The Covenant of Yahweh

The Government of the Hebrew Nation and it’s Covenant/Constitution
compiled and written by Kepha

Throughout the history of mankind, we have seen the rise and fall of governments formed by men. The government of men, has been created by men, for men to rule and live in unity. And every government of man has failed in it’s attempt to bring about national unity, because they have thrown out the formula for a perfect unified government. Even the Hebrew nation failed in their unified government after a period of time, even though it had a Constitution given to them by the Creator, who the scriptures testify, was made in heaven. But it wasn’t the Constitution that was imperfect. It failed because the people disobeyed and broke the Covenant and Constitution given to them. It wasn’t the constitution that failed, it was the people who failed the constitution. If you analyze the Covenant that they ratified and Constitution that they followed, you will be hard pressed to find any fault with it. History shows that the Hebrew Constitution was given by a heavenly being, who made Covenant with Abraham, called a Hebrew, and then 430 years later, had this Covenant written and ordained to a chosen people, and given as a gift, to a chosen people. You will also find that most modern governments are patterned after the Hebrew Constitution. The united States Constitution is one example of a business compact between estates, that is patterned after the Hebrew laws of commerce. We will see this later on in this treatise.

Today we as fleshly men can accept the fact that everything we use and see is created. The cars, computers, military technological equipment, planes, skyscrapers, etc... that we use was created and patented by mankind. It is man’s creation. Yet, many cannot accept the fact that we as humans, were created by an intelligent being higher than us, who designed our bodies as one of the marvels of the universe. The Creator, who along with creating us, also created a perfect governmental plan, which He endowed to a certain people that He chose, so that they could govern themselves and their nation in a unified organized body politic. The Hebrew people are not a race. They are called a chosen people, who are scattered at this time all across the earth. In fact, as written in the Torah, the term "Hebrew" is generally agreed to come from a group known as Habiru (or 'Apiru), a people who have lost their status in a community to which they had originally belonged. It is traditionally understood to be an adjective based on the name of Abraham's ancestor, Eber ("ʕebr" עבר in Hebrew) mentioned in Genesis 10:21. This name is possibly based upon the root "ˁ-b-r" (עבר) meaning "to cross over". Interpretations of the term "ʕibrim" link it to this verb; cross over and homiletical or the people who crossed over the river Euphrates. The more proper interpretation would be “one who crosses over into a covenant relationship with Yahweh; to come from darkness into light.”

All of the believers who have left the community that they belonged to, in order to follow the covenant of Yahweh, believing His truths, are considered, Habiru, or Hebrew people. We have crossed the Euphrates, or as the word means: break forth, a fruit bearing tree, crossing over. We have broken forth as a fruit tree, bearing new fruit, grafted into another tree in order for us to bear our fruit, but not forgetting our roots. Being Hebrew is a way of life, according to a Covenant relationship with the Creator. Many reject the notion that we could have been created by someone else greater than man. Some believe that we somehow created ourselves, yet they can’t acknowledge the same for cars, planes, buildings, etc., because they can see the physical creation, and it’s creator, but they can’t accept a heavenly creator, because they don’t see Him in a fleshly form, this is to their detriment and foolishness in their way of analyzing creation.

The Hebrew people knew and acknowledged the creator by His name, Yahweh (pronounced by many scholars as Yahweh) and called him by many names, or titles such as, God, Lord, El, Alohim, Adonai, Allah, Jehovah, Hashem, etc... We have simple evidence of His existence and His ability to lead us in the right paths. This is found in the Hebrew Constitution/Covenant, called the Tanakh and through the writings of the prophets. (So we can stay true to the original spelling concerning the creator’s name, and avoid theological debates, in this article Yahweh, will be used when pronouncing the name of the Creator.)

The Hebrew people also accepted the terms and conditions of the Covenant and it’s Constitution. When they followed the Constitution, they had peace and prosperity. When they disobeyed it, we are shown that they fell into captivity of men, and were forced to follow the Constitution of the government of the men who captured them. Every government of freemen were as the Hebrew nation in that they rebelled against tyranny and oppression. The Hebrew nation was formed out of such rebellion.  

There is no doubt that the founding fathers of the united States of America, whom also rebelled against the King and his Tyranny, gave credit to the Creator of the universe and His providence. They knew that He revealed a far more surpassing intelligence than man. Many of them, had studied the bible, receiving much of their principles by which they framed and patterned the government of the Constitution of the American republic. Our Constitutional compact, is formed and designed from many principles of the Hebrew Constitution, of which will be shown later in this study. Isn’t is time we as a people, took a closer look at this document and it’s precepts and went beyond examining the Holy Scriptures as a religion, and look into it’s governmental plan? Isn’t it time that people have more involvement and concern as a body politic, to re-examine our Covenant? We are a people that uphold laws of freedom, and we should be concerned how we can become united as one body, as the ancient Hebrew people were. This can be accomplished through education and further studies.


Any historian who does a little bit of research, will find that the Constitutional document that was written by our founding fathers, is not the same document that was ratified and hung in every federal governmental building for all to see. The original Constitution was written then given to England, who re-wrote it and then gave it back to be ratified by the estates of the 13 colonies. Of course it was re-written to allow England to keep it’s estates or colonies and to not continue in a costly war. If this is the case, as history seems to indicate, then we have a document that is corrupted by the greed of men, because it’s whole purpose is to keep us as the King’s slaves, in perpetual servitude. You can see this by the laws that are in place, which are commercial laws that make you pay for rights, which are turned into privileges. All it takes is a little research, to figure this out! People don’t own their land, their children, their wives, and most things that should be considered a right of man, which has been converted into a privilege by the State. Here are a few things to consider:

1. The IRS is not a US government agency.  It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)

2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)

5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)

6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government, even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)

7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are "Department of the Treasury". (20 CFR (Council on

Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))

8. There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)

9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators.  (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)

10. According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)

11. New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World." For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )

12. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund.  (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)

13. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says "U.S. Department of Treasury" at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)

14. You own NO property. Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours.  You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)

15. The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)

16. The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War.   (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

17. You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it!  The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation (headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic of the united States of America.  (Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

18. America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)


20. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

21. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)

22. A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)

23. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.  (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

24. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)

25. The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone.  (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)

26. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children.  (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

27. Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to Districts  (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)

28. "The People" does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)

29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

30. Every thing in the "United States" is up for sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc... Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)

31. "We are human capital” (Executive Order 13037)  The world cabal makes money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, your social security number, etc.

32. The U.N. - United Nations - has financed the operations of the United States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America.

The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.

Source: http://home/

The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another fictitious obligation.

These documents are not secret.  They are a matter of public record.

Simple words such as "person" "citizen" "people" "or" "nation" "crime" "charge" "right" "statute" "preferred" "prefer" "constitutor" "creditor" "debtor" "debit" "discharge" "payment" "law" and "United States" doesn't mean what we think it does because we were never taught the legal definitions of the above words.

This information is provided for further study and time does not permit me to expound further on these subjects. However, this information should make you think, investigate, and realize that the government of men is designed to enslave you, even though it is a voluntary servitude done through ignorance of the masses. You don’t find that with the government of Yahweh. Let’s look at the Hebrew Covenant!

The Hebrew Constitution, is a form of government, that was formed by the Creator of mankind, given to His Statesman, Mosheh, who wrote it down and handed it to the People of the united estates of Israel, which at first, was not corrupted by men’s translation into this Constitution. These 12 estates ratified it as a united nation and for hundreds of years it was the Constitution of the united people of Israel. However, it was their rejection of this Covenant/Constitution that caused the captivity of the Hebrew people, who then allowed the corruption of the Constitution by the addition of man-made oral traditions, or codification of the organic laws of the Hebrew Constitution to cause them to lose their status as a nation. Today in the United States of America, history has a habit of repeating itself, and we can find in the annals of the history of the union of the 13 estates of America, that the organic laws written just over 200 years ago, have been changed into codification, and the original intent of these laws have been flooded with codified legal interpretations, not law, written to confuse the average citizen and keeping them from being ruled by laws which allow rights and freedom.

If the believers of Yahweh in the United States of America, stand up for who they are, what they believe and acknowledge the sovereign King of the universe, the earthly government of men, cannot alter their faith. The Laws, written by mandate of the Federal government, actually protect those who profess a faith loyal to the Holy Scriptures, or Hebrew Covenant. We can find the following information in Public Law 97-280, that was ratified by the Senate and Congress of the United States of America in 1982.

Public Law 97-280 United States of America

Introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 165, with thirty-three co-sponsors, and as House Joint Resolution 487 with 219 co-sponsors, a request was delivered before Congress to honor the Bible as Holy Scripture. The resolution suffered no amendments, no exclusions, no demands that it be stricken of religious references. It became law.

The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible". The bipartisan document known as Public Law 97-280, was signed on October 4, 1982 by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, President of the Senate - Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond, and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;

WHEREAS many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the Rock on which our Republic rests";

WHEREAS the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people:

NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.


In examining the Covenant/Constitution of the Hebrew people, there is so much to learn concerning this subject of their original government. which today is not even being practiced in the nation called Israel, much like we see in the united States of America with the original intent of the founding fathers of the government. The civil government of the ancient Hebrews was the government of a free people; it was a government of laws; it was a system of self government. It was not only the first, but the only government of antiquity, to which this description is fully applicable. Mosheh is considered the founder of this sort of government. He is the patriarch of the self government instituted by Yahweh. His constitution was pervaded with popular sympathies and the spirit of liberty. The best wisdom of modern times in the difficult science of legislation was anticipated by Mosheh. The moderns are not real discoverers; they but propagated and applied truths and principles, established by the first, the wisest, the ablest of legislators. In an age of barbarism and tyranny, Mosheh solved the problem how a people could be self governed, and yet well governed; how men could be kept in order, and still be free; and how the liberty of the individual could be reconciled with the welfare of the community. This government of Yahweh, the Covenant of Peace, is much needed today in a society of barbarism and tyranny. One cannot turn on the news, or search the internet without seeing the overthrowing of nations, wars on every continent, and the continuous discontent of the people against what they see as tyranny and oppression within their governmental leaders. These people are not wanting lawlessness, but instead want righteous self governing laws, that give them freedom, liberty, peace and life.

The true character of the Hebrew constitution is not well understood. Nor is the want of full and accurate information concerning it a matter of wonder. Most people would call it Jewish, Zionism, Old Testament, and something that was for another time, for a certain people. Some would say it was for a time, long since forgotten, a world that is different than ours today in all of our modern, technological, fast paced lifestyle, that could hold no meaning for people today. Yet, we see oppressed people crying out for peace, redemption, self government, and laws that govern, not oppress. This is occurring before our very eyes as I write this letter!

In political, as well as physical science, there are certain great principles, true or false, from which, in any given case, all the numerous details of social organization flow. Every state is based upon some fundamental ideas; and the study of those ideas is the most important object of inquiry in the study of it’s constitution. No social system can be understood without a knowledge of it’s fundamental principles. The Hebrew government, with it’s Covenant and constitution, like all others, was founded upon certain great maxims of policy, so the development should be studied and understood and which you are now invited to witness.

During the long period, when the words of people, law, equality, national utility, intellectual superiority, independence, and regular legislation, scarcely found a place in any living language, how could Mosheh find his true place and his just estimation? The people were too ignorant to study him, and their tyrants would have felt their pride and oppression rebuked by his ardent republicanism. But times are changed? Or have they? Everywhere the need of a better and juster political organization is felt. Everywhere there is developed a strong tendency towards popular freedom and power. Everywhere an irresistible impulse is urging nations to substitute for the arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent government of men, the just and stable government of righteous laws. The more this state of things develops itself, the more the principles of reason, justice, equality, liberty, and public utility, take possessions of men’s minds, and assert their power over human affairs, the more will the polity of the Hebrew Covenant, a commonwealth become an object of study, of interest, of admiration, and of imitation. And the more it’s Covenant and constitution is studied, the more will it be recognised as a free constitution; a constitution embodying all the great principles of political wisdom; a constitution, on several points, in advance even of the age in which we live.


The first and most essential fundamental principle of the Hebrew Covenant was the unity of      Yahweh, who was the mighty one, the only object of worship. There is no doubt that a civil constitution must have the interwoven concepts of the worship of the Creator who gave the Hebrews their constitution, by covenant. Otherwise the covenant would be of little importance to those who follow it. The constitution of the Hebrew believer is a covenant that is made by oath, and created by a heavenly father who is far surpassing men in their intelligence. How can a nation be united if it worships many gods? How can a people be in unity within the context of the constitution if there is not one who has created the constitution? There is no doubt that man made constitutions are imperfect in their creation and context. It is little wonder that most governments have people within it, who are not satisfied with the corruption that comes from a covenant made by corruptible men, whose intentions are not for the benefit of the community. And so it is of most importance that a people united, must acknowledge a creator, who is incorruptible and swear by oath, acknowledging that they will enter into covenant with Him as a people. This was done by the people of every nation, an allegiance of loyalty to the government in which they are born and reside. Those who follow the Covenant of Peace and uphold it’s constitution which it embodies, are to follow it with true loyalty and respect.

All the ancient lawgivers up until the present time, called in the aid of religion to strengthen their respective polities. But the precedure of Mosheh differed fundamentally from that of worldly legislators. They employed religion in establishing their political institutions, while he made use of a civil constitution as a means of perpetuating religion. Mosheh made the worship of the one true mighty one, Yahweh, the fundamental law of his civil institution, as instructed by the Creator. This law was to remain forever unalterable, through all the changes, which lapse of time might introduce into his constitution.

We saw last week in my letter to the called out ones, that the Pharisees introduced oral torah into the written torah, amending the constitution as they saw fit for the nation. Yahshua the Messiah (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) said the greatest law in this covenant was to love Yahweh with all your heart, soul, and might, and that Yahweh is one. And the second greatest law in this covenant was to love your brother as yourself, being in unity in love with your neighbor.

Thus we see that Mosheh as the Judge and Lawgiver to the nation of Israel, enabled to secure a result of indispensable necessity to human virtue and joy; a result, which, as far as we can see, could have been attained in no other way. In this procedure Mosheh has shown himself one of the greatest benefactors of mankind. But it is to be carefully noted, that is is one thing to make the single article of the worship of one mighty one the first principle of a civil polity; and it is another and totally different thing to make the numerous articles of a religious creed, and their maintenance among the people, the object and scope of political arrangements. Mosheh framed no symbolic books for the people to subscribe; nor did he publish any mere theological dogma, the belief of which was to be enforced by civil penalties. Such was the structure of the Hebrew state, that idolatry became, under it’s constitution, a civil crime. No mere private opinion, however, nothing but the overt act of idolatry, was punishable, under the laws given by Mosheh, by the civil authorities.


We see in the government of the united States of America, an attempt to acknowledge a Creator as the Sovereign over all humanity and an attempt was made to allow men to worship their Creator without prejudice or government interference. However, it stops just short at defining who the Creator was, and whether the people had the obligation to acknowledge Him as The Mighty One over the newly created nation. The Bill of Rights gave the government no power over an established religion, and was presented within the Constitution of the union of States in the Bill of Rights, Article One:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This government assured its citizens, through Constitutional Law, that the national government would not establish any national religion. This was based on their experiences from past governments in England and Europe, where state governed religion, had enslaved the people, rather than giving them religious freedom.

Reading an article from: we find the following information.

Given what we currently know, all of the first five presidents and most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers     believed in God. Atheism was mostly unknown among the writers of Constitution and was very rare among those of European descent in the 18th- Century. However, it is not always easy to ascribe a     particular denomination to an individual. Because of the rural nature of early America, many in colonial times chose churches based on convenience. Where they went to church regularly may not be a perfect indicator of what faith they considered themselves. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was raised Episcopalian, donated a significant amount of money to building Episcopalian churches, attended a Episcopalian church, and yet is not considered an orthodox Episcopalian by any historian of note. His views would be considered heretical by today's orthodox standards.
Further complicating the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is the fact that, like a lot of us, their views changed over time. Both Jefferson and Franklin, for example, became slightly more orthodox in their beliefs during the last decades of their lives (although this was more a matter of degree than substance).
During the colonial period, there was a lot of gray area among believers. Issues of theology and eschatology were more carefully categorized and picked over by the educated classes in the 1700's than they are today. Yet at the same time, Enlightenment thinking allowed for liberal interpretations of religious doctrine. Most of the new emerging denominations were still considered Christian as long as one followed the teachings of Christ.
Since there was no national church in America, the 18th century religious culture operated regionally and locally. Individual religious beliefs also seemed to be going through a creative transformation, especially during the Great Awakening of 1730-50 (scholars do not always agree on an end date). What few people today seem to realize is that real definitions of orthodoxy don't easily apply to the American generations of people born during the 18th century. Protestantism had not matured to its current state, and the Age of Enlightenment was introducing new theological concepts based on reason over scripture. Individuals and Institutions were both in an active state of process.
Because of the changing times and the enthusiasm with which all religions began to operate in the New World, many spiritual ideas were exchanged with letters. Some of the Founding Fathers were more expressive than others, but our religious "pigeon-holing" relies heavily on their letters for our historical understanding.

We find that there was a Great Religious Awakening during the 18th Century, which was the time period of the founding of the newly formed American nation. Religious views were going through a creative transformation and theological concepts were able to flourish. Reading further about this Great Awakening we find the following information.

The term Great Awakening is used to refer to a period of religious revival in American religious history. Historians and theologians identify three or four waves of increased religious enthusiasm occurring between the early 18th century and the late 19th century. Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, a jump in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.


The First Great Awakening began in 1720 . Ministers from various evangelical Protestant denominations supported the Great Awakening. Additionally, pastoral styles began to change. In the late colonial period, most pastors read their sermons, which were theologically dense and advanced a particular theological argument or interpretation. Leaders of the Awakening such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield had little interest in merely engaging parishioners' minds; they wanted far more to elicit an emotional response from their audience, one which might yield the workings and evidence of saving grace. They also wanted to see people who were noticeably moved in the audience and stood out amongst the rest.

Beker Baerwald, the minister, historian, and preacher who gave this religious phenomenon its name in his influential 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the American Revolution. The evangelical movement of the 1740s played a key role in the development of democratic thought, as well as the belief of the free press and the belief that information should be shared and completely unbiased. These concepts ushered in the period of the American Revolution. This helped create a demand for religious freedom.

The Great Awakening was a period of great revivalism that spread throughout the colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. It deemphasized the importance of church doctrine and instead put a greater importance on the individual and their spiritual experience.

Because the nation was diverse in its people, legislators who came from many different theological beliefs, made sure its conception was to allow religious freedom and expression of its people, and to not allow church doctrine to control its people. The legislators were careful in not allowing the states to have government controlled religion.

Here is a letter from George Washington to a Jewish Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, concerning protection for the freedom of worship of the Jewish believers during this time period.

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.
If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy--a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants--while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.
May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

Here is some quotes from statesmen and presidents of the united States of America concerning the Holy Scriptures, the Creator and the rights of man.

"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."  - Jimmy Carter

"I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me."  - George W. Bush

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
                                                                 - Thomas Jefferson,Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”   -John F. Kennedy

“Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind.”  -Calvin Coolidge

"When a people's religion is destroyed . . . then not only will they let their freedom be taken from them, but often they actually hand it over themselves." "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." -Alexis De Tocqueville

While the united States of America created religious freedom for its colonies, it did not give the citizens a mandate to have unity in following the Mighty One, Yahweh. Because religious rule had oppressed the citizens of England and Europe in the preceding centuries, they were careful to not allow state run religious monarchies to occur within the new national government. Had they formed the new nation under a Covenant oath and acknowledgment by all the people, as Mosheh did, and instituted the Constitution of Yahweh, they would have brought back a nationally unified government, not seen since the days of Mosheh, Yahshua ben Nun, and Samuel. However, what they did within the legislation of this government has given the Hebrew people the ability to flourish and prosper in their upholding  and keeping of the Hebrew Covenant/Constitution, in the land called America, without national or state government interference. But, it also allowed idolatry to flourish within the nation!


A second fundamental principle of the Hebrew government was national unity. This idea was, in that age, as new and startling as the doctrine of the divine unity. The most ancient sages made their ideas of the material universe the type of their political and social institutions. The Egyptian Priests regarded the universality of things as composed of two distinct essences; the one intellectual and active, the other physical and passive. This philosophical dogma had a predominating influence on the civil state. In the political system framed by them, the spiritual essence of the universe was the symbol of the priestly aristocracy; while the baser material essence represented the common people. Thus the higher and lower classes, the nobility and the commonalty, were separated by a gulf, as impassable as that which divides the inhabitants of different planets.

Mosheh, endowed with a capacity and animated with a principle higher that any preceding philosopher or statesman, rejecting this doctrine of dualism in the formation of his commonwealth, substituted in it’s place the principle of national unity. It was an unity founded on the principle of equal rights; a unity, in which the whole people formed the state, contrary to what occurred in Egypt, where the priesthood was the state, and contrary to the celebrated declaration of an English monarch, who avowed herself to be the state.

The civil head of the Hebrew government is Yahweh.  He is to be honored as our King as well as The Mighty One (or EL in the hebrew language). In the Hebrew constitution, it prohibits all manners of idolatry. This law extended to foreigners, as well as to the native born. While the constitution provided, that strangers, who took refuge in the land of Israel, should be treated with justice and kindness, it gave no protection or privilege to any foreign religion. It prohibited absolutely all manner of idolatry. Still, if a stranger was, in his heart, a friend of paganism, Yahweh does not authorize any inquiry into his private opinion. Such an inquisitorial procedure was foreign both to the temper and legislation of the constitution. Yahweh’s laws gave no sanction to it. They were framed against actions, not ideas!

Let us glance at the decalogue to ascertain, if possible, it’s relation to the question of the unity of the Hebrew state. These ten precepts belonged not simply to the Department of Ethics among the Hebrews. They were civil, as well as moral laws. They were intended to serve as the basis of the whole system of civil legislation. They have suggested to modern legislators the first idea of the declaration of the Rights of Man.

Mark the expressive form given to the preamble of these laws. It is as significant as it is marked by the use of a few words.

I am Yahweh your mighty one, which brought you out of the House of Bondage.

Here the Hebrew people are addressed as one man; and so they are throughout the enactment of this fundamental code. It is Israel, it is the entire people, to whom the lawgiver speaks. Here is no distinction of a social class separated from others by distinctions of hereditary rank, profession, or wealth. Here is no appropriation of dignitaries to one class; no hereditary inferiority assigned to another. The priesthood had not at this time been instituted, nor the tribe of Levi set apart to it’s peculiar functions. This tribe formed, it is true, a kind of literary aristocracy, and it’s dignitaries and duties were hereditary. Still, it was far from constituting a nobility, in the modern acceptation of that term. The same fundamental rights are recognized as belonging to all; the same fundamental duties as binding upon all. The whole law is in the interest of the whole people. Social distinctions, therefore, whenever they arise, must rest upon the natural basis of superior intelligence and worth.


Another of those great ideas, which constituted the basis of the Hebrew state, was liberty.
Liberty is a word often uttered, but seldom understood. It is the theme of much glowing declamation, but of little sober inquiry. Poets and orators have eulogized the charms of liberty. Demagogues use the word every day, as an instrument of political advancement; yet few, comparatively, investigate or comprehend it’s nature. Civil liberty, the liberty of a community, is a severe and restrained thing. The fundamental idea of it is that of protection in the enjoyment of our own rights, up to the point where we begin to trench upon the rights of others. It is natural liberty, so far restrained, and only so far, as may be necessary for the publics welfare. Every law, which abridges personal freedom, without corresponding general advantage, is an infringement of civil liberty. But it is no infringement of liberty to restrain the freedom of individuals, when the public welfare requires it. On the contrary, civil liberty implies, in the very notion of it, authority, subjection, and obedience. Montesquieu well defined it, when he said, that it “consists in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will.” Liberty is a right of doing what the laws permit. If one citizen might do what they forbid, all might do it, which would be anarchy. True liberty would expire in such a state of things.

This rational, restrained, regulated liberty was amply secured by the Hebrew constitution. In the preamble to the ten commandments, before cited, Yahweh expressly declares, that He had brought His people out of the “House of bondage.” In another place He says: “I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.” These expressions, rendered into their modern equivalents, mean: “I have delivered you out of a state of servitude, and constituted you a nation of freemen.” “Is Israel a slave?” cries the prophet Yeremyah, his heart bursting with sadness as the contrast between the freedom secured by the constitution of his country and the vassalage imposed upon his countrymen by foreign armies. The Hebrew people were perfectly free. They enjoyed the liberty cherished by Greece and Rome. Such was the purpose of Yahweh, countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but to their liberty. There is no doubt, that the constitution was as free as it could be, consistently with it’s own safety and stability; and it is probable, that the Hebrew people enjoyed as great a degree of personal liberty, as can ever be combined with an efficient and stable government.


