Tens Book

Tens Booklet

The New Testament Church was appointed by Jesus Christ.

How was it organized and why?

How did it work and what was it doing?

Did it do thing different than modern Churches and if so are we neglecting the doctrines of Christ?

At Pentecost everyone who got the Baptism of the Apostles who were professing Jesus as the Christ were “put out” of a network of synagogues which operated under the authority of the Pharisees through the Temple built by Herod's government.

The Christians were at first Jews. Paul and the Apostles knew “among the Jews, all it takes to form a synagogue is ten elders! Ten men, rather.” Not only the Jews but many nations organized the people or they organized themselves in similar patters. Even, Jesus had “commanded” in the Gospels before anyone would receive he distribution of the loaves and fishes that the disciples organize the people in companies that were traditionally ten heads of families and those companies would be connected in ranks of a hundred until everyone was connected in a network.

Both Augustus Caesar of Rome and Herod the Great of Judea had set up systems of social welfare that provided free bread and other benefits to its members through their temple systems. In fact, Herod not only built he lavish temple in Jerusalem but he also built the Temple of Roma which provided the same type of benefits for people who preferred Roman or Greek culture.

Almost every national group included some way of taking care of the needy of their society. When Jesus was born and John the Baptist began to preach about the kingdom of God most all notions were using force to compel the contributions of the people and then provide free bread for the poor and needy from the treasuries of the temples.

Free or subsidized grain and eventually bread was distributed to a large percentage of the Roman population through the Cura Annonae ("care for the grain supply"). The goddesses Annona was the personification of the grain supply, and the Temple of Ceres was the site of the dole.

As early as 440 BC a praefectus annonae ("Prefect of the Provisions") was appointed to oversee the distribution of grain supplies in time of emergencies or regularly for the poor.

Long before the office of praefectus was created the Aedile was appointed to the priestly offices of the temple. These were not offices of superstition but practical positions which provided care of the city and the repair and preservation of temples.

The temples had a variety of important functions. The minted coins at the temple of Moneta. The Tabularum contained the temple of Veiovis. In front of it were was the Vespasian, Concord, and the Rostra. held government records concerning lands, laws, offices and court decisions,

supplied the general welfare of the people. He also oversaw sewers, aqueducts, streets and their traffic, including dangerous animals, unsound buildings and threat by fires. Anything that might undermine the “public morals” and safety of society from the misuse of baths and taverns to prostitutes, gamblers, and usurers or even the influence of degenerate “foreign superstitions”"bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule …. and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind". He oversaw the collection of rents on the “ager publicus” or public lands which provided much of the revenue besides contributions of the people. He also organized regular religious festivals, the games, and the purchase of grain for distribution at a low price in case of necessity.

It was not until 123 BC when Rome began regular distribution that many people became dependent upon. By the 3rd century these government welfare systems included bread, oil, wine and meats.

because Jesus said that system of sacrifice or 'Corban of the Pharisees was making the word of God to none effect'.

minyan (a quorum of ten)

The people of Judea, like the people of Rome, had moved from being a Republic to an autocratic government which eventually oppressed the people, as 1 Samuel 8 predicted through their sloth and covetous practices, according to the prophets and Proverbs and even Polybius. The voice of the people had rejected God and through wantonness electing men who could exercise authority one over the other.

They had more and more slothfully neglected the personal responsibility in their mandated practice of "Pure Religion" through charity alone. The people have become dependent upon government welfare and benefits provided at the expense of their neighbor were snared and entangled again in a yoke of bondage.

Because believers in Jesus who was the Christ and a different kind of King of a different kind of government were doing something different than the Church today. Those people who gather in patterns of Tens as Christ commanded expressed their faith by public Baptism and a daily ministration which provided all the social welfare benefits through charity. They were excluded from that public religion or welfare system[2] and had no more access to their Temple treasury and its benefits. That welfare system of the world which had been created first by the Hasmoneans and then by Rome and Herod made the word of God to none effect.

Those believers who were baptized at Pentecost were redeemed from one system much like Egypt.

All the Early Christians at Pentecost had to suddenly take care of all the needs of their society through charity alone with no forced government welfare or free bread from the Pharisees who controlled the temple or Rome.

   “The Mesopotamians arguably invented the centralized state and the developed kingship. Cities were political focal points as well as urban center and leadership was passed down by kingly dynasties. As Mesopotamian culture developed it city-states coalesced into kingdoms.”

   “There were also many civil servants. One of the highest positions was the scribe, who worked closely with the king and the bureaucracy, recording events and tallying up commodities. Temples provided welfare service and protected widows and orphans. The earliest reforms protecting the poor, widows and orphans was found in Ur and date to around 2000 B.C.”

   “Mesopotamians are said to have developed imperialism. The late second millennium B.C. has been called “the first international age." It was a time when there was increased interaction between kingdoms. The Assyrians created a kingdom that embraced many smaller kingdoms made up a variety of different ethnic groups.”

   “Some scholars have described the Mesopotamian system of government as a "theocratic socialism." The center of the government was the temple, where projects like the building of dikes and irrigation canals were overseen, and food was divided up after the harvest. Most Sumerian writing recorded administrative information and kept accounts. Only priests were allowed to write.”

   “The Mesopotamians are also credited with inventing government bureaucracy. Taxes were in the form of tithes paid by farmers. The day-to-day affairs of government were handled by scribes and palace officials. They made records of the tithes and transactions of farmers.

   Some have called Sumer the epitome of the welfare city-state. Sam Roberts in the New York Times, “Work was a duty, but social security was an entitlement. It was personified by the Goddess Nanshe, the first real welfare queen immortalized in hymn as a benefactor who “brings the refugee to her lap, finds shelter for the weak."... Nanshe, the Mesopotamian goddess, was hailed by some bards of Sumer for her compassion and, undoubtedly, denounced by others as a dupe." [Source: Sam Roberts, New York Times, July 5, 1992]”

   “Claude Hermann and Walter Johns wrote in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “The state claimed certain proportions of all crops, stock, etc. The king's messengers could commandeer any subject's property, giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be, if he ever was, owner of the land. He had his own royal estates, his private property and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official residences."Source: Claude Hermann Walter Johns, Babylonian Law — The Code of Hammurabi. Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910-1911 <^>] “

   Hammurabi 1810 BC in Babylon

   Died: 1750 BC in Babylon

   Reign: 1792 - 1750 BC

   Hammurabi code

Prologue

Legal Procedures

Household laws

Slavery

Trade and business

Religion

Epilogue "Let the oppressed man come and stand before my image as king of righteousness. Let him understand my words and his case, so he will understand what is just and his heart will be glad."

   The prologue describes how the god Shamash gave the laws to Hammurabi. "bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule …. and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind". 

