found to come from the Latin status, which is derived from statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fulfill the obligations which are imposed upon him. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
Status has to do to with our relation to others. So we see that a state is a much more abstract concept than a nation or country. It describes the political affiliation of a group of people, but says nothing about their geographic location. While it may make logical sense for neighbors to band together politically, it is completely unnecessary to the concept of a state. Thus you can have more than one state within the same territory, or a state can span multiple territories.
Then why is this word State used so often to describe a geographic entity? Enter the grand illusion of the nation-state. The modern world has been organized so that political States are limited to the geographic boundaries defined by nations. Thus the laws of a particular State only apply if you are within its corresponding nation. But didn't the nation already have laws, and why the need to distinguish between the nation and the State if they are both within the same territory? To answer this we must return to the two laws.
Statute: "The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution. 2. This word is used in contradistinction to the common law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
To write these statutes, we see that there must be a constitution.
Constitution, "government. The fundamental law of the state, " Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
Next we see that a constitution is peculiar to the State, having nothing whatsoever to do with the nation. Unlike the nations, which have been around for thousands of years, the idea of the State, and its organizational document, a constitution, is a much more recent phenomenon.
The modern idea of a constitution began to emerge after the Reformation, particularly in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who developed the notion of the social contract. In the social-contract view, a people agree among themselves to give up a portion of the absolute freedom that characterizes the pre-social state of nature in return for the security that an acknowledged sovereign government can provide. It was Locke's work particularly, on the division of rights between those assigned to the government and those retained by individuals and on the division of powers within the government, that influenced the late 18th-century authors of the American Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2002.
So the State comes into being when a group of people agree to be bound by a social contract formalized in a constitution. Out of this arrangement, statutes may be issued with much more flexibility than God's Law would ever allow. A contract only requires mutual agreement, so the statutes can be anything the members of the State want and can be changed as often as they please. If a group of thieves organize their own State and make theft legal, who could object? As long as you do not join their State, their peculiar law does not affect you.
The Law of the Land
Just like state, the word statute comes from the root status. So the State and its statutes are free-floating or relative - subject only to our relation to others. Another maxim of law says, The law of the land and the law of God are all one, and both favor and protect the common good of the land. Just as a nation or country is tied to the land, so is God's Law, complete with the permanence this implies. As we saw from the example in Daniel, this inflexible understanding of law goes back thousands of years. Suddenly the social-contract view provided a model whereby men had the freedom to change laws to suit their whims. All that was required to do this was to be organized politically as a State.
However, we know from the definition of law that statutes can never actually change what is fixed. Something is lawful if it conforms to God's Law. So while Caesar may disagree with God, he actually lacks the authority to place his opinion above God's. All he can do through statute is to make what God says is lawful illegal or make unlawful activities legal. But for this trick to work, Caesar must also convince you that it is more important to do what is legal than to do only what is lawful.
Legal:"Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", " 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson, (1893).
If we look up the synonyms of antithesis and equitable we find that this last statement literally says; Legal is the exact opposite of just and fair. Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you something is illegal.
So while law limits Caesar's power, statutes provide Caesar with a means for poking his head into places never before imaginable. For example, nowhere in scripture will you find the idea of a tax based on a percentage of wages. It simply is not lawful. A man's labor never belonged to Caesar. It is Caesar's statutes which make it "legal" for him to take a man's wages. Thus, without statutes Caesar could not tax any percentage of income at all!
What the idea of the nation-state provides is a means for gradually covering the Laws of God with the statutes of the State. This way, when the nation cannot do something lawfully, the State merely has to write a statute to do it legally instead. So today, a nation such as New Zealand will also have a State operating within in it that goes by the same name.
But there is still one element missing from the equation. A man on the land in the nation must volunteer into the social contract, making him a citizen of the State as well. Otherwise Caesar's new statutes have no authority over him. This has been accomplished so effectively today that we have no idea there is a distinction. But now that you know that there are two laws and two New Zealands, maybe you won't be shocked to learn that there are two of you as well!