A fourth fundamental principle of the Hebrew constitution was the political equality of the people. This was absolute and entire. The members of the body politic, called into being by the constitution given by Mosheh, stood upon a more exact level, and enjoyed a more perfect community of political rights, dignities, and influence, than any other people known in history, whether of ancient or modern times. The natural foundation of every government may be said to be laid in the distribution of it’s territories. And here three cases are supposable, the ownership of the soil by one, the few, or the many.

First, if the King own the lands, he will be absolute; for all who cultivate the soil, holding of him, and at this pleasure, must be so subject to his will, that they will be in condition of slaves, rather than of freemen.

Secondly, if the landed property of a country be shared among a few men, the rest holding as vassals under them, the real power of government will be in the hands of an aristocracy, or nobility, whatever authority may be lodged in one or more persons, for the sake of greater unity in counsel and action.

But thirdly, if lands be divided among all those who compose a society, the true power and authority of government will reside in all the members of that society; and the society itself will constitute a real democracy, whatever form of union may be adopted for the better direction of the whole, as a political body. Under such a constitution, the citizens themselves will have control of the state. They will not need to have this power conferred upon them by natural force of circumstances, by the inevitable necessity of the case. There is no truth in political science more easy to comprehend, more open to the view of all, or more certainly known in universal experience, than that the men who own the territories of a state will exercise a predominating influence over the public affairs of such state. This is agreeable to the constitution of human nature, and is confirmed by the concurrent testimony of history.


The provision of the Hebrew constitution in reference to the ownership of the soil, is that of my third supposition. Mosheh ordered, that the national domain should so be divided, that the whole six hundred thousand free citizens should have a full property, in an equal part of it. (Numbers 33:54) And to render this equality solid and lasting, the tenure was made inalienable, and the estates, thus originally settled upon each family, were to descend by an indefeasable entail, in perpetual succession. The principle which lies at the bottom of this argument for the political equality of the Hebrew citizens, was strongly developed, in it’s application to our own country. The laws within the constitution of the Hebrew people, gave to every member of the body politic an interest in the soil, and consequently in the maintenance of public order and the supremacy of law, which he had not even the power to part with. It made the virtues of industry and frugality necessary elements in every man’s character. Its tendency was to secure to all the citizens a moderate independence, and to prevent those extremes of opulence and destitution, which are the cause of shame of modern civilization. Great inequality in wealth in a nation is a great evil, to be avoided by the use of all just and prudent means. It was a leading object with Yahweh to give to His constitution such a form, as would tend to equalize the distribution of property. Under his polity, the few could not revel in the enjoyment of immense fortunes while the million were suffering from want. Misery was not the hereditary lot of one class, nor boundless wealth of another. The government watched over all, and care for all alike. No citizen could justly charge his poverty to its neglect.


The constitution of the Hebrew citizen elevated labor to its just dignity, and removed the contempt, which adhered to it in all other ancient states. It is an error, into which our best informed political writers have fallen, to suppose, that, for the first time in the history of the world, labor has taken its true position in America. Especially today, when most laborous jobs are given to immigrants or migrant workers, who work the land at cheap labor costs, because most American people will not work for the cheap labor prices that are paid to these migrant workers. This was not so in the founding of this country, as the laborer built up the nation. This can be seen in any country in it’s founding and inception. It was as much fostered by the government, it was as generally practiced, and it was as honorable among the ancient Hebrews, as it is even in the modern nation of Israel. The Apostle Shaul (Paul) states, “if any man will not work, neither shall he eat.” This saying was but the reflection of a common Hebrew sentiment, and shows in what estimation labor, manly labor, independent labor, labor thinking, and acting, and accumulating for itself, was the great substantial interest, on which the whole fabric of Hebrew society rested. Such was Hebrew labor, and such the position assigned to it by the Hebrew lawgiver.

But, not content with establishing originally a full equality among the citizens, the constitution made provision for its permanent continuance. With such care did it watch, that the people might never moulder away, and be lost to the state in the condition of slaves, that is provided for a general periodical release of debts and servitudes; partially by the institution of the sabbatical year, but more completely by the year of jubilee. No matter how many times the property had changed hands, at the return of the jubilee year, it was restored, free of encumbrance, to the original owners or their heirs. This was a wise, as well as benevolent provision of the constitution. It was admirably suited to preserve a wholesome equality among the citizens. The rich could not accumulate all the lands. The fiftieth year, beyond which no lease could run, was always approaching, with silent, but sure tread, to relax their tenacious grasp. However alienated, however unworthily sold, however strongly conveyed to the purchaser an estate might be, this long expected day annulled the whole transaction, and placed the debtor in the condition, which either himself or his ancestor had enjoyed. At the return of this day, the trumpet was heard, in the street, field from mountain top and valley, throughout the length and breadth of the land. The chains fell from the exulting slave. The burden of debt, rolled off from shoulders. The inequalities of condition, which the lapse of half a century had produced, once more disappeared.


A magistracy elected by the people, the public officer chosen by the public voice, was another of those great principles, on which Mosheh founded his civil polity. The magistrates are not properly the ministers of the people, unless the people elect them. It is therefore, a fundamental maxim in every popular government, that the people should choose their ministers, that is to say, their magistrates. The people need counselors of state and executive officers, as much as monarchs, perhaps even more than they. But they cannot have a just confidence in these officers, unless they have the choosing of them. And the people, in every nation capable of freedom, are well qualified to discharge this trust. In their sentiments, the people are rarely mistaken.

The election by the Hebrew people of Yahweh, Himself, to be the civil Head of their State, is a point, which has already been established. No fact can be plainer, or more certain, than that the judges, instituted at the suggestion of Jethro, were chosen by the suffrages of all Israel. The direction of Mosheh to the people, upon that occasion is very explicit. His words are, “take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.” The meaning is , “Do you elect the proposed officers, and I will commission and induct them into office.” It is very observable, that these magistrates were to be taken “out of all the people,” and not from any privileged class. The only qualifications for office required were, that they should be able men, such as reverence Yahweh men of truth, hating covetousness, wise men, and understanding, and known among their tribes. The possession  of these high attributes  was enough, no other patent of nobility was required. Mosheh demanded four qualifications in a civil ruler, “ability, integrity, fidelity, and piety.” When the land of Cannan was to be divided among the tribes, Yahshua (Joshua) ben Nun, addressed all Israel saying, “Give out from among you three men from each tribe, and I will send them.” That is, “Select, choose for yourselves.” These instances and others, which might be cited, prove, that the great principle, that rulers should be elected by the ruled, that authority should emanate from those over whom it is to be exercised, was fully embodied in the Hebrew constitution.


A principle, closely allied to this is that the people should have an authoritative voice in the enactment of the laws, is another of those great ideas, which underlie the Hebrew government; and this principle, like the preceding one, is fundamental in every popular government. When Mosheh descending from the mountain, rehearsed to the people the laws which he had received from the Yahweh, with one voice, they answered and said, “All the words that the Yahweh has said, will we do.” What is this, but an acceptance by the nation of the constitution proposed to them? The Hebrew constitution was adopted by the Hebrew people, as truly as the American constitution was adopted by the American people. This adoption by the Hebrew nation, of the laws, which Mosheh brought from Yahweh, was repeated at the death of Mosheh, and by a statute, once in seven years was to be repeated ever after by the assembled nation. So that, from generation from generation, once in seven years, the tribes met in a great national convention, called the Feast of Yahweh and solemnly ratified the constitution. The government, then, was in a solid and just sense, a government of the people; for the magistrates were chosen by their suffrages, and the laws were enacted by their voice.


The responsibility of public officers to the people was the seventh fundamental maxim of the Hebrew polity. In proof of this the reader is referred to the closing scene of Samuel’s public administration. The ages statesman resigns his authority to the convention of the people, by whom it had been conferred. History records no sublimer or more touching scene. He calls upon his constituents, if any had been injured by his public acts, or knew of any abuse of the trusts confided to him, to step forward and accuse him. With one voice they reply, “You have injured, oppressed, defrauded, no one.” I Samuel 12:1-5

Several incidents, related in the history of the kings, confirm this view. When Shaul was chosen King, a writing, limiting the royal prerogative, was prepared by Samuel, and deposited in the sanctuary, where reference might afterwards be made to it, in case of royal usurpation. (I Samuel 10:25) A similar writing was exacted of his successors. (II Samuel 5:3, I Kings 12:4, II Kings 11:17) Solomon, during the latter period of his life, had reigned as a despot. When his son mounted the throne, Yahdah and Benyamin were the only tribes, which acknowleged him. The other tribes offered to submit to his authority, on conditions which were not accepted. But when the young king rejected their terms, they rejected him, chose a sovereign for themselves, and established a separate kingdom. These instances show, that the people held their rulers to a stern responsibility for the manner in which they discharged their public trusts.

All this was the spirit of a republican spirit of the nation; a spirit, inspired, cherished, and sanctioned by the constitution. Who can doubt whether it was a constitution, intended for a free and self governing community?


A cheap, speedy, and impartial administration of justice was another of those great ideas, on which Mosheh founded his civil polity. Under the Hebrew constitution, the poor and the weak were not to be the victims of the rich and the strong. The small as well as the great were to be heard, and equal justice awarded to all, without fear of favor. That terrible and ruinous evil, “the laws delay,” was unknown to the Hebrew jurisprudence. Courts of various grades were established, from high courts of appeal down to those ordained for every town. “Judges and officers shall you make for you in all your gates.” Deuteronomy 16:18 was the constitutional provision on this subject. To what a minute subdivision the judiciary system was carried, appears from the ordinance, which required, “that there should be rulers over thousands, rulers over hundreds, rulers over fifties, and rulers over tens, who should judge the people at all seasons.” (Exodus 18:21) Care was thus taken, that in suits and proceedings at law, every man should have what was just and equal, without going far to seek it, without waiting long to obtain it, and without paying an exorbitant price for it. Certainly, with a judiciary constituted in this manner, justice could be administered promptly, while provision was made against the evils of hasty decisions, in the right of appeal to higher courts; in important cases, even to the venerable council of seventy, composed of the wisest, the gravest, the ablest, the most upright, and trustworthy men in the nation.


Another vital principle of the Hebrew constitution was peace. A thirst of conquest, and the foul passions, which it implies and engenders, had no place in the legislator’s own bosom, and were utterly repugnant to the spirit of his legislation. It was a prime object of his polity to discountenance and repress a military spirit in the nation.

In the first place, His Constitution made no provision for a standing army; and a soldiery under pay was an innovation long posterior to the time of Mosheh. The whole body of citizens, holding their lands on condition of military service, when required formed a national guard of defence. Thus landholders (and every Israelite was a landholder) formed the only soldiery, known to the Hebrew Constitution.

In the second place, the intensely agricultural character of the Hebrew government served to impress upon it an almost equally pacific character. Light and darkness are scarcely more repugnant to each other, than husbandry and war. Among the ancient Germans, as we learn from Tacitus and Caesar, the chiefs, in the general council of the nation, made an annual distribution of the lands in the country. The motive prompting to such a procedure was, that the thoughts of the people might not be diverted from war to agriculture. Deeply did those sagacious chieftains feel, for clearly did they perceive, that permanent landed possessions, improved habitations, and a too curious attention to domestic conveniences and comforts, would beget in the tillers of the soil an affection for the spots they cultivated, which would produce sentiments and manners, quite repugnant to their own schemes of conquest and military aggrandizement.

Thirdly, the use of cavalry, at once the effect and the cause of a passion for war, was prohibited by the constitution. On the occasion of a certain victory, when a large number of the enemy’s horses had fallen into his hands, Yahshua (Joshua) ben Nun, was directed by the oracle to “hough,” or hamstring them, that is, to cut their thigh sinews. Yahshua 11th chapter.
This was practiced on similar occasions, even as late as the reign of David. The law against multiplying horses appears to have been faithfully observed, till the proud ambition of Solomon swept away this, in common with many other wholesome provisions of the national constitution. In past governments, which have made conquest a leading object of pursuit, the principle military force has consisted in cavalry, and this especially in rude societies. in the infancy of the military art, the superiority of cavalry over infantry is very conspicuous. The fate of battle depended on that part of the army, which fought on horseback, or in chariots. It is obvious, that no founder of an empire, in those early ages, who intended his people for a career of conquest and military grandeur, would or could have dispensed with calvary in his armies. The fact that Mosheh forbade the use of this species of force, is a proof that he designed his people for peaceful pursuits, and not for military glory.

But the laws written by Mosheh had another motive for the prohibition of cavalry. The political equality of all the citizens, as we have seen under a former head, was an object with him. But in all ancient nations, where cavalry was employed, the horsemen, being necessarily the wealthier members of the community, became also the more powerful. The system threw the chief political power into the hands of a few rich citizens, who could afford to mount and bring into the field themselves and their dependents. This naturally tended to the establishment of monarchial and aristocratical governments. The creator of the Covenant could not but perceive this tendency, and on this account, as well as on account of His repugnance to an aggressive military policy, He excluded a mounted soldiery from the forces of the republic. It is remarkable, how speedily the substitution of the monarchial for the republican form of polity, led to the introduction and use of cavalry in the Israel army.

Fourthly, according to the testimony of Josephus, it was required, except in the case of the Canaanite nations, that, previous to actual hostilities, heralds should be sent to the enemy with proposals of peace; and not until negotiation had failed, was force to be called in. This testimony is confirmed by law contained in Deuteronomy 20:10. Considerable light is also thrown upon the point, by what I will venture to call a state paper of Jephthath. (Judges 11:12-27) It is a letter of instructions to his Ambassadors, directing them as to the manner in which they should conduct a negotiation with the king of the Ammonites. The instructions are drawn up with an ability, force, and skill, which would not discredit any statesman of modern times!

Another proof of the repugnance of Yahweh to aggressive wars, and of the peaceful spirit of His general policy, may be drawn from the law of the Hebrew feasts. Three times a year all the males were required to repair to the capital, or the place where Yahweh placed His name. With such a law in operation, how could a nation engage in schemes of foreign conquest? The idea seems little less than preposterous.

Finally, this view of the pacific character of the Hebrew constitution is strengthened by a forcible argument of Michaelis commentary on the Law of Mosheh, in which the writer undertakes to prove, that the sin of David in numbering the people, which has so puzzled the commentators, consisted, not in any ambitious motions, hid in the secret chambers of his own heart, but in openly aspiring at the establishment of a military government, and in attempting, with that view, to subject the whole nation to martial regulations, to form a standing army, and so to break down and ride over one of the fundamental provisions of the constitution, the many successful wars which he had carried on having, in all likelihood, filled his mind with the spirit of conquest.

In beautiful harmony with the peaceful genius of his institutes, was the conduct of Mosheh, whenever he wished to march through the territories of other nations. Unlike the mere military chieftain of ancient times, whose sole aim was conquest and plunder, he always asked permission to do so, promising to abstain from treading down the cornfields, and to pay for everything he consumed, not accepting even water. Sihon himself was not conquered and despoiled of his territories, because of his refusal to grant a passage through them, nor because he marched an army of observation toward his frontier, for the Edomites had done the same before, but because he preceeded beyond his frontier into the wilderness, and without provocation, attacked the Israelites first.

Of all the evils, which afflict humanity, the greatest in magnitude, the most injurious in its moral influences, the most repugnant to a religious people, and the most expensive of money, is war! How, then, can we sufficiently admire the wisdom of a lawgiver, who, in an age of barbarism and war, established a government upon the broad principles of equity and peace? How much more can a people be joyful in their natural estate, when war shall never again unfurl its crimson banner to the breeze, nor imprint its bloody footsteps upon the earth. Then shall religion, learning, social order, and regulated liberty become the inheritance of the race. Humanity shall receive purer impulses. Arts shall flourish, and science extend her enriching victories. Plenty and contentment shall become the general lot. Piety, shall again strike deep its roots into the human heart. And the broad earth, now scathed and blighted by the curse of its creation, shall again smile in the freshness and beauty of Eden.


The doctrine that agriculture constitutes the best basis of the prosperity and joy to a state, was the tenth fundamental principle of the Mosaic polity.

Mosheh labored to impress upon the people the conviction, that their country was best adapted to agriculture, and that agriculture was most favorable to its true and lasting properity. He represented it as a land flowing with milk and honey; a land of brooks of water, of fountains, and of depths that spring out of valleys and hills; a land of wheat, and barley, and vines and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of olives and honey; a land that drank liberally of the river of heaven, and wherein bread should be eaten without scarceness. Nothing can be plainer, than that it was on agriculture alone, taken in its broadest sense, so as to include the culture of vineyards, olive grounds, and gardens, that Mosheh as instructed by Yahweh   saw fit to lay the foundation of the Israelite state. By a provision in the constitution, before explained, no Hebrew could be born, who did not inherit a piece of land form his progenitors.

Agriculture presents itself to us under a point of view more positive and practical. It is the parent art, the paramount interest, of civilized society. The great pursuit of man is agriculture. It is the nurse of the human race. It has principles which elevate it to the rank of a science, a noble and comprehensive science. In the improvement of domestic animals and the fertilization of soils, the most abstruse principles of physiology and chemistry must be consulted. The principles of natural philosophy, also have an equal relation to agriculture; for there is not a change of the seasons or the wind, there is not a fall of rain or of snow, there is not a fog or dew, which does not affect some one or more of the manifold operations of the farmer. The relation of science to agriculture is close and vital. It is an error to suppose that the whole education of a farmer consists in knowing how to plough and sow and reap, the rest being left to the earth, the seasons, good fortune, and providence. The nature of soils and plants, the food they require, and the best methods of supplying it, are objects worthy of an earnest study. In a word, farming is a science, whose principles must be investigated, mastered, and skilfully applied, in order to insure profitable crops. There is no other pursuit, in which so many of the laws of nature must be understood and consulted, as in the cultivation of the earth.

What, then, shall we think of those ancient nations, which treated agriculture as a servile profession, and refused to the tillers of the soil a rank among the citizens of the state? What shall we say of those Greek philosophers and legislators, who abandoned to slaves and the dregs of the people the culture of the lands? Both Plato and Aristotle required slaves to till the land. In many of the states of Greece, agriculture was a servile profession. The inhabitants of conquered countries were compelled to practice it, while the citizens found employment in gymnastic and military exercises, forming as Montesquieu says, a society of wrestlers and boxers. Thus the soil was tilled by the Helots among the Lacedaemonians, by the Periecians among the Cretans, by the Penestes among the Thessalians, and by other conquered people in other republics. Today, we have the Mexicans who work the soils and harvest the fields of America, yet they are considered aliens to the average American. We have become dependant on Corporate food farms, who have no care for the health and nutrition of a nation.

Not thus did the Hebrew lawgiver think and act. He made agriculture the great channel of Hebrew industry. Doubtless, the circumstances of the Hebrew people and the grand design of their polity had an influence over this direction. Still, it cannot be doubted that in obedience to Yahweh Mosheh regarded agriculture as, in itself, the most useful and the most honorable of employments.

The honor accorded by a lawgiver to any pursuit is a sure test of the esteem in which he holds it; and the most effective means of causing any branch of industry to flourish among a people, is to honor it. Apply this test to agriculture among the Hebrews, and what is the result? We see the same men passing from the labors of the field to the exercises of the highest public functions, and returning again to their private toils. Even after his elevation to the royal dignity, King Shaul, goes back to the labors of husbandry. Eliyah casts his prophetic mantle upon Elisha, when the latter is engaged in ploughing. David is taken from the sheepfold, to fill the throne of his country, and to become the leader and shepherd of the people. The highest proof of the devotion of a people to agriculture, and of its flourishing condition, is the increase of population; since, among an agricultural people, this will generally be in proportion to the increased means of subsistence. But nowhere, in the whole history of mankind, has an equal extent of territory given birth and sustenance to a population, as numerous as that of ancient Israel. The figures of the prophets attest the zeal of the Hebrews in preparing their soil, in removing stones and weeds and in surrounding their fields with walls and hedges.

Small proprietorships and the cultivation of all the territories of the state by the actual owners, was the policy of the Hebrew laws. Let us inquire into the effect of this policy on the social condition and general welfare of a country. Under the system of small ownerships, a nation prospers, but when you have large proprietorship in the land, the people sink into poverty and misery.


Let’s examine what is going on in America today.

The dramatic expansion of industrial agriculture (or factory farming) has made it increasingly difficult for small family farmers in the U.S to stay in business. Instead, the food industry has become dominated by a handful of giant corporations which benefit from government policies that favor large-scale production.

Family farmers are being forced out of business at an alarming rate. According to Farm Aid, every week 330 farmers leave their land. As a result, there are now nearly five million fewer farms in the U.S. than there were in the 1930's. Of the two million remaining farms, only 565,000 are family operations. As established family farms are shut down, they are not being replaced by new farms and young farmers.  Very few young people become farmers today, and half of all U.S. farmers are between the ages of 45 and 65, while only 6% of all farmers are under the age of 35.
Some people ask whether these sorts of changes are inevitable; they wonder if family farming is simply out-of-date in today’s global economy. Or they may think: if industrial agriculture can supply more food at a lower cost, doesn’t that benefit consumers? If food were like car parts or other consumer products, it might. But because our health, our environment, and our communities are so greatly affected by food production, the way food is produced and shipped matters just as much as what’s in the food. For many people, the connection between farm and fridge is vague at best. In an age where a handful of corporate food processors determine most of what we find in the supermarket, it is critical for consumers to learn about where their food comes from and make their own informed choices.

Why are family farms important? In addition to producing fresh, nutritious, high-quality foods,     small family farms provide a wealth of benefits for their local communities and regions. Perhaps most importantly, family farmers serve as responsible stewards of the land. Unlike industrial agriculture operations, which pollute communities with chemical pesticides, noxious fumes and excess manure, small family farmers live on or near their farms and strive to     preserve the surrounding environment for future generations. Since these farmers have a vested interest in their communities, they are more likely to use sustainable farming techniques to protect natural resources and human health. The existence of family farms also guarantees the preservation of green space within the community. Unfortunately, once a family farm is forced out of business, the farmland is often sold for development, and the quality land and soil for farming are lost. Independent family farms also play a vital role in rural economies. In addition to providing jobs to local people, family farmers also help support small businesses by purchasing goods and services within their communities. Meanwhile, industrial agriculture operations employ as few workers as possible and typically purchase supplies, equipment, and building materials from outside the local community.  Rural areas are then left with high rates of unemployment and very little opportunity for economic growth.
Finally, family farmers benefit society by boosting democratic values in their communities through active civic participation, and by helping to preserve an essential connection between consumers, their food, and the land     upon which this food is produced.
The loss of small family farms has dramatically reduced our supply of safe, fresh, sustainably-grown foods; it has contributed to the economic and social disintegration of rural     communities; and it is eliminating an important aspect of our national heritage. If we lose our family farmers, we'll lose the diversity in our food supply, and what we eat will be dictated to us by a few large corporations. Clearly, family farms are a valuable resource worth preserving.  Now, more than ever, it’s important to realize that family farms are a valuable resource worth preserving.

  • According to the EPA, 3,000 acres of productive U.S. farmland are lost to development every day.                                    
  • Between 1974 and 2002, the number of corporate-owned U.S. farms increased by more than 46 percent.                                   
  • 82% of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the decreasing number of American farms.
  • 85% of Americans trust smaller scale family farms to produce safe, nutritious food.
  • In the US, the average principal farm operator is 55.3 years old.
  • Between 2005 and 2006, the US lost 8,900 farms (a little more than 1 farm per hour.)
Industrial agriculture has been defined, even by its proponents, as a system where the farm owner, the farm manager and the farm worker are different people. That's a dramatic change from the historic structure of agriculture, where the people who labor in farming also make the decisions and reap the profits of their work.

  • Corporate farming leads to closed markets where prices are fixed not by open, competitive bidding, but by negotiated contracts, and where producers who don't produce in large volumes are discriminated against in price or other terms of trade.
A healthy and stable community depends not on the number of livestock being produced, but on the number of livestock producers living and working there.

The united States of America as a nation is richer than any other nation ever was before, yet here are the statistics for poverty as of 2010.

Hunger & Poverty Statistics in America

Although related, food insecurity and poverty are not the same.  Unemployment rather than poverty is a stronger predictor of food insecurity.

  • In 2009, 43.6 million people (14.3 percent) were in poverty.
  • In 2009, 8.8 million (11.1% percent) families were in poverty.
  • In 2009, 24.7 million (12.9 percent) of people ages 18-64 were in poverty.
  • In 2009, 15.5 million (20.7 percent) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
  • In 2009, 3.4 million (8.9 percent) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.