   Morris Jastrow said: In Babylonia and Assyria “the people, as a whole, had no share in the government, and, as we have seen, only a limited share in the religious cult, which was largely official and centred around the general welfare and the well-being of the king and his court. Slavery continued in force to the latest days, and, though slaves could buy their freedom and could be adopted by their masters, and had many privileges, even to the extent of owning property and engaging in commercial transactions, yet the moral effect of the institution in degrading the dignity of human life, and in maintaining unjust class distinctions was none the less apparent then than it has been ever since. The temples had large holdings which gave to the religious organisation of the country a materialistic aspect, and granted the priests an undue influence. [Source: Morris Jastrow, Lectures more than ten years after publishing his book “Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria” 1911 <>]

   “Political power and official prestige were permanently vested in the rulers and their families and attendants. We hear, occasionally, of persons of humble birth rising to high positions, but the division of the classes into higher and those of lower ranks was on the whole rigid. Uprisings were not infrequent both in Babylonia and Assyria, and internal dissensions, followed by serious disturbances, revealed the dissatisfaction of the majority with the yoke imposed upon them, which, especially through enforced military service and through taxes for the maintenance of temples, armies, and the royal court, must often have borne heavily on them. The cruelties, practised especially by the Assyrian rulers in times of war, must also have reacted unfavourably on the general moral tone of the population. <>

   “But such conditions prevailed everywhere in antiquity; nor would it be difficult to parallel them in much later ages, and even among some of the leading nations of modern times. The general verdict in regard to the ethics of the Babylonians and Assyrians need not, therefore, be altered because of the shadows that fall on the picture that has been unrolled. A country that offers protection to all classes of its population, that imposes responsibilities upon husbands and fathers, and sees to it that those responsibilities are not evaded, that protects its women and children, that in short, as Hammurabi aptly puts it, aims to secure the weak against the tyranny of the strong and to mete justice to all alike, may fairly be classed among civilisations which, however short they may fall of the ideal commonwealth, yet recognise obedience to ethical principles as the basis of well-being, of true culture, and of genuine religion. <>

   “And yet how harsh is the judgment passed by the Hebrew prophets and psalmists on both Babylonia and Assyria! Prophet and religious poet unite in accusing them of the most terrible crimes; they exhaust the Hebrew vocabulary in pronouncing curses upon Assyria and Babylonia. All nature is represented as rejoicing at their downfall, and it has often been remarked that the prediction that jackals and hyenas would wander through the ruins of Assyria's palaces and Babylonia's temples has been fulfilled almost to the letter. The pious Jews of later ages saw the divine punishment sent for the many crimes of these empires of the East, in the obliteration of the vast cities of the Euphrates Valley and the region to the north, until their very foundation stones were forgotten. <>

   “It was natural that to the Hebrew patriots Assyria and Babylonia should appear to be the embodiment of all evils; was it not through Assyria that Israel fell, and through Babylonia that Jerusalem was destroyed? Through the double blow the national life of the Jews was threatened with utter extinction. Both empires, therefore, appeared to the Jews as incarnations of all that was evil and cruel and sinful. <>

   “Assyria was cruel toward her foes and, if Babylonia has a gentler record, it is because she never so greatly developed military prowess as did her northern cousin. Cruelty to enemies is indeed the darkest blot on the escutcheon of all nations, ancient or modern. The Hebrews are no exception, and one need only read the pages of their own chronicles to match therein some of the cruelties so vividly depicted by the Assyrians on their monuments. To judge fairly of the ethics of any people, we must take them at their best. War for conquest, while it may lead to heroic exploits, unfolds the worst passions of men. This has always been the case and always will be. The conqueror is always haughty and generally merciless, the conquered are always embittered and filled with hatred towards those who have humiliated them. Tested by their attitude towards rivals and foes, what modern nation can stand the judgment of an Isaiah or a Jeremiah? The culture that developed in the Euphrates Valley is full of defects, its ethics one deficient, the religion full of superstition. Assyria exhausted her vitality by ceaseless warring; Babylonia fell into decay through internal dissensions and through intrigues against her rival. The pages of the annals of both nations are full of abhorrent stains, but maugre all drawbacks, the tendency of culture, religion, and ethics was toward higher ideals; the movement was in the right direction. <>

   “Many-sided may be the touchstones of progress. Perhaps sharpest is respect for human life. Herein modern civilisations represent, and naturally, an advance beyond antiquity. We are become more humane, though the lowest instincts of man remain, and may always remain unconquered. None the less, the ancient civilisations, and not the least among them that which arose in the Euphrates Valley and spread its influence far and wide, have much to teach us. To the study of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria the summons is full of promise:— in - troile, nam et hie dii sunt. Ay, so indeed they are! The breath of the Divine sighs through that religion —as it does through all sincere religions, however various their forms, or humble and manifold their yearnings after truth." <>

   Ethics of Rulers and Leadership in Mesopotamia

   Babylonian tablet with administrative text

   Morris Jastrow said: “The kings themselves, although not actuated, perhaps, by the highest motives, set the example of obedience to laws that involved the recognition of the rights of others. From a most ancient period there is come down to us a remarkable monument recording the conveyance of large tracts of land in northern Babylonia to a king of Kish, Manishtusu, (ca . 2700 B.C.), on which hundreds of names are recorded from whom the land was purchased, with specific descriptions of the tracts belonging to each one, as well as the conditions of sale. The king here appears with rights no more exclusive or predominant than those of a private citizen. Not only does he give full compensation to each owner, but undertakes to find occupation and means of support for fifteen hundred and sixty-four labourers and eighty-seven overseers, who had been affected by the transfer. [Source: Morris Jastrow, Lectures more than ten years after publishing his book “Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria” 1911 <>]

   “The numerous boundary stones that are come down to us (recording sales of fields or granting privileges), which were set up as memorials of transactions, are silent but eloquent witnesses to the respect for private property. The inscriptions on these stones conclude with dire curses in the names of the gods against those who should set up false claims, or who should alter the wording of the agreement, or in any way interfere with the terms thereon recorded. The symbols of the gods were engraved on these boundary stones as a precaution and a protection to those whose rights and privileges the stone recorded. The Babylonians could well re-echo the denunciations of the Hebrew prophets against those who removed the boundaries of their neighbours’ fields. Even those Assyrian monarchs most given to conquest and plunder boast, in their annals, of having restored property to the rightful owners, and of having respected the privileges of their subjects and dependents. <>

   “For instance, Sargon of Assyria (721-705 B.C.), while parading his conquests in vain-glorious terms, and proclaiming his unrivalled prowess, emphasises the fact that he maintained the privileges of the great centres of the south, Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon, and that he protected the weak and righted their injuries. His successor Sennacherib claims to be the guardian of justice and a lover of righteousness. Yet, these are the very same monarchs who treated their enemies with unspeakable cruelty, inflicting tortures on prisoners, violating women, mutilating corpses, burning and pillaging towns. <>

   “More significant still is the attitude of a monarch like Hammurabi, who, in the prologue and epilogue to his famous Code, refers to himself as a “king of righteousness," actuated by a lofty desire to protect the weak, the widow, and the orphan. In setting up copies of this Code in the important centres of his realm, his hope is that all may realise that he, Hammurabi , tried to be a “father” to his people. He calls upon all who have a just cause to bring it before the courts, and gives them the assurance that justice will be dispensed,"all this as early as nigh four thousand years ago! <>

   “On a tablet commemorative of the privileges accorded to Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon—to which, we have just seen, Sargon refers in his annals—there are grouped together, in the introduction, a series of warnings, which may be taken as general illustrations of the principles by which rulers were supposed to be guided: 

   If the king does not heed the law, his people will be destroyed; his power will pass away. 

   If he does not heed the law of his land, Ea, the king of destinies, will judge his fate and cast him to one side. 

   If he does not heed his abkallu, his days will be shortened. 

   If he does not heed the priestess, his land will rebel against him. 

   If he gives heed to the wicked, confusion will set in. 

   If he gives heed to the counsels of Ea, the great gods will aid him in righteous decrees and decisions. 

   If he oppresses a man of Sippar and perverts justice, Shamash, the judge of heaven and earth, will annul the law in his land, so that there will be neither abkallu nor judge to render justice. 

   If the Nippurians are brought before him for judgment, and he oppresses them with a heavy hand, Enlil, the lord of lands, will cause him to be dispatched by a foe and his army to be overthrown; chief and general will be humiliated and driven off. 

   If he causes the treasury of the Babylonians to be entered for looting, if he annuls and reverses the suits of the Babylonians, then Marduk, the lord of heaven and earth, will bring his enemy against him, and will turn over to his enemy his property and possessions. 

