The Power of Words

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).

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!

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 [50] 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.

"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.

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 dist