What one creates, one controls is a principle of God's Truth. Bake a cake, build a shed, or birth a baby and it is yours. God created us, so He gets to control us. We were all born within a nation and therefore have nation-ality. However, the nation did not create us, so it only gets to control us to the extent that we break God's Law. As long as we behave lawfully, the government has little if any role to play in our life. This is the scriptural purpose of government:
Romans 13:3-4, For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
For the State to have control over something, it must first create it. What the State is capable of creating is a fictitious identity for real people. It then offers benefits to the fictitious identity, and if the real man accepts them, he accepts the control of the State as well. So any time the State creates an identity document such as an employee badge, a driver's license or a passport, it contains certain key elements that make it the State's creation, and not a true description of you. The first is the name. The name is always spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. You were never taught in school to spell your name this way, as this is not proper English. In law, anything spelled contrary to the rules of English is a legal fiction. So when you accept improper spelling, you are actually accepting an entirely new name: a name given to you by the State.
The other key part of the fictitious identity is the birth date. There are usually other numbers as well, but this is the key one. While your parents may have told you, and a birth certificate may say so, you can never be qualified to testify as to the day you were born. It is something you can't possibly remember, and therefore cannot be a witness to. Because of this, every time a State employee asks you what your birth date is and you tell them, they have made a liar of you. You have given them hearsay information, inadmissible in a court of law. If they wanted your parents to testify, or to enter your birth certificate as evidence, that would be fine. However, it will only and always be hearsay if it comes from you. Thus this date on an identification document is another fiction, because you will constantly be asked to verify that it is correct, and you cannot ever testify truthfully if it is or not.
So any time you see the ALL CAPS name and the birth date, you are really looking at the artificial PERSON. Most State benefits are only available to him, and he is the actual citizen of the State. Things are deliberately structured this way to get the lawful Christian man to volunteer to identify himself instead as the artificial PERSON, and therefore a subject of the State.
In this day of gender sensitivity, we have been carefully taught to replace sexist words like man with the supposed synonym person. However, in law when we admit to being a person, we are declaring that we are something very different from a lawful man or woman. The word person comes from the Latin persona, meaning an actor's mask. Like your person-ality, your person may be what others see, but it is not you at all.
"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910.
So again we see that whether we are PERSONS under the statutes of the State all comes back to the question of our status. It has nothing at all to do with law.
Idem Sonans: "Sounding the same. 2. In pleadings, when a name which it is material to state, is wrongly spelled, yet if it be idem sonans with that proved, it is sufficient, as Segrave for Seagrave." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
When spoken out loud, your real name and the ALL CAPS name sound exactly the same. Yet in writing they are easy to distinguish. Not surprisingly, it is just as easy to distinguish between the nation and the State.
Thus the State that is the counterpart to the nation of New Zealand, making it a nation-state, is called NEW ZEALAND. This appears correctly on printed documents. People are not so careful when hand-writing these names, as they seldom know there is a difference. Often, a government official will work for both the nation and the State, and his titles will reflect this, such as:
The New Zealand Treasury Secretary, and
SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY OF NEW ZEALAND
This also reveals two distinct departments, one for the nation and the other for the State:
The New Zealand Treasury, and
THE TREASURY OF NEW ZEALAND
Now we can look at the two laws, two New Zealands and two men, and see that there is an exact correspondence, and an initial answer to the question posed by the title of this paper:
|The things that are God's
|The things that are Caesar's
|State NEW ZEALAND
Codes, Rules and Regulations: Statutes
|Lawful Man of God
A Bondman of Christ
ALL CAPS name & birth date
|Determined by Law
Are you doing Good or Evil?
|Determined by Status
Are you under Contract?
The above chart should make clear that simply being within the geographic boundaries of the nation is not sufficient to make you subject to the statutes of the State. Yet the State has been so successful in getting us all to volunteer into its scheme that you probably don't know anyone for whom this makes a practical difference. What the rest of this article will show is why it is crucial to understand the distinction and to choose you this day whom ye will serve
When we search out the origins of this modern governmental dichotomy, we find it rooted in two very different views of the source of rightful authority. The established view was that all authority flows from God Himself, and that the only scriptural form of government is a monarchy, presided over by a King. Thus, the people were subject to the King's authority so long as the King was subject to God's authority. This view survives today in governmental oath's of office. The Queen of England is sworn to uphold the laws of God and the proclamation of the gospel. In her coronation ceremony, this oath was immediately followed by the presentation of the Holy Scriptures, lest there be any doubt as to what laws and gospel these referred to. In New Zealand, and no doubt in the rest of the British Commonwealth, the police and judges are sworn to serve the Queen, as she is still the head of the nation. Thus the people are to obey the police and judges because they are under a lawful chain of authority traceable back to God Himself.