   If he unjustly orders a man of Nippur, Sippar, or Babylon to be cast into prison, the city where the injustice has been done, will be made desolate, and a strong enemy will invade the prison into which he has been cast. <>

   “In this strain the text proceeds; and while the reference is limited to the three cities, the obligations imposed upon the rulers to respect privileges once granted may be taken as a general indication of the standards everywhere prevailing. We must not fail, however, to recognise the limitation of the ethical spirit, manifest in the threatened punishments, should the ruler fail to act according to the dictates of justice and right. For all this, whether it was from fear of punishment, or desire to secure the favour of the gods, the example of their rulers in following the paths of equity and in avoiding tyranny and oppression must have reacted on their subjects, and incited them to conform their lives to equally high standards." <>

   Text Sources: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Mesopotamia sourcebooks.fordham.edu , National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, especially Merle Severy, National Geographic, May 1991 and Marion Steinmann, Smithsonian, December 1988, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Discover magazine, Times of London, Natural History magazine, Archaeology magazine, The New Yorker, BBC, Encyclopædia Britannica, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Time, Newsweek, Wikipedia, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP, Lonely Planet Guides, World Religions edited by Geoffrey Parrinder (Facts on File Publications, New York); History of Warfare by John Keegan (Vintage Books); History of Art by H.W. Janson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), Compton's Encyclopedia and various books and other publications.

   Last updated September 2018

   http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub363/item1517.html

   In the Prologue to the Code of Hammurabi it states: “When Marduk commissioned me to guide the people aright, to direct the land, I established law and justice in the language of the land, thereby promoting the welfare of the people.” (ANET, 165) 

“The presence of schools, libraries, and observatories was essential to the role of the temple in the economic, judicial, and political spheres. In the schools, scribes were taught and ancient texts were copied and preserved. Temple libraries were depositories for religious texts, international treaties, legal documents, business transactions, and even basic exercises used in teaching reading, writing, and mathematics.”EXPRESSONS OF SACRED SPACE:

TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST byMartin J Palmer

submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Literature and Philosophy

in the subject

Ancient Near Eastern Studies

at the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

   Promoter: Prof. P S Vermaak

   February 2012 http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/7875/thesis_palmer_mj.pdf.pdf;sequence=1

   The tribe of Levi were the priests, and in order to be the Lord’s representatives to all the people, they had to live throughout the land. Since they had no land of their own on which to produce their living, the other tribes were required to turn one tenth of their produce over to the Levites. The Levites then built and maintained the temples, provided courts and judgements in legal disputes, served as public health officials, kept the records, and taught the laws of Moses. Those who were sick and disabled, the widows and orphans, the strangers who were lost and homeless, could then come to the priests and be given food and lodging from this general fund that the Lord provided.[5]]See Deut. 26:12,13; 2 Kings 12:4,5 

   A Freewill Offering to the Lord, A Sermon by the Rev. James P. Cooper, Toronto, Sept. 13, 2009 https://havau22.com/2016/10/31/a-freewill-offering-to-the-lord/

   “Mesopotamian Religion. The cultures of Mesopotamia had a polytheistic belief system, which means that the people believed in multiple gods instead of just one. They also believed in demons created by the gods, which could be good or evil.” 

   “The god Shamash was served by scorpion people, a combination of man and scorpion. They believed that the Earth floated on an ocean of fresh water. Enlil was said to be so powerful that the other gods could not even look at him. Greek mythology likely borrowed many ideas from the Mesopotamian gods.”

   “The number seven was extremely important in ancient Mesopotamian cosmology. In Sumerian religion, the most powerful and important deities in the pantheon were the "seven gods who decree": An, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Nanna, Utu, and Inanna. “google

Because the ministers, who were appointed the Kingdom of God by Christ, were not allowed to be like the other governments of the world they could not exercise authority one over the other like the rulers of those other governments who were the fathers of the earth we were not to apply to any longer.

This practice of the real Religion of God brought those followers of Moses and Jesus, who had been called Jews and would be called Christians in Antioch, into conflict with people like the Pharisees who were engaged in the covetous practices of public religion through the temples of Herod and would eventually bring about a Christian conflict with Rome and its public religion and temples.

The Early Church was doing many things that the Modern Church does not do and the Modern Church does many things the Early Church refused to do which got Christians persecuted by different governments of the world from time to time. Still, Early Christians not only survived but they thrived during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

We are told that “the primitive Christian demonstrated his faith by his virtues; and it was very justly supposed that the Divine persuasion, which enlightened or subdued the understanding, must at the same time purify the heart and direct the actions of the believer” [3]

The Modern Christian is often seen doing daily what those Early Christians were persecuted and even killed for not doing. We may use the same words but their meanings and usage have often changed over the years. Links are provided for your convenience and examination.

Before Nimrod and Cain the power of the "State" was in the hands of the individual people, as it was in the days of Moses. Philo Judaeus writes of the principle of the pattern of tens forming hundreds:

"Moreover the first fruits of the tribe of Levi are given up to the priests;[2] for they having taken tithes, offer up other tenths from them as from their own fruits, which thus comprise the number of a hundred; for the number ten is the symbol of improvement, and the number a hundred is the symbol of perfection; and he that is in the middle is always striving to reach the extremity, exerting the inborn goodness of his nature, by which he says, that the Lord of the universe has appeared to him."

Through the captains of tens, the people chose who they would follow in battling the trials of life in the world. That choice was based on personal knowledge and mutual daily consent. That voluntary network of men choosing ministers and ministers choosing ministers formed a nation of freemen in voluntary support of justice and mercy.

The Levites were also “called out” by Moses, just as Jesus called out His ekklesia, the early Church. They were the ministers of the common communion or welfare of the people of the Kingdom of God, not the strong arm of men who exercised authority. They taught The Ways of God’s kingdom and kept the people together and strong by their system of charity and hope.

These separate but complimentary activities kept the kingdom a working brotherhood in time of peace and war. They could bring men together in the face of personal robbery, disaster, and sickness or national famine, disaster, or invasion. As long as men lovingly remembered the character and precepts of God the Father first and secondly loved their neighbor as themselves, the kingdom would flourish and be fruitful under God’s precepts.

“…thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:18)

"Feed my sheep!"

Before Jesus was able to provide the people with loaves and fishes in Mark 6:39 He "commanded" His disciples to "make" the people sit down in companies upon companies in divisions and "ranks" of "in fifties and hundreds". Your ministers are not rulers but servants because Christ came to serve. Every man should be led by the Holy Spirit. The minister is supposed to be serving by making the people voluntarily organize themselves in Companies of tens, fifties and hundreds, and thousands so that people may love one another into the practice of Pure Religion.

Jesus and the Tens

We have been told that we should not be “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" in Hebrews 10:25. But gathering together had a real purpose in Israel and in the early Church. It was so important that Jesus literally "commanded" that the people organize themselves in in Companies of tens in "ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties" before the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

Mark 6:38 He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.[39] And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies[3] upon the green grass. [40] And they sat down in ranks[4], by hundreds, and by fifties. [41] And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. [41] And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.

We see this same pattern when the disciples were told to make the people sit down by fifties in a company. [5]

But at Pentecost when thousands upon thousands of Jewish citizens accepted Jesus as the Christ and king this pattern of Tens would be an absolute necessity.

This voluntary gathering in by hundreds, and by fifties through groups of tens was to implement a righteous system of Corban through the hands of Jesus' disciples that would make the word of God to effect again to avoid the deeds of the Nicolaitans.

Jesus was teaching His followers what they would need to do to survive without the benefits offered by Herod and Caesar. The network this pattern created would be life and death for Christians when Rome began to fall. He warns in parable after parable about those who make excuses[6] why they cannot come together or are Foolish virgins who get shut out.