Food Insecurity and Very Low Food Security
  • In 2010, 48.8 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 32.6 million adults and 16.2 million children.
  • In 2010, 14.5 percent of households (17.2 million households) were food insecure.
  • In 2010, 5.4 percent of households (6.4 million households) experienced very low food security.
  • In 2010, households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.2 percent compared to 11.7 percent.
  • In 2010, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.2 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (35.1 percent) or single men (25.4 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (25.1 percent) and Hispanic households (26.2 percent).
  • In 2009, 8.0 percent of seniors living alone (925,000 households) were food insecure.
  • Food insecurity exists in every county in America, ranging from a low of 5 percent in Steele County, ND to a high of 38 percent in Wilcox County, AL.

Major Crops Grown in the United States

In round numbers, U.S. farmers produce about $100 billion worth of crops and about $100 billion worth of livestock each year. Production data from the year 2000 for major agricultural crops grown in this country are highlighted in the following table:

Major agricultural crops produced in the United States in 2000 (excluding root crops, citrus, vegetable, etc).
Crop Harvested Area
(million acres)
Cash Receipts from Sales
Corn (grain)















Sorghum (grain)






Corn: The United States is, by far, the largest producer of corn in the world. Corn is grown on over 400,000 U.S. farms. In 2000, the U.S. produced almost ten billion bushels of the world’s total 23 billion bushel crop. Corn grown for grain accounts for almost one quarter of the harvested crop acres in this country. Corn grown for silage accounts for about two percent of the total harvested cropland or about 6 million acres. The amount of land dedicated to corn silage production varies based on growing conditions. In years that produce weather unfavorable to high corn grain yields, corn can be “salvaged” by harvesting the entire plant as silage.

According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production. The crop is fed as ground grain, silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). It also has a wide array of industrial uses including ethanol, a popular oxygenate in cleaner burning auto fuels.

Soybeans: Approximately 2.8 billion bushels of soybeans were harvested from almost 73 million acres of cropland in the U.S. in 2000. This acreage is roughly equivalent to that of corn grown for grain. Over 350,000 farms in the United States produce soybeans, accounting for over 50% of the world’s soybean production and $6.66 billion in soybean and product exports in 2000. Soybeans represented 56 percent of world oilseed production in 2000.
Soybeans are used to create a variety of products, the most basic of which are soybean oil, meal, and hulls. According to the United Soybean Board, soybean oil, used in both food manufacturing and frying and sautéing, represents approximately 79 percent of all edible oil consumed in the United States. Soybean oil also makes its way into products ranging from anti-corrosion agents to Soy Diesel fuel to waterproof cement. Over 30 million tons of soybean meal are consumed as livestock feed in a year. Even the hulls are used as a component of cattle feed rations.

Hay: Hay production in the United States exceeds 150 million tons per year. Alfalfa is the primary hay crop grown in this country. U.S. hay is produced mainly for domestic consumption although there is a growing export market. According to the National Hay Association, the most common exports are timothy, some alfalfa, sudangrass, and bermudagrass hay. Hay can be packaged in bales or made into cubes or pellets. Hay crops also produce seeds that can be used for planting or as specialized grains.

Wheat: Over 240,000 farms in the United States produce wheat. The U.S. produces about 13% of the world’s wheat and supplies about 25% of the world’s wheat export market. About two-thirds of total U.S. wheat production comes from the Great Plains (from Texas to Montana).
Wheat is classified by time of year planted, hardness, and color (e.g. Hard Red Winter (HRW)). The characteristics of each class of wheat affect milling and baking when used in food products. Of the wheat consumed in the United States, over 70% is used for food products, about 22% is used for animal feed and residuals, and the remainder is used for seed.

Cotton: Fewer than 32,000 farms in the United States produce cotton. Cotton is grown from coast-to-coast, but in only 17 southern states. Farms in those states produce over 20% of the world’s cotton with annual exports of more than $3 billion. The nation’s cotton farmers harvest about 17 million bales or 7.2 billion pounds of cotton each year.
Cotton is used in a number of consumer and industrial products and is also a feed and food ingredient. Over 60% of the annual cotton crop goes into apparel, 28 percent into home furnishings, and 8 percent into industrial products each year. Cottonseed and cottonseed meal are used in feed for livestock, dairy cattle, and poultry. Cottonseed oil is also used for food products such as margarine and salad dressing.

Grain sorghum: In the United States, grain sorghum is used primarily as an animal feed, but is also used in food products and as an industrial feedstock. Industrial products that utilize sorghum include wallboard and biodegradable packaging materials. Worldwide, over half of the sorghum grown is for human consumption.
Some farmers grow sorghum as a hedge against drought. This water-efficient crop is more drought tolerant and requires fewer inputs than corn. Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri produce most of the grain sorghum grown in this country. The U.S. exports almost half of the sorghum it produces and controls 70% to 80% of world sorghum exports.
As much as 12% of domestic sorghum production goes to produce ethanol and its various co-products. With demand for renewable fuel sources increasing, demand for co-products like sorghum-DDG (dry distillers grain) will increase as well due the sorghum's favorable nutrition profile.

Rice: Just over 9,000 farms produce rice in the United States. Those farms are concentrated in six states: Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. U.S. rice production accounts for just over 1% of the world’s total, but this country is the second leading rice exporter with 18% of the world market.
About 60% of the rice consumed in the U.S. is for direct food use; another 20% goes into processed foods, and most of the rest into beer.

The united States of America has the capability of feeding most of the whole world. Yet UNFAO estimates in 2010, shows that 925 million people were undernourished or 1 in 7 for the whole earth.

The profit of the earth is for all, was a Hebrew maxim, which grew into a proverb. The monopoly of the soil is a sore evil. It make the many the slaves of the few. It produces ignorance, improvidence, destitution, turbulence, and crime. It is essential to the progress of man, that he be unshackled, that his faculties have free play. But his can never be, unless the earth be owned by those who till it. Ownership of the soil will give tone to the mind, vigor to the body, and earnestness to industry. As the attraction of gravity is the great principle of motion in the material world, so the possession of the earth in fee simple by it’s cultivator, is the great principle of action in the moral world. Nearly all the political evils that have afflicted mankind, have resulted from the unrighteous monopoly of the earth; and the predicted renovation can never be accomplished, until, to some extent, this monopoly has passed away, and the earth is extensively tilled by the independent owners of the soil. Great proprietorships are the scourge of any country. All history attests to this truth. The multiplication of farms, and their cultivation by the actual owners, is the dictate of true political wisdom. It is this, which peoples  the country, and even the cities. It is this, which elevates the mases. it is this, which confers dignity upon the common people. It is this, which stimulates industry, quickens genius, and develops the resources of a state. It is this, which gives true freedom and independence to a nation. And this, to the broadest extent ever known in practical legislation, was the policy of Mosheh. These observations will, be sufficient to establish the wisdom of the Hebrew constitution in its partition of the territories of the republic.


It must be confessed that the extreme indifference of Mosheh to foreign and maritime commerce is not a little remarkable. To some of the politicians of our day, this will seem little short of an absurdity. Yet, it may be, that some erroneous notion lies at the bottom of their wonder. The wealth acquired by the America, China, and others, by means of foreign trade, is so striking, that many are apt to imagine, that commerce alone is the true source of national prosperity, and that it is the greatest benefit which a legislator can confer upon a people. The mere name commerce fascinates their imagination, and seems almost to incapacitate them for sober reflection and comparison. In the delirium of their golden dreams, they forget, that it may prove the ruin of both public and private prosperity; when when too many superfluous commodities are imported, our labor is outsourced, and the nation is thereby plunged into the mire of foreign indebtness.

A main cause of the overvaluation of commercial as compared with agricultural pursuits, I imagine to be this, that the gains of commerce lie more upon the surface, and are more open to the general observation, while those of agriculture are of a retiring nature, and seldom obtrude themselves on public notice. It will not, therefore, be impertinent to enter somewhat into detail on this point, with the view of showing the superior importance of the cultivation of the earth, as a means of national prosperity, and so of vindicating the wisdom of Mosheh in founding upon it his civil polity.

The physical and moral influences of agriculture ought not to be overlooked, in estimating the wisdom of a lawgiver, who has seen fit to found his polity upon it. It is the nurse of health, industry, temperance, cheerfulness, and frugality; of simple manners and pure morals; of patriotism and the domestic virtues; and above all, of that sturdy independence, without which a man is not a man, but the mere slave, or plaything, of his more cunning fellows. Agriculture tends to produce and cherish a spirit of equality and sympathy. Buying and selling are the chief business of cities, the giving and receiving of wages a transaction of hourly occurrence. This produces a collision of interests and feelings, which necessarily begets a spirit of a social class separated from others, by distinctions of hereditary rank, profession, or wealth, and checks the current of sympathy. But there are comparatively few of these repelling influences in country life. The man who owns fifty acres, and the man who owns a thousand, live side by side, on terms of mutual esteem and friendship. Both, if they are equally entitled to it, have an equal share in the public respect. Both feel and own the bond, that unites them in the cultivation of the earth.

Agriculture begets and strengthens love of country. The heart of the husbandman is bound to the fields, on which he bestows his labor. The soil, which responds to his industry by clothing itself in beauty and riches, has a place in his affections. Especially, the circumstance, that his possession has come down to him through a long line of honored ancestors, greatly strengthens the attachment, which he feels both to his home and to his country. The agricultural interest is, in the highest degree, conservative in its nature and action. It is the great atagonist of that mad spirit of radicalism and revolutionary innovation, which is the most terrible enemy of popular institutions. This has long ago been discovered by Aristotle. “Husbandry is the best stuff of a commonwealth, such a one being the most devoted to liberty, and the least subject to innovation or turbulence.” It is the scenes and occupations of country life, that the mind is most tranquil, sober, and unclouded. It is in such an atmosphere, that it can discern most clearly the relations of things, and look beyond the events of a day. From amid the deep calm of rural pursuits, free states have drawn many of their most illustrious patriots and civilians. The influence of agriculture, therefore, is rather favorable, than adverse, to those exalted and commanding civil qualities, which form the consummate statesman. A Hebrew farmer was summoned from the quiet of a pastoral life on the distant plains of Midian, to become the founder and lawgiver of a mighty republic. A Roman farmer was called from his plough to the helm of state, at a crisis of imminent peril to his country’s welfare. And an American farmer led the revolutionary armies to victory, and secured for his grateful and admiring countrymen the blessings of liberty, independence, and self-government. In a word, this great business, the cultivation of the earth, lies, so far as any branch of human industry can be said to lie, at the foundation of all that is important and valuable in civil society.


In considering the expediency of founding a state on agriculture, I will confine myself to the point of general legislative policy. Let’s look at the reason Mosheh gave no encouragement to commerce.

1. Commerce would tend to counteract the first and highest principle of his polity, since it would lead the Israelites to contract intimacies with foreign nations, which could hardly fail to draw them into idolatry.

2. It would entice too many citizens to leave their own country and settle in foreign lands, which would weaken the sentiment of patriotism, and as last cause them to forget their relations and home. The merchant is, in some sense, a citizen of the world, and has no such ties, either of interest or affection, binding him to his native land, as the man, who lives upon his hereditary farm.

3. It would introduce luxurious tastes and habits, before the nation was rich enough to bear the expense of their indulgence. Commerce is more apt to be hurtful, than beneficial, in the infancy of a state.

4. Maritime commerce would be likely to stir up enemies, against whom they could not successfully contend, without special divine assistance, which it would be irrational to expect, when engaged in pursuits, prejudicial to true religion. It would in all probability, have embroiled them with the Sidonians and Tyrians, just as, in modern times we see nations incurring enmity of each other and their people with NAFTA.

I should, however, fail to do justice to the Mosaic legislation, if I were to leave this topic, without adverting to one branch of commerce, with which no nation can dispense without essential detriment to its prosperity: I mean domestic trade, carried on between the different parts of the same country. For such internal commerce, provision was made in the national feasts, whereby three times every year, all the males were to appear and assemble where the Creator had place as His Capitol for His people. Religious conventions of the kind have generally been made subservient to the purposes of commerce. The interests of internal trade were instituted by Yahweh and done in such a manner, that the carrying on of it, could not become distinct employment, but would merely occupy the weeks of leisure form the toils of agriculture: before the harvest at the Feast of Weeks; and on the conclusion of the vintage, at the Feast of Tabernacles.

As for foreign commerce, the Phenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, were on the borders, ready to supply them with all they wanted in return for their agricultural productions. The rich caravans of the desert continually swept by them, affording them, without expense or hazard to themselves, the benefit of the enterprise of foreign nations. Mosheh endeavored to make his countrymen content under the vines and fig trees, and to convince them, that in these unambitious cares and labors they would find the most solid prosperity and joy. And was he not right in this judgment? This unaspiring employment was too quiet for his countrymen, when was was the business of the rest of the world. But the event proved the truth of his principles and predictions. Solomon laid Ophir and Tarshish, the East and West Indies of his day, under contribution. He had his harbors in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. He built Tadmor in the desert, now a marble wilderness, as a station for his caravans. Wealth flowed in through a thousand channels. But as the prophetic eye of Mosheh had foreseen, and his prophetic voice forewarned, it proved the ruin of his country. It became the golden weight, which ground its free inhabitants to the dust.

But, although Mosheh made no laws favoring foreign commerce, his legislation was far from being chargeable with the illiberality of the Greek and Roman laws, or the bigotry of the early canonists. The profession of a shopkeeper was infamous among the Greeks, as it obliged a citizen to wait on a slave or a stranger. This was more than the haughty spirit of Grecian liberty could tolerate. Hence Plato, in his laws, makes it a criminal offence in a citizen to concern himself with trade, and orders such a one to be punished. The civil law treated commerce as a dishonorable occupation, and forbade the exercise of it to persons of birth, rank, or fortune. The Claudian law forbade the senators to have any ship at sea, which held more than forty bushels. The canon law went farther still, and declared commerce inconsistent with Chrisitianity. As the council of Melfi, under Pope Urban II, in the year 1090, the canonists decreed, that it was impossible, with a safe conscience, to exercise the trade of a merchant. The decree was to the effect, that a merchant could rarely, if ever, pursue a conduct pleasing to the mighty one, that no christian ought to become a merchant; and that if any of the faithful meddled with merchandise, he should be excluded from the pale of the church.


The Hebrew state was founded on the industry of all the citizens. This was one of the fundamental principles, which lay at the basis of the constitution. We have seen that a leading object of Mosheh was to make the country of the Hebrews a vast and busy scene of rural industry. Now, the culture of the earth requires a great number and variety of implements; and a soil of but moderate fertility will afford sustenance to a much larger population than is required for its tillage. In these two ideas, behold the germ of an effective system of mechanical industry, and a powerful stimulus to the cultivation and development of mechanical skill.

The lawgiver’s first care was the cultivation of the land; his next was to provide, that the people might be conveniently and comfortably lodged. He enjoined upon all to labor, that they might not only eat and be satisfied, but that they might also build houses to dwell therein. The counsel of Solomon was but an echo of the legislation of the Law: “Prepare you work without, and make it fit for yourself in the field; and afterwards build your house.”

The various objects of necessity, convenience, and luxury, enumerated in the sacred books, prove to us, that industry and the arts were far from being in a depressed state among the Hebrews. They made divers stuffs of wool, cotton, goat’s hair, and some say of silk. The art of dyeing was in use among them, and reached a high perfection. Their principal colors were blue, crimson, purple, and yellow, which were obtained from vegetables, flowers, fishes, and minerals. They labored especially to impart a snowy whiteness to their fabrics used for clothing. Rich stuffs, interwoven with threads of gold, and adorned with fringes of variegated colors, presented to the eye designs of various sorts. In the construction of the Tabernacle, we read of fine twined linen, and broad tapestries, covered with beautiful figures of delicate workmanship, and joined to each other by clasps of gold.

At the time of the captivity, artists abounded in Jerusalem. Of ten thousand heads of families, carried to Babylon at the first invasion, one thousand were workmen in wood and metals. Winkelman, in his history of art, has made the following observation on this fact: “We are but slightly acquainted with art among the Hebrew people; nevertheless, it must have reached a certain degree of perfection, at least in design and finish. Among the artists whom Nebuchadnezzar carried captive from the single city of Jerusalem, were a thousand, skilled in inlaid work. It would be difficult to find as many in the largest of our modern cities.”

It is sometimes made a matter of reproach against the Hebrew people, that they left none of those great monuments like the pyramids and temples of Egypt, which struggle successfully against the devastation of time. How little do such persons appreciate the true grandeur of nations! There were not slaves in Israel to erect such ostentatious structures; and free labor employs itself about things more useful. Voltaire himself takes notice of this fact. He regards the pyramids as a proof of the slavery of the Egyptians; and says that nothing could constrain a free people to rear such masses. The temple, the palace of their heavenly king, is the only monumental edifice, of which the memory has been preserved. This shared fate of the Hebrew people; and, after having served as a fortress in the last efforts of liberty, the nation and the temple fell together. Since that day the fate of the Hebrew people has been one of almost unmingled bitterness. “Scattered and pealed” has been deeply engraved upon its forehead. But the Hebrew people have always displayed much of the energy, activity, and industrious application to business, which distinguished their remote ancestors. This even their worst enemies have compelled to acknowledge.

How far these permanent elements of industry may have been the result of the exact and positive spirit of the ancient law, is impossible now to trace with distinctions. I do not affirm, but I suggest for reflection, whether the economy, the ability, the tenacity, and the energy of the Hebrew people today, are not due to some profound cause, which is to be sought in the great principles of their original institution.

Again, the inviolability of private property, and the sacredness of the family relation, are principles, which entered essentially into the Hebrew Constitution. It cannot be necessary to adduce, at any length, the proof of this proposition, for no one can open the Pentateuch, without meeting it on every page. The whole scope of the second table of the decalogue is to guard the institution of the family and the institution of property. The right and advantage of private property are everywhere assumed by Mosheh. To facilitate its increase, to regulate its use, and to provide for its distribution are leading objects of the Law. In this the Hebrew legislator does but echo a sentiment common to all just and wise lawgivers. A political community could not be organized, except upon a basis of individual property and right. This is the only bond, strong enough to hold such association together. Not even a savage tribe could live together without property. The ownership by each member of the body politic of his tools, arms, clothing, and habitation, is essential to the rudest form of civil society. None would be willing to till the ground, if others had an equal right with him to gather the harvest! None would even erect a hut, if his next neighbor might enter and take possession the moment it was finished. If the idle and the industrious, if those who waste and those who save, have the same rights, and are to share alike in the fruits of the earth and the products of labor, then prudence, frugality, thrift, and provision for the future become simple impossibilities. All this is recognized in the legislation of Mosheh. That legislation has no sympathy with a social theory, which has of late gained some currency in the world; a theory, which places activity, industry, ability, and virtue, upon the same level with indolence, idleness, incapacity, and vice; a theory, which begins by offering a premium for ignorance and incompetency, and which must end in the annihilation of all industry, all emulation, and every opening faculty. Neither has the legislation of Mosheh any sympathy with another principle, which has a prevalence perhaps still more extensive, I mean the principle of a separation of the pecuniary interests of the husband and wife. The husband and wife are regarded by the Law as one person, having, as it were, but one soul, one interest, one will. Doubtless the doctrine, that the man is the head of the woman, and that the property of the latter becomes, as a result of the nuptial tie, part and parcel of that of the former, is sometimes productive of much hardship and suffering; but who, that reflects on the frailties and passions of human nature, can doubt, that the contrary doctrine, adopted and applied as a practical principle of legislation, would be attended with evils far greater, both in number and magnitude?


The spirit of the Mosaic Law as given by the Yahweh is opposed to the modern radicalism of woman’s rights; a radicalism, which boldly avows its purpose of “subverting the existing order of society and dissolving the existing social compact.” Mosheh did not favor the manhood of woman. “Unto the woman He said, your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The Apostle Shaul (Paul) interprets this precept, when he says of women, “It is not permitted to them to speak in the assemblies; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law.” (I Corinthians 14:34)  He speaks in the very spirit of Mosheh, when he says, “The man is the head of the woman; wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands; Adam was first formed, then Eve.” (I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22; I Timothy 2:13) Man has a mission, and so has woman, to which the wisdom that never errs, has adapted the bodily and mental constitution of each. Man’s mission is to subdue and till the earth, to cultivate the mechanic arts, to make roads and dig canals, to carry on commerce, to encounter the perils and fatigues of war, to institute and administer government, to be the shield of woman in moments of danger and sudden alarm, in a word, to perform the rough business of life, that which requires physical strength an endurance. Woman’s mission, while it has no less of dignity, is very different from this. It is to be the light and joy of the household, to nourish and train the immortal children within its precincts, to mould the whole mass of mind while in its most plastic state, to fill the throne of the heart, to be the priestess in the sanctuary of home, to be the comfort and support of man in seasons of sorrow and of suffering, to move in the realm of ignorance and want, to shine, to cheer, and to bless in all the varied ministrations of sympathy and love, from the cradle to the grave. What purer, nobler, holier, realm can she desire? “The true nobility of woman is to keep her own sphere, and to adorn it.”

Now most women today would think that this way of thinking is caveman mentality and that it would put woman back in the stone age. But let’s look at the concept and theory of the woman’s movement and feminisms effect on the family.

From the 1800s to the present day, family life in the West has remarkably changed. While the West calls this change part of the women freedom movement, a look at history may show otherwise.

America before the 1800s was a farming country and ninety percent of the population lived and worked on private farms. Households were mainly self-sufficient--nearly everything needed was produced in the house. The few things that could not be produced at home were bought from local craftsmen. Some other things, especially imports from Europe, were bought from stores. Males would take care of the fields and females would take care of the home. In addition, they would engage in spinning, knitting, weaving, and taking care of the farm animals.

Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution, which began around the early 1800s, brought a major change to this way of life. In 1807, in the wake of the war between Great Britain and France, President Jefferson signed the Embargo Act, which stopped all trade between Europe and America. The Act meant that European goods would no longer be available in the US and Americans would have to produce them. One major European import to America was cloth, and so merchants used this opportunity to create a cloth industry in America.

In 1814, Francis Cabot Lowell, a man from Boston opened the first modern factory. Work here was to be done way faster than before. Instead of manually making things in houses, things were to be made at higher speeds in a factory and all stages of the work were to be completed under the same roof. Now what Lowell needed were workers. He found out that women, especially unmarried daughters of the farmers, were more economical to use in labor than men. They were also more willing to work as hired people in factories. But Lowell had to make the working outside of home acceptable in a society which was not used to it. He assured parents that their daughters would be taken care of and kept under discipline. And he built a boarding community where the women workers lived and worked together.
Soon after, more and more factories emerged across America. Factory owners followed Lowell's example of hiring unmarried women. By 1850 most of the country's goods were made in factories. As production of goods moved from the country to the city, people too moved from the country to the city.

For money to be earned, people had to leave their homes. When women worked on the farm, it was always possible to combine work and family. When work for women moved outside the home, however, the only women who could follow it were those without family responsibilities or those who had no husband or no income. Likewise, the only women who could take care of their families were the ones that didn't have work. This working out of home became a part of life for unmarried women. They would work until their marriage. But as time passed, women found family life interfering with their work life and instead of viewing working out of home as optional, they viewed family life as such. Many women started delaying marriage even more and some decided to stay single.

Married women however stayed home and dedicated their time to their children. Now that there wasn't any farm work to do, women had even more time to spend with the children. In 1900 less than about 5.6% of married women worked outside. If a married woman were to work, it would be considered that her husband was invalid or that she was poor.

World War I

The first major entry of married women to the workforce came during World War I in 1914. Men went to fight the war and the country needed workers to take over the jobs they left behind. Unmarried women were not sufficient for the labor needs, so employers started to invite married women too, to work. By 1919, 25% of the women in the workforce were married. But this was only the beginning. Another change World War I brought was the entry of women to the army. About 13,000 women enlisted in the US Navy, mostly doing clerical work--the first women in US history to be admitted to full military rank.

Great Depression

The Great Depression came in the 1930s. The unemployment rate climbed from 3.2% in 1929 to 23.6% in 1932. Jobs became scarce for skilled people and men. Fathers went to search for jobs. Some, under despair, deserted their families. The responsibility of earning fell on mothers in many families. Most women and children, however, found jobs more easily than men because of the segregation of work categories for men and women. Although 80% of men during the Great Depression opposed their wives entering the workforce under any circumstances, economic factors made it necessary for the women to work. Hours were long and pay was low. Twenty percent of white women were in the workforce.