But along with the Reformation came a competing idea of how to set up a legitimate form of government. Of course, the thinking was that this new form would be superior to the old, as it would address the abuses that were so prevalent among Kings who did not take God's authority over them seriously enough. Instead of appealing to the scriptures for its authority, this new form of government would be created by a group of men simply agreeing on how they wanted to be governed. This new thinking would finally come to full bloom in the form of the American Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Several things were achieved with this universally praised document. First, it laid all the blame for the colonies' problems at the foot of King George, dealing a major blow to the already embattled concept of monarchy. Second, it clearly stated the social-contract view as the basis for the authority of the new government. While the Creator is given credit for unalienable Rights, the authority to institute, alter or abolish government rests solely with the People, and is guided by nothing more than their fickle opinion of what seems best at the time.
Finally, and very significantly, the Declaration created a new political entity that would brilliantly obscure the meaning of the word state for generations to come. A new nation was born, consisting supposedly of thirteen geographic subdivisions called States, and to burn this into the mind of every man, the new nation would be called the united States of America. What had really been created for the first time in history was a political entity independent of the biblical authority structure of previous nations. This was to be the new model for the world as evidenced by the roll-out of the nation-state across the entire globe, and its accompanying organizational document, a constitution.
An interesting note is that in New Zealand the people are told that they do not have a constitution. However, a peek into the Preamble of the Australian Constitution shows:
6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia,
This makes it clear why people from either country may freely live and work in the other, and the currencies are identical shapes and sizes, among other coincidences. Australia and New Zealand are separate nations but the same federated State. Ponder that one for a while.
The second greatest illusion ever foisted upon mankind is the idea that a constitution is the means of securing liberties. Of course, to sell this new idea regarding government required a mythology that it was an improvement on all previous forms. America, we were told, was to be a model of freedom for the rest of the world. In other words, once government based on the whims of men was accepted, it could be sold wholesale to everyone else on the planet. What they failed to tell anyone was the catch: a constitution creates constitutors.
Constitutor: "civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
If we turn to Article Six of the U.S. Constitution we find:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
So the State requires a constitution and a constitution requires a debt to be paid. Pay off the debt, and the State ceases to exist! The existence of all modern governments is predicated on the fact that their citizens have become surety for someone else's debt, and this debt can never be repaid.
Proverbs 11:15, He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.
No matter what country you are in, one reality that makes news on a regular basis is the ever-growing national debt. Did you ever wonder who actually has the money lying around to make such enormous loans? Is there some nation out there that is super-rich, loaning all their money to the rest of the world? In fact, all the rich nations are heavily in debt, so just where does this money come from? Enter the illusion of modern banking. Today central banks are allowed to issue fictitious currencies backed by nothing of value, and in turn to collect interest on that money they got to create out of thin air. They loan this money to the government, and we get to pay it back plus interest by the very real sweat of our brow. Pretty neat, huh?
The laws that allow the bankers to play such a trick can only be statutory, for this is completely against God's Law. So for the game to work, those paying the debt must all be members of a State, not merely a nation. This creates the necessity of a constitution to turn men into citizens, or constitutors of the State. Then they are bound by the statutes written for the purpose of collecting this debt. What is at first surprising is just how similar the statutes are in distant countries like New Zealand and the United States, for example. However, once you learn that the statutes are written by the same group of attorneys working for the bankers who loaned the money to both nations, it makes perfect sense. Local legislatures seldom do more than make cosmetic changes before rubber-stamping these statutes into law.
Though nations are tied to God's Law, and modern law is still dependent upon it for precedence, today we are told in courtrooms that God's Law is irrelevant. How can this be so? Once a debt is established, it becomes a means of control just as scripture says.
Proverbs 22:7, The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Since it is called the national debt, we know that it is the nation, not the State that is in debt. Rumor has it that at one time or another every nation has defaulted on its debt, forcing it to declare bankruptcy. This event severely undermines the law of the nation.