There is no essential difference in the canons of Christ’s kingdom “at hand” and the Kingdom of God that Moses tried to teach the people. The Levites were to be the servants of the free congregations of men. Those ministers of the people belonged to God as his bondservants with no personal inheritance.

Each one served ten families, who chose them as ministers, and they were tithed in accordance to their service:

“Take [it] of them, that they may be to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; and thou shalt give them unto the Levites, to every man according to his service.” (Numbers 7:5)

The Church called out by Christ did the same as that earlier Church in the wilderness called out by Moses. They taught a Kingdom of God organized by congregation of tens, hundreds and thousands.

“And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,” (Acts 1:15)

Here, 12 Apostles and 120 families were the beginning foundation of the Christian Church. The apostles were bondservants appointed by Christ to minister to the congregation of the people. In order to discern exactly how all this worked together for good, we must explore those ancient times but it is clear that the pattern repeated itself for centuries within free societies.

Even as late as the 9th and 10th century, among the Lombard kings there was something called Deans connected to ten families. The word originated from the Latin “decanus”,[7] which was a military term of the Romans. Decurius was also used by early writers. This included the Greek deka and dekate, meaning ten or tithe.

The term was used to described those men performing functions of the secular clergy. This term was used by what we might call ministers of the early ecclesiastical Church. That clergy was much different in their position to authority and function than those now held in what we have come to believe is the Church. They held that office which included a position in their judicial system chosen from the bottom up. Some have tried to assert that a Dean was in authority over those ten families, but the terms used to describe the office clearly establish it as a subordinate position with respect and service to the people. It was a part of their system of governance, but its leaders were titular.

Terms like decurions signified those who served ten deans. As the network of tens, fifties, and hundreds grew, there was a need for assistance like the heralds of the kings and the singers[8] and Nethinims[9] of the Levites who performed important functions of keeping the people and ministers informed. The chore pisco pus was an assistant to the overseer or Bishop to keep the communion between the congregation effectual. Over the centuries, this special communications officer for the government of the people was degenerated into the director of the choir.

The communion of the first-century Church was substantive, filling the true physical and spiritual needs of the people. Those who received Christ’s baptism were cast out[10] of one system of authoritarian government of the Pharisees and entered a government of faith, hope, and charity under the perfect law of liberty. Christians depended upon the freewill charity of each other, not the entitlements of Rome or the synagogue of Satan.[11]

“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

The Christian community was well-disciplined and organized from the bottom up by a system of charity rather than force. While the Roman system of political control was breaking down, those who followed Christ were excluded from the dainties of those civic tables. In about AD 150, Justin the Martyr, hoping to clear the misconceptions and prejudices surrounding Christianity, wrote the Emperor Antoninus Pius in defense of the Christian faith and allegiance to Christ:

“And the wealthy among us help the needy ... and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.” (Ch. 65-67)

As we saw with ministers like Stephen, we also see the Didache[12] stating: “Therefore, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, true and approved, for they also perform for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.”

The nature of these appointments would remain the same for centuries. In the 10th century, drastic reforms were enforced to “unify the liturgy” of the Church. This authoritarian call for unity under a centralized Church had been creeping into some Church thinking from the beginning and now became a rebellion against the gospels.

But the modern Church has forgotten the ancient pattern through which the righteousness of God reigns through the heats and minds of a peculiar people.

Jeremiah 18:15 "Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways [from] the ancient paths, to walk in paths, [in] a way not cast up;"

The Services of the Liturgy

Liturgy is defined as “a prescribed form or set of forms for public religious worship”.[13] It is from the Greek word leitourgi and leitourgos, meaning “public service” and “public servant” respectively. Liturgy was not about singing and vestments and the smoke and mirrors of modern Christendom. It was about the public servants of the kingdom of God operating under the perfect law of liberty in true worship of God[14] by service to the people. Liturgy was the common procedures of the public servants of God’s kingdom in congregations composed of, by, and for the people. These “reforms” were forced upon the innocent and faithful by usurping kings, who were crowned by a fornicating church, in hopes of securing their own positions of wealth and power, turning the world upside-down again.

The organize of small free assemblies networked into a system of tens, hundreds, and thousands, bound together only by a common brotherhood and love, had been the most predominant form of successful voluntary government throughout man’s history. Similar cell patterns were evident in the early days of the persecuted Church established by Christ.

The crucial ingredient to their success is the implementation of the Ten Codes of God’s Law summarized in the virtuous application of Christ’s two commandments.

Love God and His ways with all that you think and do and actively love your neighbor’s rights to his property and family, his life and liberty as much, if not more, than you love your own. The Church that comes together according to these ancient patterns and righteousness can overcome all tyrants, despots, and enemies of freedom and liberty. They can weather the greatest storms and cataclysms of history, both past or future. They can and will inherit the earth.

Law and justice, as well as national security, had been in the hands of the people who assembled themselves in voluntary militias or armies based on a pattern of tens and fifties, hundreds, and thousands.[15] These leaders were titular in their authority and held office by mutual respect and the consensus of those they served. Every captain was chosen by the ten men he served. This was a pure republic designed by God where the people were free from things public under the perfect law of liberty.

The Tens or Tuns[16] are not about 10 buddies getting together and helping one another...thieves and robbers do that. It is a pattern of the Kingdom of God where people give daily through a network of ministers who help people the individual groups of ten may never meet nor see nor will likely ever help them in turn. It is a body bound only by love of others who are often very distant.

The Error of Saul

Saul was chosen because he was a great man who defended justice and fought for the rights of the people. But once he was given the power of a king he was tempted by that power. At one of the first signs of trouble, he compelled a tax on the people.

There was a measured loss of liberty when the people sinned against God and asked Samuel[17] to establish a centralized government, which now, as Benefactor to the nation, imposed taxes or “sacrifice” and appointed officers over the people. Men rejected God’s kingdom; the voice of the people elected men to make laws, rule with exercising authority, collect the contributions like a tax rather than a freewill offering and generally rule over man and his neighbor.

Once, when there was a threat of invasion and Samuel had not arrived, Saul took matters into his own hands.

“And Samuel said, What hast thou done?… I forced myself therefore [In Wycliffe’s translation we see this as, “I was compelled by need], and offered a burnt offering.” (1 Samuel 13:11)

The word “offered” here is from the Hebrew alah and can mean “withdraw… to be taken up, be brought up, be taken away… to be carried away”. It is also translated “increase, put” and “raised”. The word “and” is not in the original text. What is being said is that Saul compelled the taking of a burnt offering. A burnt offering is just something you are not getting back, as we have already seen.

Because Saul was afraid the people would not come, he compelled a sacrifice, a tax. He coveted the goods of the people and demanded they contribute. This was a clear violation of the Ten Commandments. It was a noble cause, but still a sin.

Samuel’s response to Saul was to the point and direct. He called him a fool:

“And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.” (1 Samuel 13:12-14)

When we covet our neighbor's goods through Benefactors who exercise authority we reject God and His Gospel of love, His Kingdom of Love which is the Kingdom of God.

The Higher Liberty

“And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.” (Psalms 119:45)

Jesus came to bring the kingdom of God’s liberty into every aspect of our lives. God’s precepts and character should govern us and the nations of the world. Liberty is conducive to growth and maturity. Virtue is the avenue of God’s grace. Faith is a gift that brings us into a fuller knowledge of God. A relinquishment of those rights and responsibilities, bestowed on us by the Creator, makes us poor and weak.

“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18)

There is no more common theme in the Bible than liberty under God with charity and love for God and for our neighbor. Voluntary governments have been the rule in man’s history and not the central or even democratic authorities so common worldwide in modern administrations. It is commonly unknown that, “our modern reliance on government to make law and establish order is not the historical norm.”[18]

We are taught and have come to believe that the history of men and government is the history of centralized authoritarian government, while the truth is that most governance has been men working together in voluntary groups, united by customs, mutual respect, and reasoned justice. Although, top-down authoritarian forms amongst the states created by men have been here since Cain killed Abel, it is, in itself, an aberration, not the creation of God.

