View source for Bastard

When read through the modern "civilized" mindset, many Bible verses make God seem shockingly Victorian at best. To those willing to be honest, things like this make him sound downright anal, nosy, unforgiving, and a bigot.


: ''He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.'' Deut 23:1


Apparently all the wars these barbarians fought led to a significant number of men who had smashed or mutilated private parts. The reward for fighting for God? You're thrown in the trash like damaged goods. All you guys that have had vasectomies? Go raise hell because there's no hope for you anyway. And chances are that there is a "bastard" son somewhere in the family tree for all of us. So that pretty much ensures that whoever is left in the "congregation of the LORD" will be pretty lonely.


There's clearly something about this that we aren't getting. As much as we like to attribute this type of behavior to the ancients in order to make ourselves as feel more civilized, those people were often as proper, well-mannered and advanced as we are.


Here's a new perspective on another strange-sounding verse to help us ease into this subject...


: ''And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:'' Exodus 28:42 "


This had nothing to do with a priest's underwear. It was a lesson in girding a person with the proper authority to serve. http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Underwear


To understand the "bastard" verse, we've got to rethink lots of terms that we've taken for granted. For example, the Biblical term "Israel" has nothing to do with a piece of land and "heaven" has nothing to do with an imaginary part of space where a dysfunctional old white man resides who can't wait until you get there to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" to him forever.


Israel = free people. Plain and simple. Those who had no king but God.
Kingdom of Heaven = wherever those free people reside.
Egypt = slaves and where they reside.
Father = whoever is your provider, protector. Israel (the free people) have no provider/protector but God. They have a decentralized government that depends on the love of people for one another, free will offerings, and servants to administer to the needs of the widows and orphans. Egypt's protector/provider does so through forced taxation and inscription of his subjects.
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/fatherabba.php


Abraham left his "father"—his city state—so his decedents could eventually become free people (Israel). Then those free people sold themselves into slavery—started working for (serving/worshiping) a new father who promised to provide for them as long as they paid tribute amounting to 20% of their lives. (The father of US Citizens demands roughly 50%.)


Moses, as rightful heir to the throne of Egypt (Moses was a title of royalty, not a name), had his eyes opened when he killed one of his servants. (Moses feared what he had become, not what would be done to him.) He "fled" to the desert where some of his relatives lived who still practiced the old ways because they had not sold themselves into slavery. He learned from these relatives how this freewill government "under God" functioned. He took the knowledge back to the slaves (the Egyptians) and they started practicing this alternative form of government.


A portion of Egyptians (those under tribute) took the message to heart and "gathered their own straw at night." That is, they slowly weaned themselves off the education, welfare, health services, etc. provided by "drinking the blood" (the life force) of their neighbors through taxation enforced with a sword. While still paying the taxes their fathers had agreed to pay, they started building their own support structures based on loving their neighbor to the point that they were no longer dependent on the public schools, welfare, social security, hospitals of Egypt. 


Then the inevitable "plagues" came. The people of Egypt lived beyond their means, built up mountains of debt, policed the world, and, generally, no longer cared for one another. They focused only on what they could milk out of the government (their fellow citizens). The system started to fall apart and the "father" was no longer able to offer the level of protection and provision he once did. But the want-to-be "Israelites"—those who were no longer dependent on the government that exercised authority—fared well. In fact, they were often able to come to the rescue of their fellow Egyptian citizens when the Egyptian government couldn't help. (Egyptians showed their appreciation later by showering the freedom seekers with gifts at the time of their exodus from the system.) 


Lots of politics went on, but eventually these people were allowed to "opt out" of the Egyptian system and try their social experiment on their own in a remote place in Egypt. The desert was still a territory of Egypt. But because the want-to-be Israelites—free people—did not ask for any of the benefits of Egypt...and because Egypt was is such a financial mess that it helped to simplify things to get such a large group of people "off the books"...the "Israelites" were left to do their own thing.


But it was still a generation before the kids who where born without Egyptian birth certificates and social security numbers (the first generation that was not the property of Egypt) were able to truly become Israelites and enter "the Promised Land." 


Generations later, this free people decided they wanted a king like the other nations. Despite God's warning that they would be choosing a new father and what the new father would do, they felt they needed centralized authority. 


Generations later the centralized authority gets so bad that "Israel" rejects the kings and "returns to their own homes where every man does right in his own eyes." Don't just gloss over that verse. It doesn't have the negative meaning that our government-licensed churches have taught us all these years. When read in the context of the perspective offered above, there is actually a very positive connotation...all the tribes, save Judah, remembered what it was to have God as father/provider/protector and chose that over centralized government. 


We get the impression from the Bible that the other tribes now became insignificant to God and they fade away. In reality they were the followers of the true God/provider. Judah continued to serve the false god. The Bible continues with Judah's story because they were the hard-headed ones who still offered lessons to be learned.


What follows is a host of convoluted governmental experiments that Judah tries other than the simple laws first taught by Abraham and Moses. By the time we get to Jesus, Judah is under a complicated system of forced taxation by the Pharisees. 