World War II

World War II came in the early 1940s. Men were drafted to fight, and America needed workers and supplies. Again, the employers looked towards the women for labor. Unmarried and married women were invited to work, as had been done during World War I. But still, public opinion was generally against the working of married women. The media and the government started a fierce propaganda campaign to change this opinion. The federal government told the women that victory could not be achieved without their entry into the workforce. Working was considered part of being a good citizen, a working wife was a patriotic person.

The government founded the Magazine Bureau in 1942. The Bureau published Magazine War Guide, a guide which told magazines which themes stories they should cover each month to aid war propaganda. For September 1943, the theme was "Women at Work". The slogan for this was "The More Women at Work the Sooner We Win." Magazines developed stories that glorified and promoted the placement of women into untraditional jobs where workers were needed. The idea was that if smaller, unexciting jobs were portrayed as attractive and noble more women would join the work force.

The media created Rosie the Riveter, a mythical character to encourage women into the workforce. Rosie was portrayed as a patriotic woman, a hero for all American women. "All the day long, Whether rain or shine, She's a part of the assembly line. She's making history, Working for victory, Rosie the Riveter… There's something true about, Red, white, and blue about, Rosie the Riveter." The propaganda efforts worked. More than six million women joined the workforce during the war, the majority of them married women. In 1940, before the war, only 36% of women workers were married. By 1945, after the war, 50% of women workers were married. The middle class taboo against a working wife had been repealed.

Post World War II

The 1950s marked an era of prosperity in the lives of American families. Men returned from war and needed jobs. Once again, the government and media got together to steer the opinion of the public. This time, however, they encouraged women to return home, which shows that the women were brought out not for their freedom but because workers were needed. But this effort was not as successful and was abandoned quickly. First, women from lower economic ranks had to remain in the workforce because of economic necessity. And second, there came the rise of consumer culture.

The baby boom took place during the 1950s as well. Women who returned home dedicated their lives once again to their children. But around the same time an important change had come in the American life. This was the spread of the television. By 1960, 90% of the population owned at least one set. Families would gather around the screen for entertainment. In the early days, everything including commercials was watched with great interest. Most middle-class families could not afford the goods the television declared necessary to maintain or enhance quality of life with one paycheck alone. Many women returned to work in order to live according to "the American standard of living," whatever that meant to them. The number of American women in the workforce from 1940 to 1950 increased by nine percent. From 1930 to 1940 there had only been a three percent increase.


As mothers returned to work, the television became the most important caretaker of a child. Children in the 1950s spent most of their non-sleeping hours in front of the television screen.
In 1940, less than 8.6% of mothers with children under eighteen worked. By 1987, 60.2% of women with children under eighteen were working. As wives assumed larger roles in their family's financial support, they felt justified in demanding that husbands perform more childcare and housework. Across the years, divorce rates doubled reaching a level where at least 1 out of 2 marriages was expected to end in divorce. Marriage rates and birthrates declined. The number of single parent families rapidly increased. People grew unhappy with their lives, when compared to the lives of people on television.

Women working affected the society in many different ways. The first and most important of these was that children with working mothers were left alone without the care of a mother. As the number of working women increased, the number of children growing up unsupervised increased, and with this increased crime among teens.

Since most women placed their career ahead of family life, family life was greatly affected since unmarried women were generally able to make more money than married ones. For example, according to a study by a Harvard economist, women physicians who were unmarried and had no children earned thirteen percent more per year than those who were married and fifteen percent more than those with children.


The majority of women still work at the lower levels of the economic pyramid. Most are employed in clerical positions, factory work, retail sales, or service jobs. Around 50% of the workforce is female. While about 78% of all cashiers and 99% of all secretaries today are female, only 31% of managers and administrators are female. Equality in the workplace has been a mirage but it has conned millions of women into leaving their homes and destroying the family structure.

It was only when economic or political factors made it necessary to get more workers that women were called to work. The Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the World Wars, all the major events which increased the proportion of women workers, were times when the capitalists required more workers in order to be successful in their plans and so they used women.

The move of women from home to the public workforce has been gradual. First poor women went. Then unmarried women. Then married women without children. Then married women without young children And then, all women. The same thing can be seen to be happening in developing countries around the world, as the West spreads its propaganda of freedom for women to work. The results of this move will probably be the same too.

The following information below can be found at: which gives us some detail on the divorce rate in America and its cause and effects upon the family. All comments and opinions are by the author, Gary Naler.

Divorce and the Curse of 1920

Following is a graph of divorce rates from 1860 to 2002. This is from Dr. Andrew Cherlin, Sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University and the highly regarded author of several books and articles on the family.
First, you will notice that there was a record rise in divorce on the heels of World War I when the Curse of 1920 began.  But very importantly, look at how divorce steadily increased from the 1800s up to World War I and 1920, as this nation became more and more feminized—exchanging its patriarchal government for a matriarchal government. Cause and effect!
As feminization increased, divorce rates increased.  When women gain the authority of the man, many social ills follow. Why? Because matriarchy is a government that is contrary to the government of Yahweh   where two become one flesh under the husband’s headship.  When we abandoned Yahweh and a patriarchal government for matriarchy, as this nation has done since the mid-1800s, we have suffered the ill consequences as certain as when one violates the physical laws of Yahweh. This chart tells this story all too well!

When the woman has the right to abandon her husband and take his possessions, including his children, the telltale history of the rate of divorce, as well as the fact that three-fourths of all divorces are filed by women today, clearly evidence that women will take that option much more readily. If you charted the changes in property and divorce laws giving women more and more rights, the upward rate of divorce would follow.  Very importantly, when divorce rates were low, men held property rights. That in itself speaks volumes!  It has only been since women received property rights and the judicial advantage of taking a man’s wealth and his children that these rates increased. And remember also, the woman’s curse is to desire the place of her husband (Genesis 3:16).
We traditionally think that the woman is the keeper of the home.  Frances Willard, an early feminist, stated that they were the “born conservator of the home.”  But did they keep the home and conserve it? History tells us that, in reality, the man is the keeper and conservator of the home. Women got the “rights” that Willard wanted, and as a result they abandoned the home. By nature, as Yahweh its ordained head, it is the man who will defend his home and take pride in it and gain fulfillment in providing for it.  Remember, the woman is the weaker vessel, the one more easily deceived; and that is why patriarchy works and is critically essential for a healthy society!
How many men would send a woman to an auto repair shop to have the car checked out? Not many, because the woman is vulnerable. So how could we fall for this now-proven failed idea that the family and this nation are better off with the woman having equal rights with the man? Is there a sanity check here?  It is time we wake up to what is right and to what works and not be deceived—a quality all too often evidenced by the created.  Our nation’s ever-increasing rise in divorce rates since the     1800s is due to one major thing—women’s equal rights, the most destructive force today on the face of this earth! It destroyed the original Garden of Yahweh, and it is destroying America, the garden of Yahweh at the nations level. Mrs. Annie Wittenmyer, who opposed Ms. Willard’s rebellious ideas, said that women’s suffrage would “strike a fatal blow at the home!”  She was painfully correct.
As divorce rates began taking their upward climb with women’s rights, the Great Depression came to correct the ills of the ’20s.  But that correction did not last. World War II came, affording a foreshadowing, even a warning, of what would come in the ’60s and the years following. World War II clearly effected an attack on the home, with the father going off to war and the mother leaving the home to work and the children forming the new group—teenagers, who formed their own moral standards instead of embracing those of their parents and grandparents.  Evidencing that troubling time, as well as that which was to come, divorce rates dramatically peaked.  Thus, World War II was in fact a war on the home, on the family, and foreshadowed an even greater war that was to shortly follow—the War on Marriage!
For thirty years—through the troubled ’60s, the radical feminism of the ’70s, and right on through the ’80s and into the ’90s—divorce remained at epidemic levels, levels that are not just lines on a chart, but represent destroyed families and lives (as addressed in Chapter 4 of The Curse of 1920).                     
The 1920s brought a dramatic rise in suicide, divorce, and immoral behavior (not to speak of the burgeoning government addressed in Chapter 2).  All of these gravely attested to the immediate ill effects of the Curse of 1920 with its women’s rights and Voodoo jazz music.  And once again, the only thing that has briefly interrupted that upward course was the Great Depression.  But when the ’60s came, women’s rights was becoming far more pervasive, and Voodoo Zimran music mutated into wholly destructive rock and roll that became a complete obsession, greatly magnifying the effects evidenced in the ’20s.  Thus, the Curse of 1920 had come to maturity!
The War on Marriage fully began.  Voodoo music and women’s rights were on the march, taking this land like an invading pestilent army and leaving families and lives as its fatalities.  Our hope is that Yahweh made decisive changes in 1994, addressed in Chapters 13 and 14 of The Curse of 1920.  As you saw in the chart, the staggering divorce rates significantly fell at 1994; and quite significantly, this was equaled with other unrelated indicators as well such as violent crime, abortion, homicide, and suicide.  This time it has not been a Great Depression that has dropped divorce; but hopefully, a much needed true and lasting and ever-increasing reversal.  The reverse of the Curse of 1920 is our hope!


Another essential principle of the legislative policy of Mosheh was the sanctity of human life. No legislation of antiquity approaches that of the Hebrew lawgiver, in its solicitude to guard the lives of men. The prohibition against killing was one of the ten precepts, which formed what may be called the magna charta of the Hebrew state. The crime of murder was punished with death. There was no redemption. It was declared, that the land could not be purged of the stain of blood, except by the blood of him who had shed it. Even an ox, which had gored a man to death, and by parity or reason, any other animal, as a goat, a dog, or a horse, that had killed a person by pushing, biting, or kicking, was to be stoned; not indeed, to punish the beast, but the owner, and so to oblige him to be careful in preventing his oxen, dogs, and other domestic animals, from injuring his neighbors. The flesh of the goring ox could not be eaten, a prohibition which served to keep up a wholesome horror of murder, at the same time that it punished the man by the total lost of his beast. A man, who built a house, was required to make a balustrade, or parapet, to the roof. If he neglected to do this, and a person fell from the roof in consequence, and was killed, the owner of the house brought bloodguiltiness upon himself; he was considered in the light of murderer. A very peculiar statute concerning homicide by an unknown person is recorded in Deuteronomy 21:1-9. The reader will perceive, that the elders, or magistrates, of the nearest city were obliged to purge themselves and their city of the murder, and make a solemn avowal, that they were ignorant of the perpetrator of it. He will perceive also, that in the absence of press, nothing could be better fitted than the ceremonies ordained to give publicity to the murder, and to make everyone, who had any knowledge of the matter, give information concerning it. There can be no doubt, that the investigation instituted by the Law, given through Mosheh, over the body of a person, who had come to his death by means unknown, is the origin of the coroner’s inquest in modern times. Today, called homocide detectives, CSI investigators, FBI, police, or sheriff, the modern investigator fulfills the law legislated by the sovereign King, Yahweh. These provisions of the Mosaic code to beget an abhorrence of murder, and to guard the lives of the citizens, are very remarkable. They envince a humanity in the Hebrew legislators, unknown all other ancient legislators. They must have tended, in a high degree, to introduce the horror of shedding human blood, and to give intensity to the idea of the sacredness of human life.

Today, we see humanity on the brink of collapse, when this fundamental quality, (sanctity of human life,) in mankind is given to the ineptitude of a total lack of love, compassion, and fondness for human life by women and men alike. When a government cannot stop the murder of its own inhabitants because of legislation that allows such atrocities, what does that say of its government or its people?


Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. Forty percent of the world's women have access to induced abortions (within gestational limits).

Approximately 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies.  A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in several ways. The manner selected often depends upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses. Specific procedures may also be selected due to legality, regional availability, and doctor or patient preference.

Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.

Abortion was legalized in the united States of America on January 22, 1973 and since that time there has been an estimated 50 million abortions performed in the united States of America.

Statistics according to the AGI and CDC:


  • In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
  • In 2007, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,954), NYC (90,870), and Texas (80,886); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (9), South Dakota (707), and North Dakota (1,235) (CDC).
  • The 2007 abortion ratios by state ranged from a low of 58 abortions per 1,000 live births in Idaho and South Dakota (Wyoming had too few abortions for reliable tabulation) to a high of 737 abortions per 1,000 live births in NYC (CDC).
  • The annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline through the 1990's. The number of annual abortions decreased by 2% between 2000 and 2007, with a slight spike in 2006. (CDC)
  • In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).
  • In 2005, the abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).
  • Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).


On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:
  • 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities;
  • about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child;
  • 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).


It has been discovered that there are many emotional aspects that can effect the psychological well being of women who undergo an abortion. These emotions include guilty feelings, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and even suicide. Clinical research has found that when women are in trusting, sharing relationships, they report deep seated feelings of exploitation over their abortion experience. (Alliance Action Inc 1993, 1) A woman reports, "I was unprepared for the maze of emotions that hit me after I had the procedure. Instead of feeling relieved, I was awash in anxiety and confusion." (Hutchison 1997, 23).

Many women report strong feelings of guilt and confusion, as well as loss and many other emotions. In Canadian study by Dr. Ian Kent, many women feel deep loss and pain for the child that "should have been". (Kent 1989, 6) One woman reports the wave and confusion she went through, " I felt an incredible sense of loss that plunged me deeper into a state of confusion." (Hutchison 1997, 23) There are extreme cases, in which the diagnosis is very easy. Such cases include a seventeen-year-old girl who developed lethargy, malaise, and vomiting. Doctors were unable to reach any conclusion about condition, then on the anniversary of her abortion she experienced overt psychosis. Mental examination revealed hallucinations, as well as psychotic thought processes. Guilt is probably the most common symptom of a Post-Abortion-Syndrome, which can lead to depression, complexes, or fear of infertility and of sex. (Alliance Action Inc. 1996, 1)

The causes for this stress disorder are really quite simple. The thing that has made the very existence of Post-Abortion-Syndrome debatable is the fact that it often does not surface until many years after the abortion. It is very common for a woman to say that she is fine about the whole thing, but later in live she finds herself engulfed in feelings of guilt, confusion, and exploitation. The reason for the surfacing anxiety is partly a mystery, but is often associated with the birth of a wanted child, or during unrelated counseling. (Gentles 1990, 85-86) The very interesting phenomenon about this dis-order is that the synptoms seem repressible, at least for a time. Clinical research has shown that when women are in trusting sharing relationships they report deep seated feelings of guilt, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and exploitation over their abortion experience. The causes for the dis-order surfacing seems to be in many ways, time itself. (Allied Action Inc. 1996, 1).


Men may suffer intense grief after abortion as well as regret, helplessness, guilt, anxiety, anger, and emasculation. While each man’s experience will be somewhat unique, these
themes further our understanding and appreciation of the psychological impact of abortion on men. Grief and regret may be profound among men as abortion often involves multiple losses including loss of the child, of the relationship, and of hopes for the future. Abortion is a death experience and, once chosen, cannot be undone. Pervasive feelings of helplessness and guilt can be debilitating. Men may suffer from anxiety, persistent thoughts about the lost child, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbances, and other somatic complaints such as headaches or palpitations.

Anger may be especially apparent among men who opposed the abortion decision. However, some men will appear to be angry when, in fact, other underlying emotions such as grief and helplessness are the real source of their suffering. For those men, anger becomes, in a sense, a defense mechanism used to protect themselves from these other painful emotions. Substance abuse may also be used to numb emotional pain.

Masculine identity may be damaged when men fail to keep those they love from harm. Role confusion or a sense of emasculation may occur if men are not allowed to act on their healthy instinct to protect or when they judge themselves to have failed as guardians. In an attempt to fulfill their perceived role as one of stoic support to their partners, men tend to contain their own emotions and put on a brave face. Ironically, men’s efforts to be strong for their partners by repressing their own emotions may lead to complicated or unresolved grief or to clinical

Relationships with partners may be stressed even when men agree with their partners to seek abortion. Sexual problems may occur if physical intimacy comes to be associated with emotional pain. The author of one study (Berger, 1994) suggested that elective abortion may have been related to the etiology of homosexuality in two of his clients. Many relationships between men and women deteriorate and ultimately fail after abortion. Relationships with family and friends may also be strained if men deliberately isolate themselves or if their abortion related grief is minimized or unacknowledged by others.


In any fatal accident, the focus is usually on the deceased and his/her relatives. However, there is often someone who feels responsible for having caused the death, however unintentionally. There are many and varied types of situations in both army and civilian life which can lead to accidental killing. A search of papers published in psychological journals since 1987 reveals almost no literature dealing with the problem of the accidental killer. One book, Fatal Moments, is based on interviews conducted from 1980 to 1990 with nearly 200 people who responded to their call to explore this phenomenon. The study presents the following model of the experience of the accidental killer, claiming that, despite some individual variation, most accidental killers experience a similar pattern of responses. Generally, psychological shock comes first. During this brief period of numbness, the mind hides from the full realization that one has caused the death of another human being. This is followed by preoccupation with the accident. In the struggle to make sense of the event, many accidental killers replay it over and over in their minds. Anger often engulfs the accidental killer, directed at every aspect and player in the accident, including the victim. Guilt is nearly universal, causing accidental killers to torture themselves for unfounded reasons as well as for error and oversight. Depression, also common, may occur in various forms. Their internal turmoil may cause them to withdraw from family and friends and keep them from normal social interaction. They usually experience some form of social tension, often resulting from the failure of their friends and associates to respond or act supportively, due to their unfamiliarity with the situation. Family stress occurs as well.  At some point, virtually all accidental killers begin the process of healing. Nevertheless, the aftermath of the event extends throughout their lives. Thus most accidental killers themselves become victims of the event.  All the symptoms experienced by accidental killers are included in the definition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

We can see that murder, whether intentional or unintentional has a long lasting effect on the human psyche. Abortion is something that has corrupted the minds of women and men and has caused untold mental harm to generations of men and women over the last 40 years in America alone! Abortion is murder, whether voluntary or involuntary, the effects on the human mind has been recorded by psychologists and the reports speak volumes as we have seen above. The Creator states within the laws of the Hebrew Constitution, its Bill of Rights, that the punishment of breaking the precepts given to the Hebrew people, would be carried over to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him. The effects of abortions upon the woman, whether voluntary or involuntary, are not recorded, nor do we have any research to reveal its cause and effect. However, the sanctity of human life should a prerequisite for any civilized people and is legislated for the Hebrew people.


A fifteenth fundamental principle of the Hebrew government was education; the education of the whole body of the people; especially, in the knowledge of the constitution, laws, and history of their own country.

An ignorant people cannot be a free people. Intelligence is essential to liberty. No nation is capable of self-government, which is not educated to understand and appreciate its responsibilities. In a republican government, the whole power of education is required. Upon this principle Mosheh proceeded in the framing of the commonwealth of Israel.

The details of the arrangements for the education of the Hebrew people, contained in the Pentateuch, are not detailed. We are, therefore in the dark, as to the specific means employed. So far, however, is clear, that the Law given to Mosheh required, that the greatest pains should be taken to mould the minds, the principles, the habits, and manners of the young. Parents were, again and again, commanded to teach their children, from infancy, all the words of the law, and all the glorious facts of their national history. They were enjoined to talk to them, when they sat in the house, and when they walked by the way, when they lay down, and when they rose up. (Deuteronomy 6:7) The whole system of legislation was crowded with commemorative rites and festivals. Into the meaning of these, it was taken for granted, that the young would inquire, and it was ordained, that their curiosity should be satisfied by the explanations of their sires. (Exodus 13:14,15) The Passover reminded them of the wonders of the exodus from slavery, which sin makes slaves of a people; the Pentecost, of the terrific splendors which accompanied the giving of the law and our salvation through one who would perfect the law, Yahshua the Messiah; the Feast of Tabernacles, of the hardships and miraculous supplies of the wilderness and the timeline to mans harvest, in which the Great Sower of mankind, will reap the firstfruits of His harvest; of the hardships and the monumental heap of stones at Gilgal, of the standing of the waters of Jordan upon a heap, to afford a passage to their forefathers. Even the borders of their garments, their gates, the frontlets between their eyes, and the posts and lintels of their doors, were to become their teachers by the laws and maxims which were inscribed upon them. (Deuteronomy 6:8,9)

It is hence plain, that Hebrew parents were required, not only to teach their children orally, but also to impart to them the arts of reading and writing. Since they were commanded to write them, they must themselves have learned the art of writing; and since they were to write them for the use of their children, these must have been taught the art of reading. There is reason to believe, that the ability to read and write was an accomplishment, more generally possessed by the Hebrews, than by any people of antiquity. This was certainly the case in the time of our Savior. In his addresses to the common people, he constantly appealed to them in such words as these; “Have you not read what Mosheh said?” Have you not read in the scriptures?” Such language implies an ability, on the part of the people, to examine the scriptures for themselves. The same thing is indicated by a fact, stated by the evangelical historian concerning the inscription placed over the head of Yahshua at His impalement on the stake. “This title then read many of the Yahdaim...” The writings of Josephus are crowded with testimonies as to the great care of the Hebrews in the education of their children. He says, among other things, that first of all they are taught the laws, as best fitted to promote their future joy; that the people weekly assemble to hear them read, and to learn them exactly; and to crown all, he adds, somewhat hyperbolically, no doubt, that, “if any one do but ask any of our people about our laws, he will readily tell them all than he will tell his own name.” We find it to be the uniform testimony of Hebrew writers, that the school was to be found in every district throughout the nation, and under the care of teachers, who were honored alike for their character and station. Maimonides, in his treatise on the study of the law, says: “Every Israelite, whether poor or rich, healthy or sick, old or young, is obliged to study the law; and even if so poor as to be maintained by charity, or beg his bread from door to door, and have wife and children, he must devote some time to the daily and nocturnal meditation of it. He asks, “How long ought a man to pursue the study of the law?” and replies, “Till death.

An important function of the Levites was to superintend the education of the people. The proofs of this preposition are found by the legislation of King Jehoshaphat who in the true spirit of the Mosaic institution, commanded the priests to go through the land, and teach the people, city by city, the law given by Mosheh. Several of the leading political principles of Plato, were borrowed from the Hebrew lawgiver; but in no other point did his republic so closely resemble the Hebrews, as in this, that he enjoined it upon all the citizens to learn accurately the laws.

In the full harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic laws, and indeed as a natural result of their operation, higher seminaries of learning, under the name of “schools of the prophets,” were introduced and established among the Hebrews. These institutions were presided over by men venerable for their age, character, ability, and learning. The notices of these schools in the sacred books are rather scanty, and this has given rise to various opinions concerning them. From their name some have conjectured, that they were places of instruction in the art of prophecy. This absurd fancy was borrowed by Spinoza from the rabbins, and by him handed down to his followers; whence these sage logicians have inferred, that prophecy was among the practical arts of the Hebrews, as much as carpentry, or engraving. But of this we may be certain, that he schools of the prophets were seminaries of prophets, meaning by this term inspired men, only in so far as that those who were best instructed in the divine law, being best fitted to convey Yahweh commands to His people, would, for that reason, be most likely to be chosen by him for that purpose. In opposition to the opinion of Spinoza, Warburton argues, with no little force, in support of the opinion, that they were seminaries designed chiefly for the study of the Hebrew law. It is probable, however, that they were not devoted exclusively to that department of study, but embraced within their scope other branches of knowledge, which were reckoned among the pursuits of learning in that day. They correspond to the colleges and universities of modern times. They must have exercised a powerful influence on the mind and manners of the Hebrew people. It was in the school of the prophets, that David inhibited that love for the religious and civil laws of his country, which glowed so intensely in his bosom, which sparkled in his inimitable lyrics, which became so copious a spring of blessing to his nation, and which won for himself the exalted title of, “a man after Yahweh own heart” (I Samuel 13:14); not morally and religiously, for that no man has ever yet been, except Yahshua our Messiah. But, as the whole scope of the passage shows, the man after Yahweh heart as a civil ruler, a man inbued with the spirit, and devoted to the maintenance, of the national constitution.

There was a peculiarity in the Mosaic system of education, which deserves our notice. It did not overlook the fact, that every man has what Dr. Arnold calls two businesses; his particular business, as of a farmer, merchant, lawyer, or the like, and his general business, that which he shares in common with all his fellow citizens, his business as a man and a citizen. Most modern systems of education take but little notice of that distinction. They go upon the presumption that, if a man learns his particular business well, a knowledge of his general business will come of itself, or be picked up by the way. Not such was the view of Mosheh. he seems rather to have thought, that every man would be impelled to make himself master of his particular business, since his bread depended on it; but that the knowledge of his general business, the want of which is less keenly felt, would be a more fit subject of legal provision. He intended, that all his people should share in the management of the public affairs. He meant each to be a depositary of political power. But he looked upon power as a solemn trust, and though it incumbent on a legislator to take care that those who hold it, should know how to discharge his duties. Hence, in legislating on the subject of education, he appears chiefly anxious to have his people instructed in the knowledge of their general business, that is, their duties as men and citizens. He belonged neither to that class of political philosophers, who desire to see the mass of the people shut out from all political power, as always and under all circumstances unfit to exercise it, nor to that class, who wish to see the power of the masses increased, irrespective of their ability to discharge so important a trust beneficially to the community. In his educational scheme, power, and knowledge went hand in hand. The possession of the latter was regarded as essential to the right use of the former.