The ruling elite, acting as the fountainhead of justice, is presently so pervasive throughout the world, that many still believe that the definition of, “The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave”.[19] It assumes that there can be no order without men compelling it. In truth, the power of God, written in some men’s hearts and minds, can bring order around the world.

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12)

Some will argue that democracies are governments of the people, by the people, and for the people. While this could be true, if the people were without guile and greed, men can still say, “the State is in essence the result of the successes achieved by a band of brigands who superimpose themselves on small, distinct societies”.[20]

This has always been true in democracies where “Fifty-one percent of the people take away the rights of the forty-nine”.[21]

The prophets preached a Republic not a Democracy where people take a bite out of one another and curse their children with Covetous Practices. Paul preached The Higher Liberty under God.

The Kingdom of God is from "generation to generation" and not just from congregation to congregation. The Feasts made this possible as families united by marriage and friendship and meeting the challenges of a peculiar people who live by faith, hope, and charity through a perfect law of liberty.

The Ties that Bind

The pattern of tens, hundreds and thousands is the buddy system times ten. It is a wheel within a wheel and, like the cell groups of the French underground during World War II and the congregations of the persecuted Christians or the Germanic tribes that defeated Rome, it is merely the most practical form of free government.

"Independence begins at the bottom... It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it." —Mahatma Gandhi

We are not bound to the pattern. In fact it is not the pattern that binds us but the law of love. The bands that connect us are the family ties that occur outside the pattern. Certainly friendship occurs within congregations due to daily interaction, charity and fellowship. But such bonds do not a nation make.

It is the alliances that come when daughters and nieces marry sons and nephews in other congregations. This was one of the primary functions of the Feasts. These bonds of blood supersede the bonds of tens and create the truly unbreakable bands that connect us to others.

While modern governments bind the people with agreements and oaths the Kingdom of God is His Kingdom of Love which binds the people by the covenant of marriage ordained by God and it becomes in the interest of the whole nation to maintain healthy family units. This is why the kingdom is from generation to generation and not from congregation to congregation.[22] The Sin of Corban Worshiping in vain

Mark 7:7 “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”

Worshiping in vain is a serious accusation. Of course, the Pharisees had no idea that they were worshiping in vain until someone told them. There were only a couple of ways to take the news, with indignation and anger or humility and repentance.

The citizens of Judea believed many different things. There were many factions and parties at the altars of its government temples. In their own minds they were God's chosen people, His government on earth. They believed they were saved by His blessings and benevolence. They believed they were following His law and obeying a government ordained by God.

They studied Hebrew from teachers who catered to what they wanted to believe was true. They taught what they wanted to believe. They were justified by their doctrine and dogma, their rituals and rights. Great swelling words of liberty and pride proceeded the legislation of new deals and traditions of their Sanhedrin.

Israel and its remnant Judea were governments. Their fundamental and foundational law was written by God by tradition and handed down to them by Moses in the Torah. It could not be changed. Yet, their perception of the law and the sacred scriptures could be changed in their minds. Many of the citizens of Judea read the Tanakh but came to different conclusions about what it meant.

All man-made and human laws should be based upon the precepts upon precept of those original stone tablets, but if that divine law was not written upon their hearts or in their minds, people will stray from God's presence into their own imagination. Pride can keep people from seeing or admitting they have departed from the way of God.

God's government had no King until the people rejected Him.4 For hundreds of years they had no forced system of taxation but only freewill offerings. Each man did what was right in his own eyes.5 Without the spiritual character of God living in the hearts and minds of the people, such free governments rooted in liberty of the people become chaotic through a reshaped society into the image of fallen men.

When the “voice of the people” elected to have a man to rule instead of God. This choice by men in the election of a man who could exercise authority one over the other was called a rejection of God.6

Originally there was only freewill offerings given to public ministers according to their service.7 Men served God by serving one another out of love for one another.8 Coveting their neighbors' goods9 to provide for the welfare of society was a violation of law and would become a trap and a snare. And no one was to make covenants with any gods nor the inhabitants of the land where they go to obtain benefits or for any other reasons.

Yet, the people stray from God's way time and time again.10 They abandon the ways of the God of creation for the benefits and rewards of the gods many of the world who bring destruction and death. To soothe their own conscience and justify their personal and collective error they are compelled to conjure up a new image of God through the prevarications of comforting ministers and the sophistry of their doctrines.

Despite these generational rejection, the spirit of God is merciful. He has sent His prophets and messengers to save the people from their own foolishness time and time again.

Jesus came to take the kingdom from those who had led the people astray and was proclaimed by many to be king by kings, shepherds and wise men, priests an prophets, the Jewish citizens hailed Him as He entered Jerusalem and by Rome as he hung on the cross.

He agreed with Abraham and Moses, but disagreed with the Pharisees and they with Him. They had been doing something drastically wrong and turned God's kingdom upside down so that it no longer bore the fruit required by God.11

The people of Judea should have loved their neighbor as Moses said.12 They were very charitable as a people, but evidently not charitable enough by the standards of Christ. They thought their religion was pure and did not take kindly to the criticism, accusations, and even the threats from this man who had been proclaimed the rightful king of their nation as the highest son of David by the people of Jerusalem13.

They had forgotten or imagined that religion was synonymous with theology while its real meaning was defined “in practice” consists of “the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men.”14

Jesus was warning them that their worship was in vain.15 If He were here today, would He tell us the same thing?

The word worship, in Mark 7:7, is translated from sebomai.16 It is not the common verb for worship, but means “To revere, stressing the feeling of awe or devotion”. From sebomai we get the adjective semnos which was often used of the gods and divine things, meaning “august” or “sacred”.

The usual word translated worship is proskuneo. So why use sebomai here? The verse quotes Isaiah 29:13,17 which was a revelation about people saying they draw near to God, but were actually far from Him.

It is a serious delusion to think that you are close to God, have faith in God, or love God, while you are actually far from Him and even anti God as a matter of policy and practice. This may be all too common today in our modern religions and churches but we would need to learn like a little child looking at all things anew to have eyes to see.

This was a common theme and complaint made by Jesus.18 Jesus had just told them in verse 619 that they were hypocrites because they honored Him with their lips only but were far from Him.

Reading on in the book of Isaiah, the prophecy tells the people that wise men will be hard to come by.20 He goes on to talk about turning the world upside down where people deny the way of the God of Creation.21 But the same book also talks about those who were blind getting new sight22 and understanding of the meek increasing.23 Jesus repeated all these ideas of taking sight from those who say they see24 and restoring sight and understanding to others.

He warned the blind guides, who encouraged the taking of oaths. What else were the Pharisees blind to?

What did they fail to see and understand?

Have we lost sight too?

How did they turn the world upside down?25

What would Jesus do to turn it back again?

What traditions of Christ and which commandments of God have we laid aside to replace them with the traditions of the “world”?

Have we taken the mark of the beast in spirit and in truth?26

The Bible tells us about government hundreds and hundreds of times but mentions the word religion only five times. It talks about strong delusions and the whole world being deceived along with the blind leading the blind. What don't we see...?

   “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson 

The Traditions of Men

The word we see as tradition, also translated ordinance, is from the Greek word paradosis which means 'giving over... the act of giving up .. the surrender of cities.' Jesus goes on to say:

   Mark 7:8-9 “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” 

Is Jesus upset because they wash their dishes or is He being a little bit facetious? Does His objection go much deeper? What doctrines and teachings, what surrendering or giving over are men being a part of and what does Jesus finds so objectionable?