Bankruptcy: "The state or condition of a bankrupt. 2. Bankrupt laws are an encroachment upon the common law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
Bankrupt:Again, the bankrupt laws are intended mainly to secure creditors from waste, extravagance, and mismanagement, by seizing the property out of the hands of the debtors, and placing it in the custody of the law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
When a nation declares bankruptcy, all its assets are seized and managed by another entity charged with using those assets to pay the debt. What are the assets of a nation? The three principle ones are its land, its vehicles and its people! All titles to land and vehicles, along with all birth certificates are turned over to the entity managing the bankruptcy. But what entity is that? Conveniently it was already sitting there, complete with a form of law to take custody of the property with. It is the State, created by debt and eager for a greater role in managing that debt! So now the statutes for managing the bankruptcy take precedence over the laws of the bankrupt nation.
But simply turning over birth certificates is insufficient to turn free men into debtor/slaves without their consent. This is accomplished more subtly for several reasons. The most significant reason for disguising what is going on is that the most productive slaves are the ones who believe they are free. So you continue the propaganda about freedom in the now bankrupt nation because it makes debt collection far easier. In all likelihood, your name is spelled properly on your birth certificate. If you immigrate to New Zealand, the visa will also be issued in your real name. This seems quite odd, especially as it gets placed within the pages of a Passport that has only the ALL CAPS name in it. Immigration, it turns out, is really transferring yourself as an asset from one nation to another, and it will be the nation of New Zealand, not the State of NEW ZEALAND that considers you of sufficient value to accept for bankruptcy settlement purposes. Once there, you will be promptly turned over to the State of NEW ZEALAND for management, and all other documents will be issued only to the artificial PERSON. So if you look on the title to your house or vehicle, you will see that it has the ALL CAPS name on it, meaning it is not really owned by you at all. The artificial PERSON is a fiction, and how can a fictitious entity own anything?
As a bondservant of Christ, you are obliged at all times to obey God's Law. However, you cannot leave your house without the State pushing contracts and benefits at you for your acceptance. The moment you sign a form or accept a benefit, you are now under contract with the State and identified as one of their artificial PERSONS. As such you are bound by all their debt collection contracts, known as statutory laws. These are not true Law as they are ever-changing, and because they are contracts there is no limit to their terms. You are presumed to have agreed to whatever those terms are when you agreed to be under contract. So if those terms contradict fundamental freedoms, it is presumed that you gave them away willingly.
Interestingly, the same Article Six of the U.S. Constitution where the debts are affirmed is also where religious tests for public office are forbidden. This was another novelty in law masquerading as a freedom. Previously it was assumed that those administering the laws of the nation (God's Law) were fellow believers in Christ who upheld God's Law privately as well as publicly. Removing this requirement would pave the way for the so-called secular courts we have today. These courts get to uphold statutes contrary to God's Law as the officers of the court are not bound publicly or privately to uphold God's Law. So while God's Law can never be replaced as the law of the land, it has been so effectively covered over that it can be treated as irrelevant.
To understand what takes place in a modern court it is necessary to expand our two categories of law to four. First we will look at the laws of the nation. The Queen of England has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of God and the laws of New Zealand. A moment's reflection will make obvious that no one can swear to do two contradictory actions at the same time, so these two laws cannot be in conflict with each other. What this means is that the laws of New Zealand are merely a practical outworking of the laws of God. They are both the law of the land. In front of a judge this will have great significance, for if you mention the laws of God he will counter that he is sworn to uphold the laws of New Zealand, and he is. Now you will be in his court under a charge of violating a statute of NEW ZEALAND not a law of New Zealand, but he hopes you will not know the difference between the two. His statutes need the legitimacy of being thought of as law and he doesn't want you to know he is violating his own oath of office.
Now should you seek to separate yourself from contractual relationships with the statutes of NEW ZEALAND, you will soon discover a clear double-standard within those statutes. While the police and judges of NEW ZEALAND are very eager to obtain rigid compliance from you to their statutes, they do not feel nearly the same urgency to obey them themselves. In a small place like New Zealand, with no division of powers within the government, this truly makes them a law unto themselves. But who can blame them for using their own contracts to their advantage? After all, any contractual relationship is voluntary, right? Of course for the system to work they must convince you that it is not at all voluntary.
Another side to the double-standard is just who the law enforcers are. Most judges and many police are members of the Masonic order. They swear other oaths in contradiction to their oath of office, such as to never convict any member of their order of any crime less serious than murder or treason. What this means is that the same statutes they will throw you behind bars for, they have already arranged to have not apply to themselves. So while they huff and puff about how important their statutory law is, it is really two laws, one for us and another for them.