The old Romans have received the highest praises, because, conscious of the importance of imparting to the rising generation an early knowledge of the laws, they made the twelve tables one of the first elements of public instruction, requiring the youth to commit to memory their entire contents. They were sensible, that what is learned at so early a period is not only likely to be long remembered, but is almost sure to command respect and veneration. But Mosheh gave a broader application to this principle than it ever received among the Roman people. The education, enjoined by Mosheh, was not as among them, merely of the children of the highborn and the rich, but of all ranks and conditions. It was a fundamental maxim of his policy, that no citizen, not even the lowest and poorest, should grow up in ignorance. How much does he deserve the gratitude of mankind for so noble a lesson! In proportion as this idea enters into the constitution of a state, tyranny will hide its head, practical equality will be established, party strife will abate its ferocity, error, rashness, and folly will disappear, and an enlightened, dignified, and venerate public opinion will bear sway.

Upon the whole, it may be affirmed, that in no part of the Hebrew constitution does the wisdom of the lawgiver shine with a more genial lustre, than in what relates to the education of the young. The provisions of the constitution on this point cannot be regarded otherwise than as the dictate of a wise, liberal, and comprehensive statesmanship; for, surely, it is in the highest degree desirable, that every citizen should be acquainted with the laws and constitution of his country. Patriotism itself but a blind impulse, if it is not founded on a knowledge of the blessings we are called upon to secure, and the privileges which we propose to defend. It is political ignorance alone, that can reconcile men to the tame surrender of their rights; it is political knowledge alone, that can rear an effectual barrier against the encroachments of arbitrary power and lawless violence.

From a survey of the whole matter, the conclusion seems warranted, that the education of the Hebrew people, conducted mainly, through not wholly, under the domestic roof, was, nevertheless, a national education, and worthy of the imitation of other nations. Especially does it deserve to be studied and copied, so far as that branch of education is concerned, which consists in development, as distinguished from instruction. The Hebrew law required an early, constant, vigorous, and efficient training of the disposition, judgment, manners, and habits both of thought and feeling. The sentiments, held to be appropriate to man in society, were imbibed with the milk of infancy. The manners, considered becoming in adults, were sedulously imparted in childhood. The habits, regarded as conducive to individual advancement, social joy, and national repose and prosperity, were cultivated with the utmost diligence. The greatest pains were taken to acquaint the Hebrew youth with their duties, as well as their rights, both personal and political. In a word, the main channel of thought and feeling for each generation was marked out by the generation which preceded it, and the stream for the most part flowed with a steady current.


Such a system of mental and moral culture as that for which the Hebrew constitution made provision, could not be without rich fruits. The result was, that the nation reached a high point of literary attainment and distinction. Under their most splendid and munificent monarch, the Hebrews enjoyed what may be called the golden age of their literature. Solomon and his court were, in their day, the great centre of attraction for those of all nations, who loved and honored knowledge. His wisdom excelled all the wisdom of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. He spake of trees, from the cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. His songs were a thousand and five, and his proverbs, three thousand. And while he excelled in the wide fields of natural science, poetry, and ethics, the temple, which still bears his name, stood before the world a monument of skill and taste, which rendered it after ages the original model of grace, majesty, and grandeur in architecture. Such gifted luminaries in the intellectual world do not shine alone. They usually belong to at constellation, and the king who sets such an example, is not likely to be without followers. There was, indeed, one cardinal feature in the Hebrew polity, which was pre-eminently favorable, at all times, to the cultivation of knowledge.

By divine appointment the whole tribe of Levi was set apart for the service of religion and letters; and while many were employed before the altar and in the temple, others were devoted to study; many of whom, especially in the reign of Solomon, reached a high name both for their attainments in the science of their age, and the fidelity with which they made their learning available for the benefit of the people. Thus was produced that conjunction in the history of knowledge, when learning bestowed honor on the learned, and the learned brought honor on learning; when the highest attainments were deemed of value, not according as they gave distinction to him who had reached them, but according as they tended to improve and to bless the whole family of man. Among the Hebrews there was no monopoly of knowledge by a favored few. Intelligence was general in the degree and of the kind adapted to the various pursuits and duties of those among whom it was spread. The tongue and the pen of even learned royalty were industriously employed in giving to knowledge that condensed and practical form, which might bring it within the reach of all, and make it available for the advantage of all; of the shepherd and vine dresser, as well as the sons of the prophets.

Chapter 2  THE YOUTH

Shalom and Peace to all those who love truth. In continuance on the subject of the Hebrew Covenant/Constitution, I will write on a subject that has been on my mind for some time and flows in harmony with the importance of understanding our commitment to the Covenant of Peace. That subject is our youth! My two oldest daughters are at the age which every parent faces, these critical areas of contemplation, depending on time, circumstances, and temperament affect us and their future concerning the knowledge of the Hebrew Covenant and their relationship within it. My daughters, ages, 14 and 15, are without a doubt the biggest challenge and test I face, as a parent and elder over my family. It’s bad enough that they are young, without the knowledge of how bad evil is, but they have been given a status symbol by the world, called, “teenagers”.  This status symbol derived in America and has spread to every part of the globe.

This term has been troubling to me, as it conjures up the defining terms of, rebellion against authority and parents! It is taught by the entertainment industry, who always portrays the teenager as discontented, rebellious against parental authority, and the parents are usually shown as the uneducated, clueless adult, who never seems to understand what a teenager is feeling and going through in their life. The Hebrew people, who reverence Yahweh are not immune to this teen culture and its expanding commercial growth. Being a parent and father with young girls is a test in my resiliency and patience. I once was a young man myself, which seems like a long time ago, and maybe to my young daughters, it seems like I have no idea what they are feeling or their desire for independence. Of course I do, as most parents, understand the independent nature of our youth and what they are experiencing. However, I have seen a trend in the youth, referred to as teenagers, that is alarming to me as a parent. Because I love wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, I see that the youth today are having a hard time focusing on the knowledge of the mighty one, because they are constantly being bombarded with the pulls of this world.

When it comes to the young mind today, we see they are faced with more distractions, peer pressure, immorality, than many of us had to deal with in our day. So I understand that it is a major test as a parent to find balance, and a major test for our youth to understand wisdom and knowledge, which we so desperately try to impart.

My world revolves around, Yahweh and His Covenant, which I consider the most important subject in my house, period! While it may not seem that important to the youth at this moment, I must be assiduous in my teachings, in that they relay the importance of understanding who    Yahweh is.

That seems almost impossible at times, especially when my whole focus is on Yahweh, and theirs is on, well...being a teenager! While I am not trying to devalue the thoughts and feelings of our youth, it is the term “teenager” that I have come to detest and with a reason! I had to rethink this whole teenage thing, now that I am confronted with it, at this stage of my life. I question myself, how to deal with this defining moment in my children’s life and as a parent help them through the minefield of influences around them, to be a true Hebrew, loyal to  Yahweh.

So, where did the term “teenager” come from, and how did this image get created? Let’s examine how and why the term “teenager” has been cultivated.  The term  “teenager” has come to indicate a “status of rebellion” in today’s western culture and its impact on the Covenantal relationship between parent and child, between child and Yahweh has been affected.


Adolescence (from Latin: adolescere meaning "to grow up") is a transitional stage of physical and mental human development generally occurring between puberty and legal adulthood (age of majority), but largely characterized as beginning and ending with the teenage stage. According to Erik Erikson's stages of human development, for example, a young adult is generally a person between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas an adolescent is a person between the ages of 13 and 19. Scholars have found it incredibly difficult to agree upon a precise definition of adolescence, because it can be approached from so many angles. A thorough understanding of adolescence in today’s society depends on information from various perspectives, most importantly from the areas of psychology, biology, history, sociology, education, spirituality, and anthropology. Within all of these perspectives, it is safe to say that adolescence is viewed as a transitional period whose chief purpose is the preparation of children for adult roles. Historically, puberty has been heavily associated with teenagers and the onset of adolescent development. However, the start of puberty has had somewhat of an increase in preadolescence (particularly females, as seen with early and precocious puberty), and adolescence has had an occasional extension beyond the teenage years (typically males) compared to previous generations. These changes have made it more difficult to rigidly define the time frame in which adolescence occurs. So we see that society has tried to reclassify what a young adult is and what an adolescence is! A term had to be created that would give those between ages 13-19, a status symbol and a place in society!

The end of adolescence and the beginning of adulthood varies by country and by function, and furthermore even within a single nation-state or culture there can be different ages at which an individual is considered to be (chronologically and legally) mature enough to be entrusted by society with certain tasks. Such milestones include, but are not limited to, driving a vehicle, having unlawful sexual relations, serving in the armed forces or on a jury, purchasing and drinking alcohol, voting, entering into contracts, completing certain levels of education, and marrying. Adolescence is usually accompanied by an increased independence allowed by the parents or legal guardians and less supervision, contrary to the preadolescence stage.

In studying adolescent development, adolescence can be defined biologically, as the physical transition marked by the onset of puberty and the termination of physical growth; cognitively, as changes in the ability to think abstractly and multi-dimensionally; or socially, as a period of preparation for adult roles. Major pubertal and biological changes include changes to the sex organs, height, weight, and muscle mass, as well as major changes in brain structure and organization. Cognitive advances encompass both increases in knowledge and in the ability to think abstractly and to reason more effectively. The study of adolescent development often involves interdisciplinary collaborations. For example, researchers in neuroscience or bio-behavioral health might focus on pubertal changes in brain structure and its effects on cognition or social relations. Sociologists interested in adolescence might focus on the acquisition of social roles (e.g., worker or romantic partner) and how this varies across cultures or social conditions. Developmental psychologists might focus on changes in relations with parents and peers as a function of school structure and pubertal status.


Identity development

Among the most common beliefs about adolescence is that it is the time when teens form their personal identities. Empirical studies suggest that this process might be more accurately described as identity development, rather than formation, but confirms a normative process of change in both content and structure of one’s thoughts about the self. Researchers have used three general approaches to understanding identity development: self-concept, sense of identity, and self-esteem.


Early in adolescence, cognitive developments result in greater self-awareness, greater awareness of others and their thoughts and judgments, the ability to think about abstract, future possibilities, and the ability to consider multiple possibilities at once. As a result, adolescents experience a significant shift from the simple, concrete, and global self-descriptions typical of young children.

Adolescents can now conceptualize multiple "possible selves" they could become and long-term possibilities and consequences of their choices. Exploring these possibilities may result in abrupt changes in self-presentation as the adolescent chooses or rejects qualities and behaviors, trying to guide the actual self toward the ideal self (who the adolescent wishes to be) and away from the feared self (who the adolescent does not want to be). For many, these distinctions are uncomfortable, but they also appear to motivate achievement through behavior consistent with the ideal and distinct from the feared possible selves.

Further distinctions in self-concept, called "differentiation," occur as the adolescent recognizes the contextual influences on their own behavior and the perceptions of others, and begin to qualify their traits when asked to describe themselves. Differentiation appears to be fully developed by mid-adolescence. Peaking in the 7th-9th grades, the personality traits adolescents use to describe themselves refer to specific contexts, and therefore may contradict one another. The recognition of inconsistent content in the self-concept is a common source of distress in these years (see Cognitive dissonance), but this distress may benefit adolescents by encouraging structural development.

Differentiation results in organization and integration of the self-concept. The multifaceted self is understood to include several stable, if inconsistent, sets of traits applicable when the individual with different people and circumstances. This includes negative traits and weaknesses, which adolescents can now recognize and qualify: "consistent with this, adolescents who have more complex self-conceptions are less likely to be depressed." Moreover, although only true in some circumstances, differentiated traits are contrasted with “false-self behavior,” which is not representative of the “real” self. Recognition of the inauthentic indicates that the adolescent is gaining a sense of continuous, overlapping, coherent sense of identity.

Sense of identity

Unlike the conflicting aspects of self-concept, identity represents a coherent sense of self stable across circumstances and including past experiences and future goals. Everyone has a self-concept, whereas Erik Erikson argued that not everyone fully achieves identity. Erikson’s theory of stages of development includes the identity crisis in which adolescents must explore different possibilities and integrate different parts of themselves before committing to their beliefs. He described the resolution of this process as a stage of “identity achievement” but also stressed that the identity challenge “is never fully resolved once and for all at one point in time.” Adolescents begin by defining themselves based on their crowd membership.

Researcher James Marcia developed the current method for testing an individual’s progress along these stages. His questions are divided into three categories: occupation, ideology, and interpersonal relationships. Answers are scored based on extent to which the individual has explored and the degree to which he has made commitments. The result is classification of the individual into:
  • Identity Diffusion in which all children begin
  • Identity Foreclosure in which commitments are made without the exploration of alternatives
  • Moratorium, or the process of exploration
  • Identity Achievement in which Moratorium has occurred and resulted in commitments.

Research since reveals self-examination beginning early in adolescence, but identity achievement rarely occurring before age 18. The freshman year of college influences identity development significantly, but may actually prolong psychosocial moratorium by encouraging reexamination of previous commitments and further exploration of alternate possibilities without encouraging resolution. For the most part, evidence has supported Erikson’s stages: each correlates with the personality traits he originally predicted. Studies also confirm the impermanence of the stages there is no final endpoint in Identity Development.


The final major aspect of identity formation is self-esteem, one’s thoughts and feelings about one’s self-concept and identity. Contrary to popular belief, there is no empirical evidence for a significant drop in self-esteem over the course of adolescence. ‘Barometric self-esteem’ fluctuates rapidly and can cause severe distress and anxiety, but baseline self-esteem remains highly stable across adolescence. The validity of global self-esteem scales has been questioned, and many suggest that more specific scales might reveal more about the adolescent experience. It is also important to note that the patterns of change in self-esteem differ significantly by gender.

We can see that researchers have tried to analyze and determine ways to understand the mind and behavior of the youth. It is something that intrigues and fascinates the minds of the scientific world. We live in a world where we are exploring and dissecting everything we don’t understand. And for the most part it is hard for most adults to understand the mind of our youth, no matter how many studies are done and reports are made. Each one of us are individuals, created in a way that makes us individuals. This is how Yahweh has designed his creation with its intricate, complicated, complex, mind and body.



Adolescence marks a rapid change in one’s role within a family. Young children tend to assert themselves forcefully, but are unable to demonstrate much influence over family decisions until early adolescence, when they are increasingly viewed by parents as equals. When children go through puberty, there is often a significant increase in parent-child conflict and a less cohesive familial bond. Arguments often concern minor issues of control, such as curfew, acceptable clothing, and the adolescent's right to privacy, which adolescents may have previously viewed as issues over which their parents had complete authority.

Parent-adolescent disagreement also increases as friends demonstrate a greater impact on one another, new influences on the adolescent that may be in opposition to parents’ values.
During childhood, siblings are a source of conflict and frustration as well as a support system. Adolescence may affect this relationship differently, depending on sibling gender. In same-sex sibling pairs, intimacy peaks during early adolescence, then steadily declines. Mixed-sex siblings pairs act in the opposite way; siblings drift apart during early adolescent years, but experience an increase in intimacy starting at middle adolescence. Sustaining positive sibling relations can assist adolescents in a number of ways. Siblings are able to act as peers, and may increase one another's sociability and feelings of self-worth. Older siblings can give guidance to younger siblings, although the impact of this can be either positive or negative depending on the activity of the older sibling.

Despite changing family roles during adolescence, the home environment and parents are still important for the behaviors and choices of adolescents. Adolescents who have a good relationship with their parents are less likely to engage in various risk behaviors, such as smoking, drinking, fighting, and/or premarital sexual intercourse.


Peer groups are especially important during adolescence, a period of development characterized by a dramatic increase in time spent with peers and a decrease in adult supervision. Adolescents also associate with friends of the opposite sex much more than in childhood and tend to identify with larger groups of peers based on shared characteristics.
Peer groups offer members the opportunity to develop various social skills, such as empathy, sharing and leadership. Peer groups can have positive influences on an individual, for instance on academic motivation and performance, but they can also have negative influences and lead to an increase in experimentation with drugs, drinking, vandalism, and stealing. Susceptibility to peer pressure increases during early adolescence, peaks around age 14, and declines thereafter.

During early adolescence, adolescents often associate in cliques, exclusive, single-sex groups of peers with whom they are particularly close. Towards late adolescence, cliques often merge into mixed-sex groups as teenagers begin romantically engaging with one another. Typically, in schools, the most popular boys would participate in achievement-oriented activities, which were highly competitive and aggressive such as, athletics. Likewise, the most popular girls would participate in the most interesting social activities, ranging from skiing to late-night parties. Of course, girls who engaged in these activities had to be physically attractive to compete for the opposite sex's attention. Thus, it became common to attribute competitiveness to boys and attractiveness with girls in clique groups. These small friend groups break down even further as socialization becomes more couple-oriented. Despite the common notion that cliques are an inherently negative influence, they may help adolescents become socially acclimated and form a stronger sense of identity.
On a larger scale, adolescents often associate with crowds, groups of individuals who share a common interest or activity. Often, crowd identities may be the basis for stereotyping young people, categorizing them as jocks, nerds, and so on. In large, multi-ethnic high schools, there are often ethnically-determined crowds as well. While crowds are very influential during early and middle adolescence, they lose salience during high school as students identify more individually.

While peers may facilitate social development for one another, they may also hinder it. Both physical and relational aggression are linked to a vast number of enduring psychological difficulties, especially depression, as is social rejection. Because of this, bullied adolescents often develop problems that lead to further victimization.

Romance and sexual activity

Romantic relationships tend to increase in prevalence throughout adolescence. By age 15, 53% of adolescents have had a romantic relationship that lasted at least one month over the course of the previous 18 months. In a 2008 study conducted by YouGov for Channel 4, 20% of 14−17-year-olds surveyed revealed that they had their first sexual experience at 13 or under in the United Kingdom. A 2002 American study found that those aged 15–44 reported that the average age of first sexual intercourse was 17.0 for males and 17.3 for females. The typical duration of relationships increases throughout the teenage years as well. This constant increase in the likelihood of a long-term relationship can be explained by sexual maturation and the development of cognitive skills necessary to maintain a romantic bond (e.g. caregiving, appropriate attachment), although these skills are not strongly developed until late adolescence. Long-term relationships allow adolescents to gain the skills necessary for high-quality relationships later in life and develop feelings of self-worth. Overall, positive romantic relationships among adolescents can result in long-term benefits. High-quality romantic relationships are associated with higher commitment in early adulthood and are positively associated with self-esteem, self-confidence, and social competence.

The age of consent to sexual activity varies widely among international jurisdictions, ranging from 12 to 21 years. Adolescents often date within their demographic in regards to race, ethnicity, popularity, and physical attractiveness. However, there are traits in which certain individuals, particularly adolescent girls, seek diversity. While most adolescents date people approximately their own age, boys typically date partners the same age or younger; girls typically date partners the same age or older.

Dating violence is fairly prevalent within adolescent relationships. When surveyed, 10-45% of adolescents reported having experiencing physical violence in the context of a relationship while one-third to a quarter of adolescents reported having experiencing psychological aggression. This reported aggression includes hitting, throwing things, or slaps, although most of this physical aggression does not result in a medical visit. Physical aggression in relationships tends to decline from high school through college and young adulthood. By their early twenties, many fewer romantic couple engage in physical aggression, and aggressors tend to be much more deviant. In heterosexual couples, there is no significant difference between the rates of male and female aggressors, a surprising finding considering the common assumption that males are more aggressive overall. Despite these jarring statistics, nurturant parenting style is associated with lower rates of relationship violence.

Adolescence marks a time of sexual maturation, which manifests in social interactions as well. While adolescents may engage in casual sexual encounters (often referred to as hookups), most sexual experience during this period of development takes place within romantic relationships. Kissing, hand holding, and hugging signify satisfaction and commitment. Among young adolescents, "heavy" sexual activity, marked by genital stimulation, is often associated with violence, depression, and poor relationship quality. This effect does not hold true for sexual activity in late adolescence that takes place within a romantic relationship.

Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents and is a stage of human sexuality. Sexuality and sexual desire usually begins to intensify along with the onset of puberty. The expression of sexual desire among adolescents (or anyone, for that matter), might be influenced by family values and the culture and religion they have grown up in (or as a backlash to such), social engineering, social control, taboos, and other kinds of social mores.

In contemporary society, adolescents also face some risks as their sexuality begins to transform. Whilst some of these such as emotional distress (fear of abuse or exploitation) and sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS) are not necessarily inherent to adolescence, others such as pregnancy (through non-use or failure of contraceptives) are seen as social problems in most western societies.

Table A. Number of births per 1,000 women
15–19 years of age: United States, 2002,
and selected countries, most recent year

Country              Number of births per thousand
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Source: United Nations Demographic Yearbook, 2001. New
York: United Nations, 2003.

Among the 5.5 million male and 5.2 million female teens who had not yet had sex, the main reasons for not yet having had sex was that it was ‘‘against religion or morals,’’ followed by ‘‘don’t want to get (a female) pregnant.’’

In terms of sexual identity, while all sexual orientations found in adults are also represented among adolescents, statistically the suicide rate amongst homosexual/bisexual adolescents is up to four times higher than that of their heterosexual peers.

According to anthropologist Margaret Mead and psychologist Albert Bandura, the turmoil found in adolescence in Western society has a cultural rather than a physical cause; they reported that societies where young women engaged in free sexual activity had no such adolescent turmoil. Here is a video that shows the plight of children having children!


In commerce, this generation (21st century adolescence) is seen as an important target. Mobile phones, electronic devices such as the iPod, contemporary popular music, movies, television programs, websites, sports, video games and clothes are heavily marketed and often popular amongst adolescents. There are also many different ways of viewing adolescence that are prevalent in the world today.


There are many cultural and socio-economic differences which influence how adolescents' sexuality develops. Menarche (the first menstrual period of a female-bodied person’s life) is, for many cultures, the defining point for the beginning of a transition into adulthood. The age of menarche varies from culture to culture. Girls from countries where menarche/menstruation is seen as an important event, or where there is an ambivalence towards it, tend to have more negative opinions about it. An adolescent’s sexual socialization is highly dependent upon the society they live in, and how restrictive or permissive that society is when it comes to sexual activity.

Restrictive societies “pressure youngsters to refrain from sexual activity until they either have undergone a formal rite of passage or have married.” Therefore the sexual transition of adolescence is highly discontinuous because there is little preparation for an adult sexuality. These cultures either control adolescence by separating the males and females throughout their development, or they restrict sexual activity through public shaming and physical punishment.

In semi-restrictive societies, adults do not condone sexual activity however often do not take strong steps towards restricting it. “Premarital promiscuity is common, and the parents do not object as long as the love affairs are kept secret.” While some media portrays the United States as a permissive society, adults frequently try to discourage sexually activity among adolescence. This is most obvious among adolescence women because it is premarital pregnancy, rather than premarital sex that is highly objectionable in the United States. It is also common for adults to lecture women about sex and the importance of virginity by telling them that females do not need sex as much as males do. Despite these attempts to reduce sexual promiscuity, parents in the United States and other semi-restrictive societies do not prohibit young men and women from interacting both in social and private settings.

In permissive societies, the transition into sexual adulthood is highly continuous and begins at an early age. Some examples of sexually permissive societies are the Pukapukans of Polynesia and Trobiand girls and boys. In the Pukapukans society, parent simply ignore any sexual activity among children even when they are masturbating freely and openly in public. In the Trobiand society, young girls and boys participate in oral stimulation as a means of amusement and are encourage to participate in sexual activity with other young girls and boys at any time, they are encouraged to go into any hut or hide behind any bush.


One of the things that provides many parents concern is teen sex. Most parents worry about whether their teenagers are behaving responsibly when it comes to sexual intercourse. Indeed, from worries about unplanned pregnancies to concerns over sexually transmitted diseases, many parents worry about how sexually active their teens are.