Jesus is talking about breaking the commandments, because they are giving something over, surrendering. God told the people, through the ten commandments,27 to honor their Father and Mother so that their days may be long upon the land, and Jesus made specific reference to that commandment in Mark 7:10, 1328 including the idea of cursing Father and Mother, but in the original Hebrew text when this curse29 is mentioned, we see the word qalal, meaning to be of little account, be light. We must ask, be light or of little account with what? With your Father and Mother? How are you slighting Father and Mother with the cry of Corban? What was different?

   “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson 

Every Man to His Family

Caring for parents and the bonds of family have always been at the foundation of all free societies. The early Church ministers needed to have their own families in order,30 but that practice was found in every successful culture.31 The sacrifice and care within the family was the foundation of society bound by faith, hope and charity, rather than force and compliance by leaders like Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh and even Caesar.

Without strong families, all society backslides into corruption and decadence, or chaos and disorder. So, how was the Corban of the Pharisees cursing this parental foundation of family and society? We need to understand what the Pharisees were doing.

Corban is a Hebrew word [kaph, resh, beth, nun] transliterated in the Greek text. This practice of Corban has been common in many other cultures and societies, including the Romans, who practiced Qurban in a variety of forms over their long history.

Qurban is referring to something that has been set aside, or is in the process of being given as a gift to God or the gods in which the people have faith. The early Christian Church was accused by Rome of atheism.

How could people that gave up everything for their faith, who often suffered persecutions because of their moral and spiritual beliefs be accused of not believing in God? What were the Christians doing that upset the Romans and other governments of the gentiles? Was it the same thing that upset the Pharisees?

Was it envy and jealousy that brought persecution to the door of the Christian community? Was the alternative of Christ setting the captive free? Was His ways returning every man to his possessions and family?

   “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” John 8:36 

Christian Atheism

A Christian, named Justin, had written an Apology of Christian worship of God through the teachings of Christ to the Emperor Antonius Pius, in 150 AD. He was eventually accused by Rome of atheism.32

In his apology about the faith of the Christians, or followers of Christ, he pointed out that Christians supported each other in a system of social welfare dependent on free will offerings given and rightly divided through their ministers.33

Every member of the congregation, through their regeneration at Baptism,34 was made eligible for the benefits of Christ's government. All Christians who had received the baptism of Christ were cast out of the welfare system offered by the Pharisees, like the Israelites were cast out of Egypt.35

While the Romans recognized, through Pontius Pilate, the early Church, the kingship of Jesus, and the authority of the apostles, something rubbed them wrong about this popular spread of Christians. The Romans had their own altars and temples that were first funded by contributions, then by a sort of investment, and then finally a government tax, and that Qurban provided welfare for the people in many forms - such as free bread.

The citizens of Judea did not hate Caesar. Many, including the Pharisees, loved and desired the benefits bestowed by his grace and the protection provided by Octavius so much that they, too, called him Augustus.36 Caesar was the protector of their peace, the benefactor of their welfare.37

   “And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: [yea, though he be] a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.” Leviticus 25:35 

The people applied for his benefits and pleaded for his justice. The price of his peace. His Pax Romana, would be a portion of their freedom. What should have been for the welfare of the people included a social scheme that snared them under the growing Roman authority. Such social welfare schemes seem practical and benevolent at first but they alter the nature of society by changing the way communities relate and rely upon one another.

Neighbor no longer looked to neighbor but to the power of the prince's benevolence. This brought the people into subjection under his authority while tempting leaders to become rulers of the people. Rejecting the precepts of love and liberty granted by God brought the curse of 1 Samuel 8.

   “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” Ez. 16:49 

The Power of Protection

“Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.”38

The ancient altars in society were instruments of sacrifice, and a fundamental part of systems built on mutual community trust. The establishment of these social bonds were divided into at least two opposing methods. There was a method based on mutual concern and brotherhood amongst the people as a community sharing the same values and concern, through the exercise of daily charity in liberty called Corban. And there was a different method by that name.

Free governments, like early Israel and early Rome, depended upon a network of freewill contributions offered by families gathering in a national network of small congregations of families. They were managed by honorable men of service who were furnished by the resources of the people who believed they were doing a good job of providing community services and guidance, as well as impartial justice. Originally, they had no power to compel the offerings of the people. These public servants were part of what they sometimes called priests or ministers. Their office was of God, but recognized of the people, chosen by the people, for the benefit of the people.

The Hebrew word korban [qorban Nbrq] is said to mean “offer” or “sacrifice”. Scholars debate whether that the word korban has the idea of gift at the center of its meaning. Their conclusions are based on the fact that korban is from the base word qarab [brq], which is also translated “offer”, but means “come” or “draw near”. We find no word in the Old Testament translated charity.

Pure giving to the general welfare of society in charity,39 with only hope, i.e. no entitlement, does draw us nearer to God. Doing this in the name of God meant doing things according to His character, not merely reciting a word used to represent the divine identity of God. More than anything else, charity includes in its operation both love and faith, with an element of hope. This free giving and thanksgiving40 was not only the message of the sacrifice and blood of Christ, but the lifeblood of the Christian faith. The purpose of Christ's appointed Church and His ministers who worked and lived by faith, hope, charity and the perfect law of liberty was to practice this love in a system of Pure Religion.41

It is not the shape or dimension of the altar or the etching upon it that makes it sacred, but the act of freely giving up what you have for the good of others that consecrates the stones of the altar of sacrifice. God’s stone and earth altars were made of living flesh, of men who have His law written upon their hearts and upon their minds.

   “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5

The dedicated souls called out by God formed a network of alternative altars based in charity. The world offered a system based on entitlements from men who called themselves benefactors but exercised authority. What they offered as welfare was a snare.42 It promised to protect them, but made them merchandise.

The Pharisees, meaning the separated, sought to set themselves apart with a legal self righteousness. They were the successors of the Chasidim, who were considered godly men “voluntarily devoted unto the law.”

But after returning from Babylon they took pride in their holy status and worshiped the external appearance more than the internal spirit of righteousness. They began to believe that they could change the state of the soul by changing the outward appearance43 with their phylacteries and hems, rituals and ceremonies.

The Pharisees were patriots to the written Godly covenant or constitution of that nation. Their love of legalism brought about a Sanhedrin that made laws, binding the people to the traditions of that body politic, hypocritically44 stifling if not strangling the very liberty under God's kingdom which they professed.

They were “painfully punctilious about legal trifles and casuistries, while reckless of truth, righteousness, and the fear of God; cleansing the exterior man while full of iniquity within.”45

The contrast of Paul's bondage under the Mishna or law of the Pharisee explains his uncompromising stand on Christian justification by faith only. It was that law that had governed every aspect of their life which was nailed to the cross.

When the Pharisees sat in the seat of the government their legalism imposed itself through statutes. But they knew that they could not subject the people without their consent.46

   “A vow is a solemn promise made to God to perform or to abstain from performing a certain thing.”47

With the aid of the kings they offered social schemes that spread over the Roman world. All that was required was the consent of the people through some system of application and registered membership under the guise of welfare and care. Soon their temple treasuries filled with the contributions of the people for the care of the widows and orphans, aged and infirm. Though this was a religion, it was not pure. The Fires of Faith

Corban was the practice of giving a sacrifice in Charity. It was freely given to the temple or local ministers in the hope that someone would be helped, and that grantor of that gift might also be helped in turn during their own time of need.