Now we can see the breakdown of the four laws:
|Law||Debt Collection Rules|
|1) God's Law
Law of the Land
|3) Statutes of NEW ZEALAND
as applied to the general public
| 2) Laws of New Zealand
Consistent with God's Law
|4) Statutes of NEW ZEALAND
as applied to its own employees
|Queen, police and judges are
sworn to uphold
|Police and judges
All men within the Nation
Only those under CONtract
|Source of Authority:
Traceable back to God
|Source of Authority:
CONsent of the Governed
The final piece of the puzzle of modern government is that there is yet another New Zealand. It appears on many documents under the name NZ with no punctuation. Were it punctuated, it would merely be an abbreviation for one of the other two New Zealands, though we would have no way of knowing which one. But NZ is a third entity altogether. In the United States there are also two-letter designations for each State, and this gives us a clue as to what NZ really is. CA is not the lawful California Republic, nor the debt collection agency of CALIFORNIA, but actually an enclave of the United States Federal government within California. So anyone who admits to being in CA is actually placing themselves under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Most Americans accept mail delivered to their house with only the two-letter designation, and thus unwittingly give the Federal government authority over them it normally would not have. This is one way they make themselves subject to Federal Income Tax statutes.
Should you be approved as an immigrant to New Zealand, you will receive a visa granting the right to live and work in NZ. There will be plenty of room on the visa to spell New Zealand out in full, leaving you to wonder why they apparently couldn't be bothered to do so. However, we already have a number of clues that tell us this was no accident. First, does government have the lawful (i.e. God-given) authority to decide who can or cannot inhabit a nation and work there? The fact that the visa does not grant the right to live and work in New Zealand is actually a confession that the government has no such authority. Second, we know that New Zealand is a State within Australia, and that their statutes are written by the same people who wrote the U.S. statutes. So in all likelihood the Income Tax in New Zealand is really an Australian Federal statute, as opposed to a statute of NEW ZEALAND. Thus, if they want to tax your wages, it is critical that they get you to accept the privilege of living, and especially working, within the Federal jurisdiction known as NZ. Finally, since it violates the rules of written English, we know that NZ is another legal fiction, not a lawful government. So its main purpose is simply to bind us with even more debt collection statutes.
This is just one example of how the government fools us into giving them authority over us. First, they make a claim to have a power they do not lawfully have, such as telling you where you may or may not work. Then, once you believe that you no longer have this God-given freedom (the ability to support your family), they offer you a government-granted privilege or benefit in its place. As soon as you ask for and accept this benefit, you are now under their control. So when you present your visa to an employer as proof that you are allowed to work for him, you also give him rightful authority to take a portion of your wages and send them in to the government. You have just taken what is God's (and God has freely given to you) and unquestioningly handed it over to Caesar.
Were we to list all the God-given freedoms we have voluntarily exchanged for inferior government privileges, we would fill a depressing number of pages. We have been trapped by our own ignorance of the law, despite being told early in life that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Once we start doing business with Caesar, willingly giving him what is God's, we find ourselves locked into a web of detrimental contracts. A key point to understand is that there are absolutely no limits in law to what two parties can agree to by contract, so long as it does not involve harming a third party. So if you agree to give all your property to another party, or to be treated however that party may deem best, there is nothing in law to appeal to should you later discover you ended up with the bad end of the deal. Caesar's modern State is just such a contractual relationship, with one key difference: we were never told we were contracting all our God-given freedoms away. This has significant implications for anyone who sees a problem with the way the contract is working out at present.
First, it is an all or nothing contract. If you agree to one part, you agree to the whole thing. So Christians who think they should go along with most of the statutes of the State out of obedience to scripture are in fact giving legitimacy to all the godless actions of the State. We were told that we had no choice but accept the all because it's the law. However, we now see that this is not Law at all, merely a contractual relationship, and as such the contract can be terminated. Second, this contract, at its root, involves the payment of debts we never agreed to. We have been sold into bondage for generations now, and unless something changes we will simply sell our children and grandchildren into this same, ever worsening bondage.
Third, the only scriptural solution is to come out of her, my people. (Revelation 18:4; II Corinthians 6:17). This does not mean coming out of the nation or violating its laws. These laws are still consistent with the Law of God and are what scripture refers to when telling us to obey legitimate earthly authority. However, when we obey judges and police who are sworn to uphold legitimate laws but are instead enforcing a separate and contradictory set of statutes, we become party to their evil. We neither uphold law nor honor God. We devote our energies to obeying the whims of men which change almost by the day and grow increasingly depraved. It is the statutory contract law of the State that we must stop trying to fix, and instead reject and no longer participate in.