And, indeed, there is some cause for alarm. The Guttmacher Institute reports that the United States has the highest levels of teen pregnancy among developed nations. This is hardly surprising, since nearly 75 percent of teenagers have had intercourse by the time they turn 20; only 15 percent report remaining virgins until the age of 21. Additionally, the Institute reports that teens in the US are more likely to have sex before the age of 15, and to have more than one partner in a year, than teenagers in Sweden, France, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Teen sex stats remain relatively stable, but intercourse has dropped to 60.5 percent among 12th graders in the US to 66.7 percent. The Guttmacher Institute found that 50 percent of teens between the ages of 15 and 19 in the US have had oral sex. The indication is that oral sex is beginning to be seen as an alternative to intercourse. And, even though this can prevent come teen pregnancies, many teenagers are under-informed with regard to the fact that STDs can still be caught through oral sex.

The teen sex stats that we see today should serve as a reminder that teenagers need to be guided. They need education and knowledge of what's available in order to help combat teen pregnancy and STDs. Teenagers should understand that there are physical, psychological and emotional effects that come with sex. They should also be taught that the choices they make now can affect them later in life. But this teaching should not be done with fear.

Teen sex stats show that making sex forbidden doesn't have an impact on the trends. Perhaps treating teenagers as young adults, with respect for their intelligence and decision making ability can help where other methods have so far failed to stem the tide of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the US.


Another way to define the development of adolescents is their strive for autonomy. According to McElhaney et al., there are three ways in which autonomy can be described.
  • The first being emotional autonomy which is stated as being the development of more adult-like close relationship with adults and peers.
  • The second form of autonomy is behavioral autonomy, which is the ability to be able to make independent decisions and follow through with them.
  • The third is known as cognitive autonomy and is characterized as the manifestation of an independent set of beliefs, values and opinions.

Most of the cultural differences however tend to be visible in behavioral autonomy as this is based on when adolescence are allowed to go on dates, or go out with friends.

One way in which the cultural differences in behavioral autonomy is by comparing the “teen timetables” of parents and adolescents of different cultures. The “teen timetable” is “a questionnaire that asks at what age adolescents should be permitted to engage in various behaviors that signal autonomy.” When comparing the timetables of White and Asian families across the world, it can be concluded that in general, White parents and adolescents tend to expect autonomy earlier than their Asian counterparts, disregarding whether the families lived in America, Australia, or Hong Kong. It is also the case that an adolescents mental health is best when their feelings of autonomy match closely with their parents. It is for this reason, recent emigrants, that move from a culture that normally grants autonomy at a later age to a culture with a younger age at which autonomy is granted, often experience family stress. Since adolescence generally become accustomed to the novel culture quicker than adults, the learn to expect autonomy earlier than their parents.

Time use

American teenagers spend more time on leisure than many other countries. The average American adolescent spends about five hours a week on homework, while Indian, Taiwanese, and Japanese students spend an average of five hours a day. This is most likely due to the amount of emphasis and pressure that is placed on adolescents’ education in those countries. Americans tend to spend more time playing sports, socializing, caring for their appearance, and working after-school jobs (an American phenomenon). Differences in how American teens use their leisure time tend to be influenced by their amount of involvement in various activities rather than ethnicity or socioeconomic background. Busier, more well-rounded teens tend to be better-adjusted and more goal-oriented than their peers who engage in only one activity (such as sports) or none.


The mass media greatly exaggerates adolescent problem behaviors. Media portrayals of drug use, sexual encounters, and psychological and behavioral disorders are rarely accurate. For example, though television often portrays scenarios such as these, a romantic breakup does not necessarily lead to heavy depression or suicide, and one drink at a party does not often end in a lifetime of addiction or a fatal car crash. Because people view these negative stereotypes about adolescents so often in the media, they are led to believe that adolescence is always a very problematic time of development. Adolescence is a period of development in which it is very normal to seek independence, explore personal identities, and pursue relationships, and thus it is expected that some of the experimentation that adolescents engage in is risky. It is extremely important to distinguish between occasional experimentation during adolescence and long-term problem behaviors. For example, although many teenagers will commit an act that is against the law during their adolescent years, relatively few adolescents continue on to commit criminal acts in their later lives. Further, it is very important to distinguish between problems that first occur during adolescence and those that may have developed during childhood. The majority of adolescents who have continuous problems with the law during adolescence also had problems at an early age, even as early as preschool. Thus, even if a problem is displayed during adolescence, it may not be a problem related to adolescence. What’s more, what the media neglects to mention is that most problems that adolescents experience are resolved by the time they reach adulthood. For example, delinquency, drug use, and eating disorders are all experienced more by the adolescent population than the adult population. The adolescents that take part in these behaviors often abandon them as they reach the beginning of adulthood. Oftentimes, the adults that do continue with these behaviors from adolescence often had problematic childhoods, which in turn led to problematic adolescent and adult years. Thus, though the media often proclaims that the problem behaviors of adolescents are causing the downfall of civilization, it is important to remember that most of these behaviors fade over time. Finally, delinquent or problem behaviors that occur during adolescence are hardly ever a direct result of adolescence. For example, media theories that blame problem behaviors, rebellions, and identity crises of adolescents on their hormones actually have no scientific support. In fact, hormonal changes during adolescence only have a very small impact on adolescent behavior. Thus, contrary to the suggestions of the popular media, when an adolescent experiences a very serious psychological problem, this behavior is usually not normative and is most likely a sign that something is not right.

“Can you talk some sense into my kid?”
I get this request pretty often. And my answer is: no. I can’t talk sense into people. If I could, I’d charge a lot more for what I do. I’m not in the business of convincing. I’m in the business of listening. I like to watch teenagers talk sense into themselves. It’s where the magic of therapy really happens. At the risk of sounding like an absolute cheese ball, I call it “magic” because something appears out of apparent nothingness. Honesty and openness now shine from a face that once proclaimed: Sorry. We’re Closed.

Authenticity is the only currency they accept. We adults like to manufacture counterfeit authenticity, and although it may work for the fast-paced, cut-to-the-chase world of adulthood, it doesn’t fly with kids. It repels. You can't ‘sell’ them sincerity. Why do teenagers place such a heavy demand for sincerity and purity of intent? Because it plants a new found hope, that maybe – just maybe – adulthood isn’t as ‘adulterated’ as they thought. Restoring this hope is what teenagers need today more than ever before. It gives them a sense of security. A reminder that the openness of childhood doesn’t necessarily come to an end; it just takes new shapes and forms. So try giving them some unadulterated, undivided attention. Openly, non-judgmentally. This is a lot harder than it sounds. But here are a few pointers to help unlock the doorway to a place where genuine communication may naturally evolve.

1. Check Your Motives

Remember, when teenagers are approached by adults, their defenses instantly activate (consciously or unconsciously). They aren’t accustomed to validation and curiosity. They’re accustomed to intrusion, instruction, lecturing, and power struggles. At least this is how they perceive it. As adults we are generally "guilty until proven innocent," and many of us have done a fine job at reinforcing this unfortunate trend. Teenagers will instantly detect any ulterior motives. Don’t ask them how they’re doing because you want them to spill some secrets. Ask them how they’re doing because you want to give them what they so hardly get: undivided, heartfelt attention. The goal isn’t interrogation. It’s communication. Never forget that.

2. Be the Canvas, Not the Painter

Try to see the world from their eyes. Unless we are willing to momentarily suspend our frame of mind, there will be very little room for a bona fide personal exchange. We like to influence teenagers a lot more than we like to be influenced by them. It’s our comfort zone. We shall enlighten, and they shall become enlightened. But teens resent this. It reinforces their subconscious fears that “growing up” means the end of spontaneity and the start of lifeless role-playing. Surprise them with curiosity. Try shifting the gears. Let them lead the way. Become the listener they’ve never encountered. They will intuitively appreciate your willingness to step outside the box, which is precisely where teens like to play. Outside the box.

3. Look beyond the Screen

Teens and technology often go hand-in-hand. They like surfing through the waves of cutting-edge innovation and the various gadgets that offer it. Instead of asking them to turn their screens off, try joining the fun. It’s an easy in. Meet them where they are. Ask them what they like to play, how they like to chat - Facebook? Twitter? BBM? G-Chat? Notice their excitement. Encourage it. If they feel passionate about something, delve into it! Even if they spend 20 minutes trying to explain why Angry Birds is the greatest invention since sliced bread – never roll your eyes. If it means something to them, it has value. Don’t undermine their values. Unless you want them to undermine yours. Meeting them where they are means giving them home-court advantage. It goes a long way. If you can play on their court, they just may be willing to visit yours.

Once we’ve established a trusting relationship with a teenager, our odds of communicating with them increases exponentially. They have stuff on their minds. Lots of stuff. So look beyond the screens and engage your teenager. You might be pleasantly surprised with what you find.

A few summers ago I asked a large group of teenage boys the following question: "Your friends are doing something wrong and you're tempted. Whom do you turn to for advice?"
Their answers were (listed in order of frequency):
  1. nobody
  2. friends,
  3. teachers,
  4. and finally parents.

But parents, don't despair. I asked an important follow-up question: When you are tempted, what is the first thing that comes to mind? 70% of the teens answered, "What my parents will think." Your example, your exhortations, your values, your approval or disapproval counts -- a lot. Even though we may embarrass them, even though they may say (or think), "You don't have a clue…" and swagger off, even though they think, "Times were different then" (and perhaps they were), they do value us. They're not settled in their own skins so they're picking on ours. But they're watching us. They're listening and absorbing. And we're having an impact. We just have to hang in there.

Perhaps you feel like the chauffeur, the laundress, the cook and the bank (with a very lenient credit policy). They seem to take you for granted. Yet our adolescents are paying attention to who we are and what we stand for. We are their pre-eminent role models, and our values and actions (especially our actions!) are shaping our teenagers in the most profound of ways. We are providing our adolescents with a moral compass in this most tumultuous of times.

My friend's father told him the following pointed story: When you were growing up, all my friends were rushing out to buy the latest music and the latest fashions so they could relate to their teenagers. I decided on a different approach. I figured that if I just stayed where I was - the same person with the same principles -- you'd always know where to find me.

I gleaned another interesting insight from that little survey of mine. I wanted to understand the root causes of teenagers' lack of open communication with their parents. Why are parents number four on their list, beneath nobody, friends and teachers? Stipulating, of course, that some of it is "just a phase," why aren't our teenagers talking -- to us anyway? They may not trust us. Have we given them any cause? They may be afraid of punishment. They may think we're not listening. They may think we won't understand.

Often, the main reason teenagers don't turn to parents when tempted is their fear of hurting us. Believe it or not, our teenagers care about us and our reactions. They may misguidedly think they are protecting or sparing us by keeping their own counsel. It's our challenge to create an atmosphere where our values are clear -- but our tolerance is also. They need to know that we love and accept them, no matter what.

Another big roadblock is fear of punishment. If a child voluntarily tells you private information, invoke the attorney-client privilege. The information doesn't leave the room and your teen is granted immunity. You want to reward the openness and honesty. You want to applaud his or her courage in coming forward. You want your children to feel confident they can come to you in the future. You want your teen to be proud they told you, comforted they told you, reassured they told you, and not feel foolish for doing so.

What if your adolescent didn't confess on his own? What if you discovered something inappropriate accidentally? Then there is justification for more severe consequences. Trust has been violated and the communication must be rebuilt. But the dialogue must still be open and loving. Let it be language of disappointment and hope for the future, not words of anger and rejection. There is frequently no one to talk to at school. There must be someone to talk to at home. Let's make sure we position ourselves to become that someone. How?
  1. Availability. We just can't schedule quality time with our teenagers, at least not on a regular basis. We need to be around enough so that when they want to talk, be it early in the morning (extremely unlikely!) to late at night (most probably!), we're there. If we're always busy, if we're always tired, they'll give up.
  2. Acceptance. There has to be tolerance for the fads and foibles of adolescents. Some of their clothes, shoes and hairstyles may look ridiculous to us, but if we're always attacking them on the little things, they'll never come to us with the big ones. You don't have to read the book, but "Don't sweat the small stuff."
  3. Calm. Even for the larger issues, not losing our temper is crucial. We are not angels; we all have our moments when we lose control (and they are so provocative!) but our teenagers need to feel they can be heard and responded to, not just screamed at.
  4. Love. Most important -- constantly reaffirm your love for them. Look past the externals to tell them (and remind yourself) what is wonderful about this child. You can do it! And never stop telling them.

If we work at implementing these tools, our teenagers will still say the darnedest things. But at least they'll say them to us.


DR. MICHAEL PLATT: author of The Teenager and the West

"We have two teenagers," I sometimes hear parents say. "Oh, I'm so sorry," I sometimes reply. Although I say it with a smile, the truth is sad. While the growing-up process is inevitable, natural, and God-given, the process of children turning into Teenagers is not. The Teenager was invented, fashioned, permitted -- let loose you might say -- by the generation of our parents and grandparents. Discovering that may help us to raise our children differently.

The Teenager is a Modern Invention

There were no "teenagers" before World War II. Ask those still living who raised their children before then. Or spend a rainy Saturday in the basement of your library, comparing old Life magazines from before the War and after. Instead of Teenagers, there were Youths. Youths were young people who wanted to become adults. However confused, wayward, or silly they acted, however many mistakes they made, they looked to the future. They knew that adult life was different than a child's life. They planned to grow up, leave childhood behind, and become adults. They were aware that life is more than youth. The Teenager has no such horizon. Beyond the "Teeny" world there is no adult life, no past with heroes, no future with goals.

Naming the Teenager

A new word was needed to describe these never-grown-up Peter Pans. Previously human beings between childhood and adulthood were called kids, boys and girls, young people, adolescents, and youths. These young human beings were addressed as "Young man" and "Young woman." Looking at them, their parents thought, "My growing son," and "My growing daughter," and they addressed them as "Daughter" and "Son." Sometimes others addressed them as "Master" and "Miss." Even the words "gentleman" and "lady" were sometimes heard. To name a kind or aspect of youth, lass and lad, stripling and maiden, whipper snapper and squirt, sport and shaver, minor and juvenile were employed, and the latter, juvenile, did not yet invariably go with delinquent. Words such as upstart, brat, tough, rogue, and slut described deviations from the general good of "youth," not its characteristic features. The word "teenager" did not exist. Compare the entries in Webster's Second (1934) and Third (1961) editions; only after the war does the adjective "teen-age" become the noun, "teenager."

When parents today say "We have two teenagers," the reason why I can reply "I'm so sorry" is that they say this with a sigh. Indeed, there is a world of difference between having youths in your home and teenagers. Consider Tolstoy's Childhood, Boyhood, and Youth. Author Tolstoy is honest to a fault; youth Tolstoy was a bag of vices, poses, and miseries. However, youth Tolstoy was never a Teenager, for in the midst of his confusion, he was always striving to become a man. The world of grown-ups was there around and above him, not shut out.
Youths associated with other youths, sometimes dressed alike, talked alike, but never separated entirely from their teachers and parents. When you saw youths with their parents, they were not pretending to be unrelated to the family. After all, they wanted one day to become like their parents, or like their grandparents, or like their teachers.

Youths chose presidents, inventors, scientists, explorers, warriors, saints, teachers, and parents for their heroes. In American history they looked to the likes of Washington and Jefferson, Boone and Crockett, Lincoln, Lee, and Grant, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, and Clara Barton. In literature they looked to the likes of the Virginian, Robinson Crusoe, Hamlet, Odysseus, and Leather-stocking. The cowboy and the saint filled their imagination. Above these they looked to Abraham, Moses, Paul and Yahshua Messiah.

The Teenager has no such heroes; he may be miserable, he may not like himself, but his heroes are no more happy or worthy than himself. The highest desire of a Teenager is to become a more perfect Teenager, a Rock or movie star, certainly not a man or a woman.

What a Youth Wants and a Teenager Does Not

A youth wants to be trusted, given responsibility, and the opportunity to deserve esteem. Youths make more mistakes than adults. Usually their mistakes lead to lighter consequences, but they suffer more from them than adults; they like their mistakes less; they feel more shame. Shame is the other side of the respect they have for the virtues they see in adults.
Being immature, youths will always be tempted by pleasures, by flattery, and by illusions, but with an adult world around them, they will be able to make comparisons and judgments. Candy is candy, candy is sweet, candy can be given to you, but nothing in the world can substitute for knowing how to ride your bike. No one can give that to you. No one can do that for you.

Youths tend, then, to know the difference between the things that are really your own -- the virtues -- and the things that come from others, such as wealth, or come easy, such as the pleasures. Good youths like good tests. They want to enjoy adult pleasures after they have earned them by performing adult duties. Thus during World War II many of them served their country, as young husbands on the front and as young wives at home, before they could enjoy the mature "blessings of liberty." Like many others, Audie Murphy was a hero before he could vote.

What a Teenager most fears is a child of his own. His second greatest fear is death. And his third greatest fear is solitude. The thoughts "I can beget a child," or "I can bear a child," "I will die," and "I am alone," have often been the beginning of wisdom. The Teenager flees them. The Teenager cannot stand to be alone. For such a human being the natural mode of association is the gang. And how does one picture a gang of Teenagers, if not in a car speeding down the road, listening to rock music, and on drugs? Or at the rock concert in a gang of gangs? Or at the orgy? These pleasures are powerful, absorbing, and "quickie." The Teenager craves a melody that will rock him around the clock forever, seeks an experience so intense that he will forget what time it is, and so absorbing that it will blot out all eternity.
Never does one see a smile on the faces of those enjoying these pleasures. The Teenager is the most free and the least happy of beings. Thoreau said most people lead lives of "quiet desperation." The desperation of the Teenager is not quiet. With the Rolling Stones, they shout, "I can't get no satisfaction." A being less acquainted with joy there has never been. A being more dangerous, it is hard to imagine. "Paint it black."

So far as I know, there have never been such youths on earth before. The Teenager is a novelty not only in the history of twentieth century America, but in the history of the human race.

Teenagers are Youths Orphaned by their own Parents

The day the Teenager was created was a sad day for every youth in America. Imagine yourself young again, unsure of yourself, swayed by strong passions, by turns ashamed and proud, sometimes shy, sometimes assertive, always awkward, filled with new desires and hard on yourself for having them, drawn toward cliques, tempted by clique cruelty, by affectation, by enslaving pleasures, and by premature bonds, but fighting on, knowing that you want to become something better, someone capable of good work, deserving your own respect, and maybe one day becoming a good parent -- imagine such struggling youths hearing their own parents say, "Relax, take it easy, enjoy yourself, adulthood will happen, don't sweat, this is the time of your life."

We see this parental neglect in the films of James Dean, especially in Rebel Without A Cause, where "Jimmy" must face his trials alone, hindered by a contumacious mother and a helpless father. An even less justified self-pity was inculcated by the effete Salinger in Catcher in the Rye, when he taught young readers to "trust no one over 14." In On the Road, Jack Kerouac taught that pleasure never disappoints. Waiting in the wings were other dubious adults: the porn merchants Henry Miller and Hugh Hefner. A new music, Rock, through whose dances the couple was annihilated, contributed mightily to the destruction of courtship. The pill divorced eros from responsibility. Owning a car provided a hideout from home. Dope became a way of life. And TV brought soft versions of all this corruption right into the home. Behind these intermediary causes was the deepest one -- the altered relation of man to eternity. The substitution of daily newspapers for daily prayers is the briefest indication of it. All these things went into the "creation" of the Teenager, but no one was more responsible than the parents.

These parents said, "The kids have to work things out on their own," felt guilty, and gave them discretionary money. The junk, record, porn, and dope merchants said, "Let us at 'em." And the statesmen watched; Ike grinned and Jack joined in. In other words, the most vulnerable were exposed to the most predatory by those most naturally interested in their welfare, their own parents. Absolutely astonishing!

What Plato thought no parents would ever do, turn over their own children to others to be reeducated, the parents of America did after World War II. Before then there were no TVs, a few disk jockeys, and some movie stars, but they were seldom allowed in the home, and certainly not allowed to educate the children. Suddenly after the War, into the American home came hordes of them. Few parents would have invited these persons in as guests and yet they turned over the souls of their own children to them to be educated.

In raising Teenagers these parents were committing a crime against their own children. No one complained. In raising Teenagers these parents also committed a crime against society, but although society noticed the crimes of the children, as "juvenile delinquency," it did not point to who was responsible, the parents. It is true that nearly every piece of social or court legislation since then has weakened the family, but alas equally true that the voters, that is the parents of the nation, have either supported the legislation or acquiesced to the legislators.

I'm a Teenager, You're a Teenager

We are now into the third generation of Teenagers. This means most people have had considerable experience of things that made the Teenager. In truth, many parents today are not much different from Teenagers. To disapprove of the Teenager, then, they would have to disapprove of much in their past and much that still exists in their lives.

The truth is that modern parents are often mixed beings; our experiences have not always been good, our deeds virtuous, our hearts true, our minds clear. Parents who want to do better than this by their children have to face up to and repudiate their own past and present Teenage sins. I doubt that anyone is really o.k. who is still justifying their past and present Teenage behavior. Such people cannot think clearly, live well, or help others. When they form a group large enough to determine the social policies and mores of a nation, that entire nation takes on the characteristics of a Teenager. The Prodigal Daughter is a portrait of America at the present time, free but not brave enough to be virtuous, discontented but not enough to free herself from bondage.

All the Excuses

The most potent impediment to modern parents acknowledging their negligence is the doctrine of choice. "Yes, we see rock music is bad; we don't like it ourselves. Yes, we see TV is shallow. Yes, we see that loose money is not good for our children. They have so much more than we had. Yes, they are not better off for it. But what can you do? The kids have to have some responsibility. You have to give them some choice." Thus runs the pro-choice excuse for negligence.

Its plausibility derives from two sources. In our political life, it is often good to tolerate deeds we would not commit and listen to opinions we do not hold. Of course, there are limits to this tolerance. Still, in a republic many points of view deserve toleration and consent is one principle of good government.

However, what is right for a federal republic is not right for a family, if the republic doesn’t follow true moral laws. A family run on "democratic lines" with all members, children as well as adults, considered equal would be unnatural, for it would deny the difference between adults and children. Such a family cannot educate its younger members. "One child, one vote," is a formula for the end of the family. Parents who encourage their children to call them by their first names should not be surprised when they do not respect, seldom will obey, and do not often learn from them. To forgo the high titles Mother and Father is not benevolent; it is negligent; and it does not win friends; it loses children. Not to be able to call someone "Mother" and "Father" is to be an orphan.

The second plausible excuse for negligence is that it is good for young persons to take responsibility for their deeds. An example often supplied is how desirable it is to have an allowance, to own your own bike, to save up for it, and be responsible for its upkeep. Well and good, provided the chores contributed to family life are greater than the allowance. When older children keep all the money they make at a summer or after-school job, something has gone wrong. What could be more irresponsible than to get your room, board, laundry, and education fees from your working parents, and have all your paycheck for discretionary purchases?

We know how welfare recipients often lose their spirit, unlearn responsibility, and fall into dependency. As a class Teenagers are less deserving of welfare and are just as debilitated by it. The parents who set up a "pro-choice" version of welfare are as unlikely to exhort their children, discuss responsibility with them, give them maxims, or give them examples of responsibility, fiscal or otherwise as the current Federal Government is. And even if the parents do exhort their children, by setting them up with discretionary money they are showing them the way to avoid such discussions.

Few such parents will exhort their children anyway. The advantage of welfare for them is that you don't have to exhort your children. You don't risk a stormy argument. You can just forget the children and get on with your own life. To justify this negligence parents who "welfare" their children say, "We are tired." Recognize a "right to be tired" and you can justify anything.

Growing Up

Fortunately, third generation Teenagers are not the only parents in America now. Having experienced the emptiness of the material advantages their negligent parents gave them, many parents have resolved to give their children something truly good, an education in the virtues.

Nothing should make us more happy about our children today and more confident about our future public life than the number of parents who have chosen to educate their own children at home. In order to teach you must know and in order to know you must learn. Thus both generations grow up at once. Parents leave their own Teenage behind and become true adults. Children never have to become Teenagers at all.

The benefits last unto the third generation and beyond. A generation of parents whose good children could declare, "You set us on the good path you first trod" would constitute a mighty nation, might reconstitute this once almost chosen one, and would surely please Yahweh.

In the nineteenth century, the words "boy" and "girl" extended up to adulthood; for example, college students were called college boys. And they were called this despite the fact that more was expected of them, in the way of diligent study, moral conduct, and good manners than is now. Even in the late 1930s, F. Scott Fitzgerald, writing to his daughter at Vassar and expecting a lot, speaks of once being a Princeton boy. In the sixteenth century Ascham speaks the same way, and also calls those from seven to seventeen "young gentlemen." "This day I go out of my teens" wrote Queen Victoria in her diary upon her twentieth birthday, not "This day I am no longer a teenager." (Oxford Book of Ages, ed. A. & S. Sampson, s. v.) The word "teenager," as we now use it, was first noted in the third edition of Webster's (1961); it was not in the second (1934); there it is noted only as an adjective "teenage."