Originally there was no stone temple. In fact, the altars spoken of in the Old Testament were also made of the living stones. Those stones were actually the ministers of the people, chosen by the people, for the welfare of the people. In many societies the most charitable men in the community were chosen to make sure that those in true need were not forgotten, overlooked, or neglected. This was what in the New Testament is called the daily ministration.48

The Levites were called out to teach the people to live by faith, not by force, and not by coveting their neighbor's goods through social schemes that relied upon men who could exercise authority one over the other. Those Levites, who were called out of the camp of the Golden Calf, were to be the priests of society who tended to the needs and welfare of the tents of the congregations49 of the people. The people gathered in groups of ten families, and if their chosen minister did a good job of serving the needs of their society, then the ten families would tithe to them according to their service.50

We have been led to believe that men were piling up stones and burning up animals on these altars to please God. There is no doubt that some cultures did this, but there were large religious groups who read and spoke Hebrew living at the time of Christ, and for hundreds of years before and after that believed the doctrine of burning up animal sacrifices on piles of stones was the result of fraudulent translations of the ancient text.

This will be very difficult for most people to accept or contemplate, but with a little study of the Hebrew language, many questions arise that modern doctrines are unable to answer. First, the Hebrew language was made to be written, not spoken. It is mostly composed of three-letter words with an absolute disregard for the presence of vowels. Couple this fact with the knowledge that Hebrew letters have meanings that are combined to produce the meaning of the words themselves, and a new window of understanding is opened to us in our study of the ancient scripts. A brief look can be eye-opening.

The word burnt (in Leviticus 9:10) is from the Hebrew word qatar, rjq, [Kuf, Tet, Reish] translated as incense 59 times, and burn 49 times, but is also translated “offer” 3 times, “kindle” and “offering” once each, with 4 other miscellaneous translations. It is said to be a primitive root, and, is identical to words assigned different Strong's numbers, translated doubts, joints, incense, and joined, and given the definitions of to shut in, enclose, join, knot, joint, and even problem.

Another word for “burnt offering” is `olah [hle], which is translated burnt offering, or burnt sacrifice. The same three letters, hle, are also translated ascent, go up, and up 676 times, offer 67, and more than a hundred other times as come, bring, ascend, go, chew, offering, light, increase, burn, depart, put, spring, raised, arose, break, exalted and another 33 other miscellaneous ways, including leaf and branch. One must ask, does the original word have anything to do with fire and burning things up at all? Before anyone dismisses the possibility that burnt offerings originally had nothing to do with burning up animals on piles of stone, they may wish to examine some of the evidence.51

To understand what was really going on in these ancient yet practical cultures who were struggling to survive, we need to look at all things anew. There was a purpose to the sacrifices of the people. If God lived in the hearts and minds of the living temple or the community of men, then their prayers were answered by a free flow of charity and love through the hearts of those people. This was the Kingdom of God.

People would donate the resources needed to provide for those of their community, or deliver aid to other communities in times of emergency or deprivation. These freewill offerings did more than provide a social safety net. They united the people together with unbreakable bonds of love and charity, creating trust and loyalty with honor and righteousness. Only in this way could they maintain a state of free dominion for all.

This dedication of substantive offerings unified the people without coveting their neighbor's goods through men who claimed to be benefactors and public servants, but instead, exercised authority. This daily sacrifice brought the people closer to God. It made congregations and communities a stronger and more viable nation by freeing the people from the oppression of their neighbor through their leaders who called themselves the benefactors of the people, but really exercised authority one over the other. This sacrifice in freewill and charity was called Corban, but that was not the Corban of the Pharisees.

Corban was to be the sacrifice of the people, in theory given to God, because it was given entirely and without the obligatory string of reciprocations. Freely receive, and freely give.52 This was all done in fulfillment of the commandment of God to love our neighbor.53 The Corban of Charity

These gifts were the sacrifices of the people. These offerings created a sacred purpose trust, and the men who ministered that trust were chosen by the people to those positions of trust as long as the people continued to view them as the best servants54 of the community. This giving was also described as casting your daily bread upon the water55 of society in love and charity, so that it would, in hope and faith, come back to you some day if you were in need. This was the law of liberty, and anything less than that sowed the seeds of tyranny.

Originally, Israel's civil power and responsibility was vested entirely in the family, and not in any central government or its treasury. The wealth of the Nation was held by the families and managed by Fathers and Sons of every family. The homes of the families contained kings and queens and priests. The Kings of the nation were the chief Elder of each family group, and the princes were the Fathers of each household. The high priest was usually the eldest son or first born. This is why it was written that there were no kings in Israel,56 because they were all kings. But the first-born priests of the “nation” of Israel were the Levites, because they stepped forward in faith answering the call of Moses to serve the Lord by serving the people. They were the public servants of a people who lived by faith, hope, charity and the perfect law of liberty.

Could such a system work today? Can any other system not based on liberty of the individual work, or are they all doomed to failure? We have always been warned about making covenants, agreements with those who do not believe in liberty.57 This is because “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”58

Mammon does not mean money but “entrusted wealth”.59 Systems like Egypt, the golden calf, other common-purse systems, subject the people by taking away their right to make choices about their wealth and property. Such systems always fail due to corruption, avarice, and over-indulgence, so Jesus told us to seek the Kingdom and His righteousness.60

“And I say unto you, 'Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.'” Luke 16:9

In the process of being freed from bondage, we may continue to pay the Pharaoh, Herod, or the Caesars of the “world” but we should not eat of the things sacrificed to these gods of force and fear. But, if you reject God and “... do that which is evil, be afraid...Wherefore ye must needs be subject... For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”61

We should never forget that only “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.”62

The gospel of the Kingdom is for those living now.63 That Kingdom is at hand. It has been at hand for those who will diligently64 seek it and the righteousness of God.65 We should seek it and it's righteousness, and not be like the governments of the gentiles.66 The Kingdom and His righteousness is a way that may save His people in this life and the next.

Real freedom under God requires that loving practice of charitable responsibility which sustains our God-given right and nurtures the spirit and virtue of our liberty in Christ.67 We are saved by the “Eucharist” of Christ, which is the Greek word for thanksgiving. That thanksgiving is the antithesis of covetousness, envy, and greed. It is the love of giving. It is the daily practice of charity and faith, hope and love.

God wants His people to be free. He wants them to “let every soul be subject unto the higher right to choose. For there is no right to choose but of God: our rights to choose that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore opposes the right to choose, opposes the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”68

   “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” 1 Corinthians 8:9 

Cross Roads

All roads lead to Rome, and all roads lead to the Kingdom of God. Our only choice is the direction we are going. Are you going toward the Father or away from Him? Christ is the way to return to that Father and all other ways lead us away from He who made us. This is why Christ came, calling all to Repent! Turn around! Return to the Father and creator of life. To seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. The choice is given to every generation.

The Pharisees, at the time of Christ, no longer fed the people with the fruits of pure charity. Christ was going to take the Kingdom from them because they bore no good fruit69 but made the word of God to none effect by their system of Corban. Israel was told to love their neighbor, not oppress the stranger in their midst, nor covet their neighbors' goods or anything that is their neighbors'. They were even told to love their enemy70 just as Christ had warned them again.71

The Pharisees still had some charity, many rituals and ceremonies, but free offerings were a token of the overall welfare of their society. Most of the benefits of their government were provided by funds collected through taxation. The once charitable offerings of the people had become an accounted and compelled contribution given to the temple. The amount was determined by the legislating powers of the Sanhedrin and the kings. That power to exercise authority over the people grew, as the people applied for the entitlements and benefits of the growing bureaucracy of the Pharisees. What should have been for their welfare had become a snare.72

The the Pharisees were popular because of their stoic modesty. On the outside they gave the appearance of service and sacrifice but the living quarters of the priests of the temple were more lavish than that of the kings. But it was the participation by the people in the political and religious schemes of the Pharisees that made them mutually implicit in that sin of statutory corban.