But once again, God starts working through key people who recognize that there is a better alternative. John "the Baptist" was next in line to become the head Pharisee. He rejects this position of authority and starts baptizing people into a new system (actually the original system) of decentralized government where elders are kings of — protectors/providers for — their households and the people are ruled by God alone. People of the time could also choose Herod's baptism where they paid taxes to Herod for his protection/provision and they went to Herod's temples for their public education, welfare, social security, etc. When they came out of the Jordan river they were given a white stone with their ID (Social Security Number) so that the temples could identify them as one of Herod's dependents.  http://www.hisholychurch.net/declarations/baptism/baptism.php


Jesus came on the scene and also started spreading the good news of the "Kingdom of God." As rightful and recognized king, he molded the government of Judea into one based on love and charity and volunteer ministers (priests/Levites) who distributed the charity to the needy. As the very real and recognized king, Jesus fired those in charge of Judea's reserve banks and put his own people in charge ([http://www.higherliberty.com/?p=483 turned over the tables/banks]). The Pharisees hated loosing power and the millions of dollars that came to them through taxes. They conspired to kill Jesus so they could once again assume their position of authority and subterfuge.


But the "good news" had already taken hold in people's hearts and they no longer felt allegiance to a piece of land and its sacred symbols. They spread throughout the world the live in freedom under allegiance to God alone.


This story happens over and over again throughout history. The pilgrims came to the new world to create a "New Jerusalem" and the "Kingdom of Heaven." It wasn't about establishing a corporate nation of forced taxation and boundaries. But their descendants have once again lost their way and they now owe allegiance to a corporate, centralized body called the United States. They feel it was established by God and they send their sons to defend it and their daughters to be "confectioneries for the king" — to work so she can pay taxes so her children can be provided for and educated by the king.


Now...we finally come to the meaning of the term "bastards."


: ''He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.'' Deut 23:1


Plain and simple, bastards are those who have a father other than God. Every US citizen is a bastard. Our birth certificates and social security numbers (SSN) prove who is our father/provider/protector.


10 generations? Where do you want to start counting?

* The creation of the US Constitution when the corporate government was established?
* The 14th Amendment that made us all property of the US (US citizens) rather than the free men we were up until that point?
* The late 1800s and early 1900s when the first public schools started being created and we begin earnestly praying ''en masse'' to another father (the US government) for the education of our children?
* When the Social Security Administration was created and we not only started praying to the new father for care in our old age, but we also started selling our children to the new father so that we could get all the benefits that came with the mark (tax deductions, easier entry into school, easier entry into jobs, access to government benefits)?


Today we can't even buy or sell without the mark. We have no support structures for our children so they have options if we choose NOT to sell them to Egypt. 


Indeed, we are bastards who have no access to the "congregation of the Lord" — the Kingdom of Heaven/Israel. It will take at least another generation until there are true "children of God."


In this light, many other Bible verses start taking on a much richer meaning. For example, God warns the sons of Israel not to marry women from the surrounding nations and Paul warns against being unequally yolked...


Deuteronomy 7:3 "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4. for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."


2 Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"


We are talking about a truly free people: Sons that are kings...whose only allegiance is to God, who have no SSNs, and truly own the land on which they live (not tenants paying taxes to the true owner). It was forbidden for these truly free men to marry women who insisted on keeping the benefits of another god/father (and thus the identification with the other father/provider/protector). Any children born or this type of marriage would not be free. By definition, they were not  Israelites. And there were contracts that would bind them for generations.


On the other hand, if a woman was willing to sever all connections to the "pagan" nation and potential benefits that came with that relationship, she could enter into the Kingdom of God. Rahab and Ruth are prime examples of this. It wasn't bloodlines that mattered. It was the covenants and contracts that were attached...that would determine if offspring were "pure" or not.
http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/covenants/ccc1.php


Regarding the verse about the "wounded stones" and a "privy member", it helps to understand that the Hebrew symbols translated into stones and altars also had meanings related to the practical organization of government.


Deut 23:1 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."


Stones meant elders. Altars were a gathering of stones...[http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Altars a gathering of elders]. These elders would choose a Levite servant to distribute the elder's free will offerings to the widows and orphans. The Levite was also the "networker" — the person that stayed in communication with other Levites who were each plugged into the lives of the ten or so elders they served. In this way, the entire nation could stay connected, provide for emergencies and go to battle without the need for a centralized government of force.


As king of his household, an elder became a "privy member" when he gathered together with a group of 10 or so elders to deal with governmental issues of law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Jesus called these the "weightier matters." For the sake of properly weaving themselves into the fabric of Israelite/free society, the group of elders would choose a trustworthy and respected servant (the Levite) to connect them with other "alters." 


Levites where the "set apart" people that didn't have their own property. They were the "congregation of the LORD." But Levite was a title — a position of service — not necessarily a tribal bloodline. By definition, one was designated a Levite by a group of elders — stones/privy members. When the stones no longer appreciated the service of their particular Levite, they could choose another. Privy members "cut themselves off" from that servant by choosing another. At that point, the servant that had wounded stones and no privy members was no longer a Levite...no longer a part of the congregation of the LORD.