As you have seen from the information presented, the world has its ways of dealing with the young people. They have created an image, illusion, and mystical theme around a word, “teenager”. This word has become the status symbol of our youth. Being called a teenager is like being called a god. It has become the anthem of the youth for the past 60 years. So what is the place for the youth in the plan of Yahweh.   

Does the creator want our youth to be left to their own devices? Yahweh government is based upon the training, teaching, and education of the youth. We find this a familiar theme throughout the writings of the Covenant, by its scholars, educators, legislators, teachers, fathers, and mothers. We have seen in our previous discussions concerning the Hebrew government and the Covenant of Peace, that self government is vital to a healthy republic. And an educated youth is vital to a nation, in so they become a wise mature adult, legislator, teacher, and father.

In the Mosaic polity, the laws concerning the parent/child relationship was imperative to the future of the Hebrew people in their relationship with their mighty one and their governing in the republic. The youth were required to be taught from an early age and throughout their lives. We have seen the problems today faced by the youth, especially in the western culture of America and Great Britain. Even though America was formed as a republic, the youth of today in America, is in dire need of a boost in morality, parent/child relationships, morality, and the respect of the elders, who are to guide the youth in righteousness. Instead the youth have example after example of bad behaviour, immorality among the peers who are supposed to inspire and educate, lack of faith based initiatives, and the notion that separating faith from government, somehow provides good government. The purpose of keeping the newly formed American republic and its government from establishing state enforced religion was the experiences they had felt under monarchies and religious rule where the hierarchy did not follow the rules of law given to them from their Creator. The Covenant of Yahweh that was given to the Kings and the religious rulers, was legislated to them by the Creator and they were to follow the laws which also governed them. They placed their hand, of loyalty, and by an oath, of commitment, on the Holy Scriptures, they were to rule their consituents. Mosheh was instructed to write precepts and ordinances by which the Kings and religious rulers were to follow in order to govern according to the Covenant. But history reveals that they did not follow the Covenant that gave them the authority to govern. Most people don’t seem to realize that when legislators are educated in faith based morally correct laws, they make morally correct decisions. They also create and uphold morally correct legislation. Had the Kings, Monarchs, Priests, and Elder Statesmen of the past 2,000 years had followed the Covenant of Yahweh in its legislation as it was written by Mosheh, and understood its laws, and ruling by them, there would have been no need to re-write a Constitution, separated from the unity of the Creator’s Constitution. Men have done their best to write good legislation for the people that they are endowed to govern, but have not accomplished their goal of a perfect union, because they reject the perfect union instituted by Yahweh.  

They have made it part of the language in the Preamble to the united States of America, where we find the following statement:  “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This Covenant that they instituted in 1792, was not the Covenant that Yahweh instituted, but a mere reflection and modest attempt by men. And we are now seeing the decline of this Covenant/Constitution right before our eyes, because it is not complete. Here is an email I recently received from the ACLU concerning a Bill called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed by the legislators and President:  

The new year has just begun and we've already got our first big challenge. On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. And it has no time or geographic limits. It can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. Despite initial assurances that he would veto this outrageous bill, President Obama will now be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

We see that there is not a perfect union among the inhabitants of the land, called United States. Many laws or what seems as law is left up to interpretation. Most citizens and legislators are not knowledgeable enough in the legal language to understand written Bills, to know what the language is implying. Here is an example and information on this more perfect union and its Bills that are legislated as Law, taken from:

When State governors and legislative leaders are ordered by the 'powers that be' to get an exceptionally onerous bill passed, it is done so by various devious methods. We'll list some of their methods here, as we believe that forewarned is forearmed. They will:  
  • Amend a current law with language that is vague and disjointed in context so that in order to understand its implications it is necessary to read, delete and/or insert words, phrases, sentences and whole sections of the proposed amendment into the current statute being amended. Same thing on the Federal level.
Few people will understand how, or take the time to learn to do that, which is the expected response by the promoters and drafters of the proposed legislation.  Here is an example from the proposed/passed federal U.S.A. Patriot Act


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED - Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended --  
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking 'by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting 'by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping'.
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking 'and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting 'and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
(5) the term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that --
   (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
   (B) appear to be intended --
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
   (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
  (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT - Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(1) 'act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;
FYI: the dangers in the above convoluted amendment to Title 18 of the U.S.Code are the additions to the definitions of 'domestic terrorism/terrorists'. Under (i) a domestic terrorist is now an individual or group which "appears to be intended" to "intimidate or coerce" a population. Consider 'appears to be intended'.  Those four words created "thought" police.  

Giving law enforcers the broad power/authority to determine the intentions/thoughts of an individual or group and its possible emotional effect on others leads to tyranny, death and destruction. How would one interpret the words 'intimidate' and 'coerce' in that context?  What is intimidating to one may not faze another. These words are wide open to interpretation.  Could this writing 'appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce'?  Do you 'feel' intimidated by what you've just read? Who would decide?

Now look at (ii) "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". Could the actions of an individual or group which disseminates information and urges phone calls, faxes, letters to their elected officials appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?  
How about potential 'terrorists' involved in the successful effort in Tennessee? (see # 2)  

The safety factor in this nasty new Patriot Act - if we ALL become and stay vigilant - is (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The sovereign nations/States within the union of States are NOT within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States (Inc.), other than the authority outlined in Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Government has not usurped States' power/authority. The States have unfortunately acquiesced by passing implementing legislation in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. Without the acquiescence of the States' legislatures the 'territorial jurisdiction' of the United States is confined to the federal zone (Washington D.C.) and 'territories and possessions' of the United States. That this is an acknowledged and recognized fact, see Fed's Eye View of the States.

It should be noted that land within the States that is 'claimed' by the U.S. Government is NOT within its jurisdiction. Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, only land purchased by the U.S. Government for forts, arsenals, magazines and dock-yards are under U.S. jurisdiction. For this reason,  there is a strong possibility/ probability that unconstitutional, equally onerous terrorism bills mirroring and implementing the U.S.A. Patriot Act will be introduced at the state level and passed into 'law' if we do not remain vigilant. Case in point:

In early 1995 - while we were all fully occupied with the nation-wide COS Conference of States resolution - the Illinois House passed HB-0067 an 'international' Anti-Terrorism bill that purported to "amend the Solicitation for Charity Act, by changing Sec. 1 and adding Sec. 9.5". The Act contained the following definitions: (emphasis ours)

(f) Charitable purpose: "Any charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, patriotic, or eleemosynary purpose.
(h) Education Program Service: "any activity which provides information to the public of a nature that is not commonly known or facts which are not universally regarded as obvious or as established by common understanding and which informs the public of what it can or should do about a particular issue".

We were told by several people who attended the initial hearings that the proposed bill was promulgated and in fact being 'pushed' by the ADL, having had spoken to representatives of the ADL in person. Interestingly, in 1995 the Council on Domestic Relations (CDR as opposed to CFR), a patriotic (f) organization then headquartered in Illinois - in its efforts to de-rail the COS - was 'guilty' of every single activity defined in (h). To our knowledge no other state introduced similar legislation. Fortunately, Senator Ed Petka - a co-sponsor of the bill when it reached the Senate - was informed of the dangers contained in the language; withdrew his sponsorship and argued for its ultimate defeat.
  • They will attempt to force a vote in the middle of the night. Sadly, state legislators - in almost every instance in every state - capitulate to the tactics of governors and the legislative leaders and pass the abominable bill(s) into law, (the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Act was passed at 4 o'clock in the morning); or on a weekend as when the Tennessee legislature attempted to pass a proposed State Income Tax bill. The outcome was inspiring and hilarious.
  • They will let a bill languish in committee with "no action" until opponents (constituents) forget about it; wait until the final day(s) of a legislative session; keep legislators in voting sessions for hours and days on end, inundating them with dozens of bills and resolutions that 'must' have action; suspending rules; bypassing committees. . . and the rank 'n file buckle under.  They 'just want to go home', so they vote YES and YES and YES.
It doesn't seem to occur to the legislators they could refuse to be treated like peons and lackeys and vote NO and NO and NO on every bill that comes at them in this manner.
  • They will introduce several pieces of similar legislation in both the House and Senate so we're not sure which version they plan on adopting.  It's a shell game, as you can see.  In Illinois in 1995 there were four separate COS resolutions introduced, all containing nearly identical language. The MSEHPA could prove to be elusive.
  • They use legal 'terms of art' that are so complicated only lawyers know how to read them. In 1997 (or 98) we met with two state reps here in Pennsylvania to alert them of a dangerous bill awaiting action.  As she was looking at the few pages we brought, one asked: "How do you know what you're reading?  How do you understand this?"  

Frightening.  Our advice to her and you:

Read for understanding. If there is any word or phrase you don't understand, search it out, ask questions. Know that when language is vague it is designed to be that way... open to interpretation in future.
When a section of a bill is blank, except for the words "RESERVED", know that the intended language is written and awaiting the opportune time to be inserted; it will be a time advantageous to the furthering of a devious scheme.

The punctuation is critical and we don't understand that aspect well enough to give suggestions. The bill in question was proposed House Bill 689.  Nearly 300 pages brimming with provisions for: continuity of government in case of nuclear or biological attack; creation of Regional Asset Districts; destruction of public records determined by an appointed committee; etc. We brought it to their attention just before the fall session was to begin and asked them to be on the alert for it. Within a week it landed in a committee. We received a call from a shocked rep saying: "We just got the table of contents for 689. It was written in 1975!!! That was 20 years ago. What's going on here?!"

We explained that the powers that be were waiting 'til they believed they had their ducks in a row and all the legislators sufficiently dumbed down and complacent enough to pass it through easily. It didn't pass that session. It appears it is now being passed piece by piece. We've just heard about the Regional Asset Districts being created. A few people working alone, without staff or financial assistance cannot get the job done!!!
  • They inundate the legislators with anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 resolutions and bills a year, by design. Neither the legislators nor a few vigilantes in the State have the time to read them all, track their progress, and travel to the State Capitol to 'testify' before hearing committees.  Draft bills pour in from the Council of State Governments; National Council of State Legislatures; National Association of Governors, Uniform Law Commission, Anti-Defamation League, etc., all organizations established by the Masters of International Finance/Zionist Jews and their minions. (Not an anti-Semitic statement or sentiment... just the naked truth)
  • They will add the language to a proposed bill that has already passed out of committee and scheduled for floor vote.

It would mostly be safe to say that every amendment added to the U.S. Constitution and to the Constitutions of every State has been a slow but steady degradation of their original forms. We have heard (though not seen) that there exists two versions of the U.S. Constitution, the version we have being a counterfeit.
According to many, the original version of the Declaration of Independence has been altered. A specific example: the second paragraph asserts that all men being created equal are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among them: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

Allegedly, the original version was written: Life, Liberty and Property. Makes sense, doesn't it? What the heck is the 'pursuit of happiness' anyway?  Like the 'elusive butterfly of life'?  Sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't... happy. PROPERTY... that is becoming a rare, expensive and elusive commodity for most of us in America.  Huge tracts of land are being bought up by the Departments of Community and Economic Development (or similar names) in every state.  Sold off to the environmentalist groups who then sell or cede it to the feds or the United Nations.

Everything happening today about which we all complain and that threatens our lives, liberty and property is happening at the State and Local levels of government.  Believe it!  This need not be and would not be if we all become informed, educated and involved in our governmental process, for LIBERTY REQUIRES ETERNAL VIGILANCE.

If the adults in society are confused and agitated by the Bills and Laws being passed onto them, and future generations, then how can there be a more perfect union?
The decline of the youth in society is a result of not teaching and following the perfect union instituted on high, for mankind by its loving Creator, called the “Covenant of Peace.” The Hebrew Covenant/Constitution was morally correct legislation, which, when it was followed without adding or taking away from it, brought about self governing among those who adhered to its precepts. Today’s legislation of men is not clear, concise, understood, nor does it benefit those whom it legislates!


In the Covenant/Constitution that Yahweh instituted, He calls us His Children, defined as His Youth or Old.  In His government the children were to be taught diligently His Governmental plan! This plan was instituted and defined by their acknowledgment and faithfulness to their oath to office.

Exodus 4:12 “Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth 6310, and teach 3384 you what you shall say.”

The word Mouth is #6310 in Strong’s Hebrew Concordance and Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon, which means: spokesman, orator, messenger.
The word Teach is word #3384 which means: to cast; to lay foundations.

We see that Yahweh was the orator, and the one who laid the foundation for the Hebrew government. His chosen legislator, Mosheh, was the spokesman and scribe who wrote His Covenant/Constitution and then taught it to the Congress of Elders, assembled. These elders weren’t just a bunch of old men, but men who had wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of government and how it functions.

Exodus 4:29 “And Moseh and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders 2205 of the children 1121  of Israel.”

The word elders is #2205 which means: elder, of those having authority; chief men, rulers, magistrates, without reference to the idea of age.
The word children is #1121 which means: member of a group, guild, order, or class.

Exodus 19:7 “And Moseh came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words 1697 which the Yahweh commanded 6680 him.”

The word words is #1697 which means: the proposed plan, business, a counsel. From #1696 which means: to lead, guide, to rule, to direct a people.
The word commanded is #6680 which means: to constitute, to appoint, to cause it to exist; to commission.

We see that Mosheh called for those having ruling authority of the people, and gave them the appointed, constitution, the proposed plan of Yahweh, which was to rule and give them direction.

Exodus 18:20And you shall teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.”

Deuteronomy 4:9 “Only take heed to thyself, and keep your soul diligently, unless you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and unless they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons.”

Deuteronomy 6:7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when thou walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when thou rise up.”

Mosheh’s job was to take the men who were wise, magistrates, elders, from an order, or guild, and teach them the government of Yahweh. They had the opportunity to be part of the order of Yahweh, called Melchizedek. Egypt was a nation made up of many nationalities. There were people from all nations living within it’s borders, just as you see in the united States of America. The estates came from the 12 brothers, who became tribes, then became estates, which then became a mighty nation!

The word Melchizedek is #4442 which means: my king is righteousness. The root words are from #4428 which means: king, to become king, reign. And from word #6664 which means: straight paths, what is right and just; righteousness in government.

Exodus 19:6And you shall be unto me a kingdom 4467 of priests 3548, and an holy nation. These, the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”

The word kingdom is #4467 which means: kingdom, reign, sovereignty; from word #4427 which means: king, to become king, cause to reign.

The word priests is #3548 which means: a priest; principal officer, chief ruler; signifies a prince; Zadokite priests; From word #3547 which means: to minister in a priest’s office; he who stands up in anyone’s matter and labors in his cause.

Yahweh was revealing to Mosheh and us, that if we uphold His Covenant/Constitution, His plan, His rulership, we would be part of a plan in which we would reign under His Prince, His Chief Priest and King, Yahshua called Messiah, and would labor in His cause.

The teaching of the youth and educating them in the legislation of the government and its Covenant relationship with their Creator, was of the utmost importance for the Hebrew people.

In order to be in unity with our Father in heaven, we must also be in unity with the ONE HE SENT, Yahshua called Messiah, or Melchizedek, His Prince, His Chief Priest. In order to be in unity, we must enter in Covenant, be taught this Covenant, then follow it diligently! This is the job of every father to his children. The youth of today are no different then the youth of yesterday, or tomorrow. If they uphold the teachings of their father, then they will be in unity with as a son! We must not allow our youth to forget the promise of this Covenant and we must teach them it’s Constitution! If we add or take away from it, then we will be guilty before the heaven and earth, of defiling the perfect Covenant/Constitution that He instituted.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add unto the word 1697 which I command 6680 you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Yahweh, your mighty one, which I command you.”

Revelation 22:18 “For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, Yahweh shall add unto him the plagues 4127 that are written in this book.”

Those who are called to this government, are being judged by the obedience to its Covenant/Constitution. The whole world is not being judged at this time! Only those who are being called and follow the Son, the Prince who reigns in, and of the government of Yahweh. If He followed and stayed true in obedience to the Covenant, shouldn’t we?

I Kepha 4:17 “For the time that judgment must begin at the house of Yahweh: and if first at us, what shall the end of them that obey not the message of the messianic rank of Yahweh?”

Yahchanan (John) 6:44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Yahshua was sent to fulfill or establish the government of Yahweh. His death, was the signing in blood of this Covenant, for us all. If we say we are saved by the mercy of Yahweh and live by the faith of Yahshua, then we are obligated to obey the same Covenant that He obeyed.

Hebrews 10:16This the covenant 1242 that I will make with them among those days, says the, Yahweh I will put my laws 3551 before their hearts, and in their minds will I write 1924 them.”

I want to draw your attention to a few words defined in this scripture.

The word covenant is #1242 which means: a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will; a compact, a covenant, a testament; Yahweh covenant with Noah, etc._By this last covenant the hebrew people are bound to obey Yahweh will as expressed and promulged in the Mosaic Law. And He promises them His almighty protections and blessings of every kind in this world...For Christian salvation is the fulfillment of the divine promises annexed to those covenants, especially to that which was made to Abraham. The tables of the Law in which the duties of the Covenant were inscribed.

The word disposition is defined as: The power or liberty to control, direct, or dispose. Management; control.
The word law is #3551 which means: a law or rule producing a state approved of Yahweh.
The word write is #1994 which means: inscribe.
The word inscribe is defined as: to enter (a name) on a list or in a register.

Yahshua was loyal to this Covenant and obeyed it, and it was accounted as righteousness to Him. His loyalty and obedience allowed Him to qualify for a position in the Kingdom of  Yahweh called a High Priest and High King. Yahshua called Messiah, was of the order of righteousness (Melchizedek), the High King and Priest in this office of the government, ordained by Yahweh. The Covenant that Yahshua obeyed, qualified him as the ruler over all things the Father ordained from the beginning in His government, which was ordained by  Yahweh through an oath that He made to Himself and to Abraham.

This Covenant is placed within our hearts, and minds. If we obey this Covenant, we receive the promises of it. Yahshua obeyed it and received eternal life! If we obey it, we are promised the same thing, eternal life, but we must walk exactly as He walked.  

I Yahchanan (John) 2:6 “He that says he abides in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.”

Yahchanan Mark 10:30 “But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.”

The Covenant of Yahweh consists of the rule of law, instituted by the Creator, given to His Son, and when obeyed, receive the promises of it. Yahshua received eternal life, and also to be called the ruler of rulers.  No one will ever be above Yahshua, except Yahweh .  

When we are in agreement and acknowledgement of Yahweh Covenant/Constitution, our names are entered into His Governmental registry. We see this in the worldly governments throughout this earth. When one is born, they are registered, in order to travel, they must registere, and when they die, they are registered. Why would we think it is any different in  Yahweh‘s government, when man’s government is patterned after His government?

Malakyah (Malachi) 3:16 “Then they that reverenced the Yahweh spoke often one to another: and the Yahweh paid attention, and heard 8085, and a book of remembrance 2146 was written before him for them that reverenced the Yahweh, and that thought upon his name.

The word heard is #8085 which means: to hear, to hear of judicial cases.
The word remembrance is #2146 which means: memorial, a memorial sentence, memory, remembrance.

Revelation 20:12 “And I saw the dead 3498, small 3398 and great 3173, stand 2476 before Yahweh; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”

The word dead is #3498 which means: destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to Yahweh because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right; powerless.
The word small is #3398 which means: He that is inferior to the other citizens of the kingdom of heaven in the knowledge of the message.
The word great is #3173 which means: predicated of a rank, as belonging to persons eminent for ability, virtue, authority, and power. Rulers, leaders, eminent, distinguished men.
The word stand is #2476 which means: to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set; to bid to stand by, [set up]; in the presence of others, in the midst, before judges, before members of the Sanhedrin. To cause a person or a thing to keep his or its place; to stand, be kept intact (of family, a kingdom), to escape in safety.

The time is coming and now here for the Messianic restoration. Judgment has begun. Memorial books are being written, and the courts of judgment are being established by the Covenant of Peace being restored back to the people in this time period. If you don’t believe what is written, then I suggest you contact the library of Congress of the united States of America and see if the Covenant of Peace is established. If it is, shouldn’t those who love Yahweh and speak often one to another, want to be a part of this government?

The youth of today, should be trained in the government of Yahweh concerning its laws, statutes, ordinances, and judgments. We see in the scriptures that there were many who didn’t obey the Covenant and they were not allowed to see the Covenant of Yahweh established.

Numbers 32:13 “And the Yahweh ‘s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Yahweh was consumed.”

Mattithyah 8:12 “But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The Kingdom ruled by the Hebrew Covenant/Constitution is waiting on the sons of Yahweh to be revealed.  

Romans 8:19 “For the earnest expectation of the creation waits patiently for the manifestation 602 of the sons 5207 of Yahweh.”

The word manifestation is # 602 which means: revelations of future things relating to the consummation of the divine Kingdom.
The word sons is #5207 which means: used by Messiah himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Messiah seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.

This world is waiting for the revelation of this divine Kingdom! The Messianic offices are before us, Yahshua was the first into this office, called Melchizedek, the other offices are given to those who qualify! In this Kingdom there will be needed judges, officers, counselors, representatives, investigators, peacemakers, peacekeepers, etc...

Daniel 7:22 “Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the set time was found present, that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

What type of Kingdom will we possess? It will have a government! So what laws will rule in this government? Won’t they be the laws from ancient day as Daniel stated? Righteous laws don’t get old, people get old. Righteous laws don’t need improvement, people need improvement. The laws of the Covenant of Peace, are not old testament laws, they are testamonial laws, that testify of the awesome and great legislator, who is above mankinds wisdom.

The same Covenant that was given to the Hebrews for governing in Mosheh’s polity, is the same Covenant that is given to the Hebrews today for our polity.

Numbers 25:12 “Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my Covenant of Peace.”

Isayah 54:10 “For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the Covenant of my Peace be removed, says the  Yahweh that has mercy on you.”

Malakyah (Malachi) 2:5My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him the reverence wherewith he stood in awe of me, and was confounded in front of my name.”

The youth today is the adults of tomorrow. Should they not be taught righteous government? The land cries out for it! And the offices of Melchizedek are waiting to be filled.


Throughout the scriptures we find that the examples of the youth of Yahweh who were called to do what he commanded was not always something that they wanted, nor necessarily understood at first. The Prophet Yeremyah was called to do what Yahweh commanded and felt that he was too young to do the great work of Yahweh. We find that Yahweh had called him from the womb and sanctified him to be a prophet to the governments or nations.

Yeremyah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I revealed myself to you; before you were born I sanctified you holy; and I ordained, designated, constituted, you a prophet, spokesman, to the nations. Then I said; Ah, Yahweh my mighty one, behold I cannot speak; for I am only a youth.”

History says that Yeremyah was under the age of 20, according to the definition of the word youth or child, as it is translated in the KJV. Today, it would be hard pressed to find many men or women under the age of 20, who are qualified, and ready to go speak on behalf of Yahweh, to the President of the united States of America, or any world leader about Yahweh and His plan for the nations of this earth. Are we qualifying our children for the Kingdom of Yahweh? Are we teaching them the Covenant of Peace, the laws of this great Kingdom? How many of our youth, say, we cannot speak, for we are young? Yahweh’s concern was not on Yeremyah’s age!

Yeremyah 1:7 “But Yahweh said to me; Do not say, “I am only a youth.” For you will go to all whom I send you; and whatever I command you, you will speak!”

Today’s equivalence to that statement would be, “Do not say, I am only a teenager!” Today’s teenagers think that they have to have fun, enjoy life, live life to the fullest, be all they can be, just do it, because they are at an age where it is cool to do these things! Commercial products are sold by the millions upon these teenage inspired mottos! But we must teach our youth, from the womb, that they are sanctified and ordained by Yahweh for the nations! They are born to do great things for Yahweh, to testify of His great governmental plan for all nations! The youth today among the assemblies, sacred name groups, and even the churches of this world, are bored! Religion, faith, and the service of Yahweh to them is an old persons life! They think this is for old men and women, who are washed up and waiting for death, having lived past their prime, and have nothing else to do, but to worship a creator, hoping for eternal life, because they are getting to the point of death! They don’t look at the worship and service of Yahweh as a job for young people. For the most part, many, I repeat, many, do not understand, nor or interested in the word of Yahweh when they are teenagers. They are not interested in the Covenant of Yahweh at this point in life, because to serve Yahweh appears boring to them, compared to what the world offers. They have been taught that to serve Yahweh is a religion, rather than a way of life, and for the most part that religious life seems like no fun! The youth who follow the scriptural way, don’t get to party, drink till their wasted, go out with their friends anywhere they want, hang out with the cool people who dress in the latest fashions, etc... The scriptures show the youth of Yahweh, as serious, respectful, responsible, and dedicating their lives to the work of the most high, Yahweh. For most adults, we know that the life of partying is short lived, it wears out the physical body, and doesn’t give spiritual enlightment or education into the real things that matter in life. Today’s youth is shown a world of glamour and are dazzled by the things that seem to matter at the moment. Hollywood has come out with movies that push the teenager to his fullest, in his ability to do things that are considered wild, crazy, and dangerous. One such movie is “Jackass” which shows people doing dangerous and stupid things, inspiring the young people of today to push themselves beyond borders, without limits. This movie has inspired a generation of young people, teenagers, to go to the extreme to show that they are wild and capable of doing anything they want. Here is what some doctors say about the influence of such movies such as, “Jackass.”