Now that you understand the structure of modern law, you are prepared to see how perfectly scripture described it thousands of years in advance. Most Christians are waiting for the day a computer chip is implanted on their forehead or hand, and at that time they will make a decision to accept it or reject it. What they find unimaginable is the idea that they have already accepted the mark of the beast. Yet scripture could not be more clear on this subject.
Revelation 13:16-17, And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
First note that there is not just a MARK, but also a NAME and a NUMBER. What does the State always need from you? The artificial PERSON NAME and birth date or other NUMBER, such as a Social Security Number. You have to love the honesty of the Canadians who call it a Social Insurance Number, or SIN! You cannot do business with the State without these, nor can you open a bank account or access many other conveniences of modern life without them. Each year it becomes more challenging to buy and sell without the NAME or NUMBER of the beast.
But the MARK is the real kicker, and it has been sitting there in scripture all along.
Exodus 13:9, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that God's law may be in thy mouth.
This is repeated in one of the most famous passages of the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 6:4-9, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."
What is supposed to already be on our hand and on our forehead (between thine eyes)? God's Law! If it is there, how could the beast's counterfeit MARK take its place? Of course the modern church has neglected God's Law in the name of being not under law but under grace. In its place we have accepted the beast's statute law, which is his MARK. Because people no longer think of Law as something fixed or unchanging, the church misses the blessing of having an unchanging Law to follow and accepts in its place the burden of ever-changing statutes.
Grace is taught as being the opposite of Law, when the true biblical opposite is iniquity or lawlessness. How many Christians, in the name of living under grace, are in fact living in iniquity? This failure of understanding leads the modern church to teach that obedience to ever-changing statutes is what Paul and Peter had in mind when they tell us to submit to earthy authorities. Yet these statutes are contradictory to and a replacement for the Law of God which was the law of the land of our forefathers for so many centuries. This is precisely what Daniel saw several millennia earlier while in Babylon:
Daniel 7:23, 25, Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
So the modern church has already embraced the MARK, NAME and NUMBER of the beast and continues to tell its members to do so as good Christians. In the name of obedience to God, most are busily rendering to Caesar the things that are rightfully God's.
If you cannot distinguish between the four laws, three New Zealands and two men, you will never make sense of modern law. In the same way, using the terms saved, born again and accepted Jesus interchangeably, obscures a crucial key to understanding scripture.
John 3:3, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
If your reaction to being told that there are faults in Caesar's statutes is to rush to defend them, it is because you cannot envision life without them. This is normal for someone who can only see one kingdom: the kingdom of this world. Yet this world is passing away, as are our own bodies. There is only one thing in life more certain than Caesar's taxes. So we are really here as a test of whether we can see and then choose those things that have eternal value. Are our energies devoted to laying up earthly treasures, or treasures in heaven? Are we slaves devoted to building the kingdom of this world, or are we seeking first the kingdom of God? We cannot even know where to begin unless we can see God's kingdom, which is the true meaning of being born again.
God in His sovereignty has provided the perfect means of testing whether we can make the distinction between the two kingdoms. Caesar has usurped God's authority, but his kingdom is built entirely with our consent and by using legal fictions. His authority over us is imaginary. We do not have to render ourselves to him unless we believe that we belong to him. Most people believe with all their heart that they do, for they cannot see the alternative. But if you know that you belong to God, along with your labor, your family, and everything else you have, then you will already have a deep-seated unease with the multitude of demands Caesar makes on you.
If this is the case, then make a list of those things that rightly belong to God but you have in ignorance given to Caesar. Then develop a plan of action for returning them to their rightful owner. This is not easy, but it is necessary. You will need to learn much more about God's Law so that you can discern what true obedience requires of you. If you trust the State to provide for your needs rather than trusting God, it should be clear which master you are serving. As no man can serve two masters, you have a choice to make. Scripture is clear that obedience to God comes at a price, and we must first count the cost. But once you can see the eternal kingdom, you will realize that any price is worth it.
Matthew 13:44, The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Return to Christ's Lawful Assembly
|Home||Greetings||Who We Are||Helpful Info||Rest Room||Search||Contact Us|