In Egypt the people could eat of the flesh pots of the Pharaoh.73 Since the Egyptians were vegetarians, this reference to flesh pots74 had nothing to do with their diet. This was a metaphor describing a social welfare system of pharaoh as a benefactor who could exercise authority and it included the governmental structure of corvée and corban which God opposed.75

The sons of Jacob had become entangled in Egypt and God said to never return there again.76 Because they had chosen to throw their brother Joseph into a pit of slavery, they did not have their own provisions and rations when famine came. When hard times were upon them they gave up their God-given rights, and went into bondage, becoming entangled in the elements of the world,77 making covenants with men78 who called themselves benefactors, but exercised authority one over the other.79 The Fathers of the World

Rome had a vast system of welfare. Those who registered with Rome (and its increasing socialist state) were eligible for free bread. Rome imported 500,000,000 bushels of this grain each year from Egypt alone. There was a great deal of free entertainment provided, and a general promise of social security to those who chose to be a part of the offered system of Corban. The United States government was simply carrying on the Roman tradition and custom when it began birth registration to care for its children.

“Jesus said, “And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Mt. 23:9)

To make such a statement was a shock to those who thought man's governments and the Roman political and judicial system, with its peace and commerce, was good for society and the business of men. This would be like saying call no man on earth president or senator or congressman.

In that Greek text of Matthew, we find the word Pater,80 meaning “father,” in the Latin. When Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, He did not use the Greek word for earth or planet or inhabited places or age, that are also translated into “world.” The word world there is kosmos,81 “meaning a harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government”.

To “call no man father” was a jurisdictional statement. To be baptized was a jurisdictional event of allegiance. It confirmed your membership in a social scheme and created obligations to an exercising authority. To worship is an act of homage to a lord or King. Jesus did not preach the religion of heaven but the kingdom of heaven.

It had always been an option for the people to apply to the State for an enfranchised citizenship. Marcus Aurelius wanted no child to be left behind. He required, by Law, that everyone must register the birth of their children with the Secretary of Treasury or Provincial Registrars within 30 days.

The Christians could not. Such registration would be an application to the Father of the Roman State, and would be turning from Christ’s command. The State became the “In Loco Parentis,” which in the Latin means “in the place of a parent,” which is a turning away from the Family instituted by God.

They would not sell their birthright82 as God's people. They understood that by such act of giving up their liberty, they surrendered to the civil powers, to men and institutions created by the hands of men. In new systems instituted by men who promised to be the benefactors of the people, they became nothing more than human resources.83 When one's parents were elderly or infirm, or even themselves, the temple would care for their needs through a system of national welfare. This was done with funds collected by the force of law, contrary to the ways of God. The people were subject, living under tribute. When they consumed those benefits, they ate of the flesh of their neighbor.

Charity, honor, and love were no longer the power that provided for their parents or those of society in need. Men thought it was the responsibility of the governing Pharisees and scribes to care for their family, and they thought they were free of that God-given responsibility.

With every God-given right, there is a God-given responsibility. If we neglect our responsibilities, we will lose these rights. Those who practiced this form of compelled and accounted Corban, established by ordinances of men, were defying the teachings of Moses and the system of God's Kingdom. They were also turning away from the commandments of God, making them to none effect. Any system that says we will care for your parents and you are free from that obligation is laying aside the commandment of God and we should know that Full well they reject the commandment of God. 84 Voluntary Servitude

In both the ancient and modern City-State, it has been common to set up temples or institutions with treasuries that care for the aged and infirm. The tax paid to the common treasury was given to take care of the poor, aged, and abandoned. There were even fees charged for the ownership or use of slaves, and restrictions with penalties for those who dumped unneeded slaves and wards on the common welfare.

In God's Kingdom the people took care of most all of the needs of the community within the family. The Levites ministered to the tents of the tabernacles of the congregation, just as the servants of God fed His sheep in the early Church.85 They received the sacrifices given freely by the people and those given as an offer of repentance. In turn they gave away those offerings within the scope of the daily ministration to the poor, needy orphans of society, those without sufficient family to care for themselves, or simply needing additional assistance. The Church was a public ministry freely given charity provided by the love of the people, for the people, and by their titular servants.

But time and time again the dog returns to his vomit and the pig to his mire, rejecting God and making gods of men:

   “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban,86 that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:9, 13)

At the time of Christ, a person might give money into the treasury and then say that he had honored Father and Mother. In that way, he provided for their social security through others by Corban.

It is not only that man has decided to keep his own tradition and continue making his own ordinances, knowing full well ye reject the commandment of God (Mark 7:9), but he has also bound himself with covenants and contracts, so that he is no longer free. He has prayed to God with his lips, but also prayed to the gods of the world with his soul - knowing that his neighbor will be forced to pay the price.

   “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:” Ex 34:12

Over three hundred times, the Bible talks of the concept of contracts, covenants, and pledges. From Adam to Abraham and Moses to the Messiah, contracts between God and man or man and man were a major topic of concern. Even the word “testament”87 refers to the contractual arrangement made by God and man.

We are warned against making contracts, lest it be for a snare.88 Isn’t a contract just a contract? How could it be a snare or a bait? What would be the trap? Can’t we just break a contract? What does God care about the contracts of men?

   “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man’s covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” (Galatians 3:15)

Doesn’t God consider contracts to be binding? If they are not binding, why does He warn us against making them? Modern systems of social insurance and security are a form of religion, because they are used to take care of the needy of society, but they are not unspotted by the world. They depend on the power and exercising authority of the world.

   “Servitude. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing.” Bouvier’s 8th, 1859

All who enter those systems pledge a portion of their labor as in the days of Egypt.89 Such systems are a form of bondage. It is slavery, but the point at which we are bound is a place where we volunteer to be bound. It is called statutory servitude, or corvée.

“The corvée was different from other forced labor arrangements because it was labor performed for the government, involuntarily, on large public works projects. (The word 'corvée' meant ‘contribution,’ signifying one’s obligation to the state.) In some cases, the corvée90 meant a specified amount of time given to the state every year, as prescribed by law. Another name for it was, therefore, statute labor. It was used by the Romans for the upkeep of roads, bridges, and dikes, but got its name in France early in the 18th century.”91

We often hear tax obligations of the world called a contribution. In Pharaoh’s Egypt, the tribute tax paid by Pharaoh's subjects was equivalent to two-and-a-half months of labor(one-fifth), all the gold and silver was in the government treasury instead of the hands of the people, and everyone only had a legal title

to their land, their possessions, and even their lives.

In 1995, to pay off the average corvée tax liability of employees in the United States required four months and five days of labor. A citizen of the United States Government, who has legal title to what appears to be his property (land, vehicles, labor etc.), has no right to its “beneficial interest” nor its use, and, therefore, has no right to the profits they produce.

Christ appointed the Church to serve the congregation of the people. The Church established by Christ, in preaching the Kingdom, simply assists in making a record in service. The early Christian community did not apply to either Rome’s Qurban or Herod’s Corban for assistance. Christians depended on thanksgiving, called Eucharist in the Greek.

• “For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 2Pe 1:11

There are many things that people do today that are contrary to the teachings of Christ, but still they think they are Christians. We were told that many will be deceived,96 and be under a strong delusion. We are told that many will think they are doing a great work in God's name, but they are actually workers of iniquity and are far from Him. We need to learn and do the will of God, and follow the sayings of Jesus. It is about turning around and seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

   “...If a man shall say to his Father or Mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:9-11 

When Christians had needs, they went to Christians and their charitable altars tended by the good men they chose, but not the altars of Rome. In Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” he praised “the union and discipline of the Christian republic.” He also pointed out that “it gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire.”

If men wish to be free they must repent, turn around, change their ways, and return to the ways of Jesus and John, Moses and Abraham. They must learn to live by a union of faith, hope, and charity, freeing their neighbor from their own greed so that all may be free souls under God.