According to an Allpsych journal article called "The Psychological Effects of Violent Media on Children" by Aimee Tompkins, sixty percent of television shows that children watch include violence. Kids at the age of six watch about two hours of television per day. Lack of remorse and misunderstanding of the consequences to their actions lead young people to copy what they see on the television. A prime example Aimee Tompkins states in her article is the movie "Jackass," which shows a group of boys engaging in dangerous and risky behavior that often leads to pain or serious consequences. Across the world, many young men have attempted to perform the same stunts with disastrous results. If they pull off the stunt successfully, they see themselves rewarded as the stars of "Jackass" were. The more prone the children were to practice these acts, the more prone they become to actually do them.

The long term effects of rebellion and physical abuse are never shown by Hollywood. But the youth who watch these programs many times try to imitate them and are recorded by news sources throughout the world. Here are some examples of imitation of our youth, by the examples they are taught by the movies and t.v. programs designed for the youth of today!

A 13-year-old poured gasoline on his feet and legs and lit himself on fire, imitating a stunt he’d seen on the appropriately titled MTV series Jackass. (Daily News, January 30, 2001)

A gang in Manchester, England, tortured a 16-year-old girl, set her afire and left her dying, while one of the attackers repeated a line from Child’s Play 3: "I’m Chucky– wanna play?" (The New York Times, July 10, 1994)

After watching a genie on TV slap someone on both sides of the head, two children in England copied the stunt and suffered perforated eardrums. Other children, in different parts of the country, were also injured in what became known as "the slapping craze." (The Guardian, March 12, 1992)

A five-year-old set his baby sister’s bed ablaze with a cigarette lighter, killing her and destroying his home. According to the boy’s mom, he got the idea from MTV characters Beavis and Butt-head, who play with fire and say things like "Fire is cool." In Ohio, three girls set a house on fire while attempting to copy a scene in which Beavis (or possibly Butt-head) sets fire to his buddy’s hair by igniting spray from an aerosol can. The girls, however, used the technique to set clothing on fire, not hair, and ended up burning the house. (Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1993)

Imitating a popular wrestling move, a 17-year-old boy threw a 3-year-old boy on the ground and then dropped down to elbow him in the midsection (The Fort World Star-Telegram, July 14, 2001). In Florida, 14-year-old Lionel Tate, imitating a wrestling hold he saw on TV, bear-hugged six-year-old Tiffany Eunick, lifted her, and dropped her on the floor, killing her. (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2001)

Two teenagers from Pennsylvania and another from Long Island suffered dire consequences after imitating a stunt from the movie The Program. Like the college football hero in the film, the teens tried to prove their mettle by lying down in the middle of a road at night. Unlike the film’s star, however, one was killed instantly, the other rendered in critical condition. According to the mother of the teens, other kids said that about 30 kids were playing the "game" a few miles up the road the same night. (The New York Times, October 19, 1993).

After Rob Reiner’s 1986 film Stand by Me depicted hooligans leaning out of car windows to whack mailboxes with baseball bats, kids across the country followed suit, (Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1993)

When James Dean and Corey Allen played "chicken"–a game to see who can speed closest toward the edge of a cliff before jumping out of the car–dozens of teens went plummeting to their death trying to imitate that scene from 1955’s Rebel Without a Cause. Interestingly enough, when it first marketed Rebel Without a Cause, Warner Bros. anticipated the copycat incidents. To allay criticism and distance itself from any problems, the studio produced a clip of star James Dean urging kids to "Take it easy driving out there. The life you save might be mine." The clip was never used, however, because Mr. Dean was killed in his speeding Porsche shortly before the movie was released. (Boston Globe, October 20, 1993, The Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2001)

Circa 1987, after Beastie Boy Mike D started wearing a hood ornament around his neck, teenagers across the U.S. started stealing ornaments from cars, in imitation of the rap star. Though Mike D wore a Volkswagen symbol, kids seemed to prefer those of Mercedes and other luxury vehicles. (Washington Post, June 23, 1987)

Yahweh tells our youth, do not be afraid! If we teach them from the womb, would they not be sanctified and ordained for Yahweh? I have had the opportunity to travel throughout the world and visit many assemblies and churches. I find that the the youth, called teenagers, are bored, even within the congregations of believers. They aren’t many programs designed for them to be involved with the work of Yahweh, that would give them reason to not be bored. Most places I have visited it seems after services, the youth go and hang out, usually without adult supervision, and the adults hang out together, separate from the youth. I have seen very few young adults, interested in being around the elders learning scripture and involved in discussion with adults about the scriptures. So what is the problem? Why aren’t the youth interested in learning from the adults, especially on the sabbath and during the Feasts of Yahweh? Why are our children not interested in learning about Yahweh? Is it possible that they see adults arguing their point of view in scripture? Do they find the adults conversations boring? Do they see that there is not any understanding of scripture? Or is it that the assemblies and churches, don’t have anything designed to teach the youth, to capture their attention, to stimulate their interaction, expressing ideas that will allow interaction of both parties? Shouldn’t the adults, who are trained in the ways of Yahweh, not teach every Sabbath, and during the Feasts of Yahweh, the government of Yahweh, instructing them in the way of Yahweh.

Now some will say that government is not what they should learn, but I would say that if you look at those who brought forth change, reformation, and inspiration in society, it was those who looked to righteous governing as a people.

Please take note of the following information by “The Classical Education of the Founding Fathers,” by Martin Cothran and his assessment of the importance of the assembly or church’s influence on the youth of yesterday.

There is a reason that many parents are so interested in teaching our children about the men who founded the United States of America, and it goes beyond just becoming familiar with who they were and what they did. More than just teaching our children about these men through the histories and biographies that tell the story of their lives, many of us are interested in our children becoming more like them. The Founding Fathers possessed two characteristics that distinguished them from other men of their time—and from most men in any time: wisdom and virtue. It is these qualities that we admire most about them and that we would most like to see in our own children. But more important than just admiring them for these traits, we should strive to understand how they became this way.

The Classical Education of the Founders

“Americans view the Founding Fathers in vacuo, isolated from the soil that nurtured them,” says Traci Lee Simmons in his book, Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin. For the Founders, says Simmons, these virtues came principally from two places: “the pulpit and the schoolroom.” We are already fairly familiar with the explicitly Biblical influences on America’s founding, but we are far less familiar with the classical influences on the Founders—and how these two influences worked in concert to mold their education and their thinking. It is a well-known fact that literacy was prevalent in colonial times. “A native of America who cannot read or write,” said John Adams, “is as rare an appearance…as a comet or an earthquake.” It is not nearly as well-known a fact, however, that early Americans with a formal education usually knew several other languages as well as their own.

The typical education of the time began in what we would call the 3rd Grade—at about age eight. Students who actually went to school were required to learn Latin and Greek grammar and, later, to read the Latin historians Tacitus and Livy, the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and to translate the Latin poetry of Virgil and Horace. They were expected to know the language well enough to translate from the original into English and back again to the original in another grammatical tense. Classical Education also stressed the seven liberal arts: Latin, logic, rhetoric (the “trivium”), as well as arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (the “quadrivium”).

Thomas Jefferson received early training in Latin, Greek, and French from Reverend William Douglas, a Scottish clergyman. At the age of fourteen, Jefferson’s father died, and, at the express wish of his father, he continued his education with the Reverend James Maury, who ran a classical academy. After leaving Douglas’ academy, Jefferson attended the College of William and Mary, where his classical education continued along with his study of law.

When Alexander Hamilton entered King’s College (now Columbia University) in 1773, he was expected to have a mastery of Greek and Latin grammar, be able to read three orations from Cicero and Virgil’s Aeneid in the original Latin, and be able to translate the first ten chapters of the Gospel of John from Greek into Latin.

When James Madison applied at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton), he was expected to be able to “write Latin prose, translate Virgil, Cicero, and the Greek gospels and [to have] a commensurate knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar.” Even before he entered, however, he had already read Vergil, Horace, Justinian, Nepos, Caesar, Tacitus, Lucretius, Eutropius, Phaedrus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato.

Other key figures in the American founding received similar educations, including John Taylor of Caroline, John Tyler, and George Rogers Clark, all of whom studied classics under the Scottish preacher Donald Robertson. It is interesting to note that the study of Latin and Greek, which is what the term “classical education” originally implied, was not something they learned in college, but something they were expected to know before they got there. These men not only had to read classical authors in school, they read them in adult life for pleasure and profit. Hamilton apparently had a penchant for copying Plutarch (the Roman) and Demosthenes (the Greek). John Adams would copy long passages of Sallust, the Roman historian. If you look around on the Internet a little, you can find a manuscript of twelve lines for sale, in the original language, from the Greek historian Herodotus, in Adam’s hand. It will cost you a mere $6,300.

The founders knew these writers and quoted them prolifically. Their letters, in particular, display a wide familiarity with classical authors. The correspondence between educated men of the time was commonly sprinkled with classical quotations, usually in the original Latin or Greek. It was not only prevalent, but apparently sometimes annoying to the recipient. Jefferson used so many Greek quotes in his letters to Adams (who liked Latin better than Greek) that, on one occasion, Adams complained to him about it.

It apparently wasn’t the first time Adams displayed reticence about classical languages. When he was young, it turns out, he wasn’t always the most enthusiastic scholar and resisted studying his Latin. His father had a remedy for that, however; he sent him out to dig ditches, an activity which quickly revived his enthusiasm. He later grew to love Latin, however, and insisted on the same classical education for his sons, John Quincy (who later became president like his father) and Charles.

Several of the founders, including Adams, attended Harvard. The sole academic requirements for admission to Harvard University in the 1640s were as follows: “When any scholar is able to read Tully [Cicero] or such like classical Latin author ex tempore and make and speak true Latin in verse and prose suo (ut aiunt) Marte [by his own power, as they say], and decline perfectly the paradigms of nouns and verbs in the Greek tongue, then may he be admitted into the college, nor shall any claim admission before such qualification.”

No ACT or SAT scores. No application essays. No affirmative action. Just Latin and Greek.
Students were also expected in these early years, according to the Harvard College Laws, to be able to translate the Old and New Testaments from the original Greek and Hebrew into Latin. Not only that, but listen to another Harvard requirement of the time: “The scholars shall never use their mother tongue, except that in public exercises of oratory or such like they be called to make them in English.” In other words, with limited exceptions, students were prohibited from using English in class or in class assignments. Some of this undoubtedly changed by the time the founders would have attended, but not much. When it came to classical education in colleges of colonial times, they took no prisoners.

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 30 of them were college graduates, an astounding number for the time. But what of those who were not college graduates, such as George Washington? Were they influenced in any way by classical education? In Washington’s case, while he had little formal education, he admired classical thinkers greatly. There are records showing that he ordered busts of figures such as Cicero that were presumably put on display at his Mt. Vernon home. He also cared enough about classical culture to have Joseph Addison’s play about Cato the Younger (a famous Roman statesman) performed for his troops at Valley Forge. He also insisted on a classical education for his stepson.

Even many who had little formal education were often quite knowledgeable in classical subjects. The Virginian George Wythe, who later became known as the “Teacher of Liberty,” was educated at their backwoods home by his mother. His Greek was accounted by his contemporaries to have been perfect.

Classical influences were pervasive in the schoolroom, but it didn’t stop there. Even what Americans heard from the pulpit was imbued with classical references and allusions. Ministers of that time were much more highly educated than today and were the ones most likely in any community to have had a classical education.

Today it is not uncommon to hear some say that the believers should shy away from the pagan authors of antiquity. This is an idea the generation of the founders—including great Christian thinkers such as Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards—would simply have considered preposterous. Not only was classical education conducted largely by ordained Christian ministers (or aspiring ones), but education in the classics was considered an essential element in the education of a Christian cleric. In fact, all of the great Christian theologians and thinkers of early America were soaked and steeped in the classics. Not only did they think a classical education was consistent with a Christian vocation, they considered it absolutely essential.

It was primarily religious skeptics and those who were more enamored with the possibilities of practical science of the time than spiritual realities who took a dim view of classical education—men such as Benjamin Franklin, who, while having become a deist later in life and finally a theist (but still not a Christian), considered classical languages an anachronism.

How the Classics Influenced the Thinking of the Founders

If the founders were steeped in the knowledge of classical thought, how did it affect their own thinking about the new nation? For one thing, it inculcated in them a respect for the lessons of history, lessons that were readily apparent in their writings and debates about how to construct the American Republic. “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided,” said Patrick Henry, “and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

They combed the annals of the ancients for examples of governments that worked well—and for those that did not. They knew, well before the philosopher George Santayana was born to say it, that “those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.”

“These men,” says Simmons, discussing the Philadelphia debates in 1787, “had read and digested Polybius, Aristotle, and Cicero, and they used the ancient luminaries to frame and illustrate their ideas before the assembly…These heated yet erudite debates, along with the Federalist Papers, fairly pullulate both with subtle classical allusions—with which Madison, Hamilton, and Jay assumed readers to be tolerably familiar—and direct references to the leagues—Amphictyonic, Achaean, Aetolian, Lycian—formed by the ancient Greeks in order to achieve political and physical security.” Not only are the Federalist Papers replete with classical references, but the pseudonyms each of the writers chose for themselves were all taken from the writers of classical times.

Classical Education Today

To become inspired by the great deeds of great men is to obtain the motivation to do similar things. We become great partly by seeing what other great men did and being inspired to do such things ourselves. But while beholding the great deeds of others gives us the motivation to be like them, it doesn’t equip us to achieve what they achieved. We can admire other men, but that won’t necessarily make us more like them. In order to become like those we admire, we must not only admire them, we must do what they did. It is tempting to look back on the education of these great Americans and think that what they did is too difficult for the students of today. But that would be a grave mistake. Yes, they enjoyed some advantages over us, mostly in terms of having fewer distractions, but that is something we have the power to control. The fact is that we have advantages they didn’t have. For example, the educational resources available to colonial children were not only harder to find, but of vastly inferior quality.

We can, moreover, say we lack their fortitude, but that is not something they brought to their education; rather, it is a benefit they received from it. Education is the cultivation of wisdom and virtue. In deciding how to accomplish this with our own children, we would do well to see how it was done in a time when wisdom and virtue were more prevalent than in our own.

It is not wrong to read the writings in this world, its histories, and its cultures. But more importantly, our youth should be fully trained in the aspects of this worlds religion, culture and governments. But most importantly, they should be expertly trained in their own Hebrew government! The founding fathers were trained in the government of the Covenant of Yahweh. It was their wisdom, virtue, and knowledge of government that gave them the ability to make changes for the betterment of the government that they created. While they didn’t succeed in bringing forth the messianic government restoration, they laid the ground work for it! If we follow their ideals in education, we can and will succeed where they failed! You can believe as young men, their ideals and values, were quite different from the youth of today. And even though they didn’t have the distractions that we see today placed in front of our youth, they were nurtured by parents, elders, and men of old age and the foolishness of being young and carefree was taught to them to be something that should be shunned. To be a foolish, young lad, or lady, in their day, meant that you would be preventing their own positive growth for their future. We should be doing the same and better for our youth today! The education of the youth, should have a prominent role in today’s assemblies of believers. It should be of utmost importance, rather than adults sitting around doing their own thing and neglecting the young minds that need nurturing and attendance. If we want to bring about unity within the assemblies of the believers called Hebrew, we need to start with passing on the knowledge and wisdom that we have fought hard to obtain and pass on to the next generation.

II Kepha (Peter) 1:5,6 “And also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith, virtue, and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance, and to temperance perseverance, and to perseverance, holiness.”

The Hebrew Covenant/Constitution was designed for the young person to reach their full potential within society and in service to Yahweh.

Proverbs 1:1-5  “The proverbs of Solomon son of David, King of Israel: For attaining education in wisdom and moral discipline, to comprehend words of understanding: For acquiring training in discernment of wisdom, justice, judgment, and equity; To give subtility to the simple; to give knowledge and discretion to the youth: The wise also may hear and increase his knowledge, and a man of understanding may receive sound guidance.”

Please remember that Solomon was king, and as a king, he ruled his kingdom through governmental laws. And those laws were the Covenant of Yahweh’s laws, that brought peace, wisdom and instruction in righteousness. Look at what he said in Proverbs.

Proverbs 1:7,8The reverence, or awe, of the Yahweh is the beginning, the firstfruits, of wisdom: fools despise wisdom and instruction. My son, listen to the instruction of your father, and do not forsake the law; of your mother.”

The word law is #8451-torah- which means: law, instruction, direction (human or divine)
1) body of prophetic teaching 2) instruction in Messianic age 3) body of priestly direction or instruction 4) body of legal directives.
The word mother is #517 which means: to teach; the one who binds the family together.

So we can see that we are to listen to the legal directives of Yahweh, which teaches and binds the family together.

King Solomon stated we should listen to the instruction of this torah, and it should not be forsaken because:
  • you attain education in wisdom and moral discipline
  • comprehend words of understanding
  • acquire training in discernment of wisdom, justice, judgment and equity
  • gives subtility to the simple
  • gives knowledge and discretion to the youth
  • the wise increases his knowledge
  • a man of understanding receives sound guidance

The Hebrew Covenant/Constitution gives knowledge to our youth. It needs to be taught to them as it was taught to the founding fathers of America. If it is, then they will do greater things then what they did!


Another great idea of the Hebrew Constitution was the concept of union. I refer, here, not so much to those civil ties which bound the people together in one body politic, as much as to the oneness of hearts, opinions, and manners, which forms the strongest bond of society, and is the firmest rampart of its defence. The Hebrew nation was thus composed of a brotherhood of hardy farmers who cultivated his own land, no one of who could become either very rich or very poor, or could have anything in his outward circumstances greatly to excite the envy or the contempt of others.

The system of education, in vogue among the Hebrew people, tended powerfully to the same result. To this cause Josephus, with much plausibility, traces that unanimity of sentiment concerning Yahweh and morals, which, he says, so remarkably about his nation, that even the women and servants spoke the same things.

To the same effect was the incessant inculcation of kindness and charity, not only towards one another, but also to strangers, enforced by the often repeated admonition.

Exodus 23:9 “You know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Today, in the land of Israel, we see this law being ignored by those who profess themselves to be the children of the Covenant promise. The Arabs, many called Palestinian, are a people who are living side by side with their fellow Israeli citizen and many are reduced to mere slave status, among a nation that calls itself the chosen ones of the most high! The following information was taken from the Institute for Middle East Understanding.

Although Palestinian citizens of Israel are entitled to vote and participate in Israeli political life, and several Palestinians are members of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), they do not receive the same treatment as the Jewish citizens at the hands of the government.

From the birth of the state in 1948 until 1966, predominantly Palestinian areas were ruled through a military government that enforced draconian restrictions affecting all realms of life.

Israel still applies 20 laws that privilege Jews over Arabs. For example, the 1950 Law of Return grants automatic citizenship rights to Jews from anywhere in the world upon request, while denying that same right to Palestinians.

The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom ensures that Israel is the state of the "Jewish people," not its citizens. This law was passed in 1992 to serve as a "bill of rights," as Israel does not have a written constitution. Israel's flag and other national symbols are Jewish religious symbols, not neutral or national ones that represent all the citizens of the state.

Government resources, meanwhile, are disproportionately directed to Jews and not to Arabs, one factor in causing the Palestinians of Israel to suffer the lowest living standards in Israeli society by all economic indicators. Human Rights Watch has compiled an extensive study of Israel's policy of "separate, not equal" schools for Palestinian children, finding that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this."

As many as 100 Palestinian villages in Israel, many of which pre-date the founding of the state, are not recognized by the Israeli government, and are not listed on maps and receive no services (water, electricity, sanitation, roads, etc.) from the government. More than 70,000 Palestinians live in these unrecognized villages. Meanwhile, hundreds of new Jewish towns have been established on lands confiscated from Palestinians.

The united States of America practiced the same institute of restrictive governing against the black people in America for decades, which resulted in the poorest communities where they lived below poverty levels, creating a welfare state among a class of people, and prejudices that still exist to this day, amongst blacks and whites. In the land of Israel, there is a distrust among the inhabitants of the land, between Arab and Jew.

The Constitution instituted by Mosheh, was to bind people together in unity, not separate them. The law was written for the home born, the stranger, and the sojourner, who lived within the estates of Israel. However, the provision in the law was that the law was, “one law for all.” The stranger living within the borders of the commonwealth, was bound to its Constitution. The stranger was required to acknowledge the unity of Yahweh and to adhere to His Covenant if they wanted to be a citizen of its people or estates. They could become Hebrew and no longer a stranger if they acknowledged and swore to the Covenant. They became a son of Abraham through adoption. Their grafting into the family tree was through their adherence to the Covenant of Yahweh. The young as well as the old, was to adhere to the Covenant, if they wanted to be part of this mighty nation! It is imperative that our young people join themselves to the adults and learn the ways of Yahweh, His government, His Covenant of Peace!


The Covenant of Yahweh is the most important agreement made by the Creator for His  creation. The Covenant of Yahweh consists of many parts, which as a whole, make up the Covenant. Since many people know what a Constitution is, let’s use this vernacular and call this Covenant a Constitution. With this in mind, hopefully it will make it easier to understand what Yahweh was relaying to us through his servant Mosheh and Yahshua ben Nun. The Constitution was the written laws of this Covenant, which is documented, and it has the history recorded of those who followed and those who broke the Covenant. This recorded history is there for our learning. We find that Abraham is not recorded as one who wrote down the Covenant of Yahweh, but he did believe Yahweh and did what He was told according to the agreement he made under this Covenant. We are told this was accounted to him as righteousness.

Galatians 3:6Even as Abraham believed Yahweh, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Now the writings of the Apostle Shaul are sometimes hard to understand, but if you read this chapter that he wrote to the Galatians, he was showing that the Covenant of Yahweh that Abraham believed and followed, is the same Covenant that we are to believe and follow. It was the same Covenant that Yahshua followed. He was saying that we are blessed with the same belief as Abraham, the same ability to believe and be saved from death.  

Galatians 3:9 “So, those of the faith; are blessed with the same faith of Abraham.”

Abraham was taught within the Covenant agreement, that there would come from his lineage a man who would bring forth perfection, through the keeping of this Constitution. Yahshua’s perfection, took away the curse of the Law, which is death, by becoming a curse for us, sacrificed according to the law. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to have to die for our sins, and then be condemned, in order to be saved. We will die for sinning, but not to be saved, through dying. Yahweh is the father of the living, and we are saved while we are alive, even though we are dead from sinning!  

The Covenant of the Hebrew people, is a Constitution which was ratified and secured by the acknowledgment, by an oath, through repentance of transgression against the Covenant, (which is transgression against Yahweh) ratification through baptism, and then to convert, through obedience, to the Laws of the Covenant. Once the Constitution was ratified, it cannot be changed unless Yahweh changes it! Your sealing stands firm upon that seal. And the scripture says that Yahweh changes not, nor will change His Covenant!

Numbers 23:19 “Yahweh is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man that He should repent. What He has said, will He not do it? Or what He has spoken, will He not make it come to pass?”

II Timayah (Timothy) 2:19 “Nevertheless, the foundation of Yahweh stands sure, having this seal: the Yahweh knows those who are His, because: everyone who names the name of Messiah, departs from iniquity.”

The word foundation is word #2310 which means: 1) laid down as a foundation, the foundation (of a building, wall, city) 2) metaph. the foundations, beginnings, first principals a) of institution or system of truth. From #5087 which means: to set, fix establish, ordain.
The word seal is word#4973 which means: the seal; the seal placed upon books. A seal is a mark of authentication and ownership!

In this passage we see the foundation of Yahweh stands sure, it is immovable! It is the Covenant which is the foundation and it is everlasting. It is sealed within the books of the Law and the Prophets. It is a testament to who Yahweh is, and who we can become. It is authentic and owned by Yahweh, it is His book!

Isayah 34:16Seek you out of the Book of the Yahweh, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for My mouth it has commanded, and His spirit it has gathered them. And He has cast the lot for them, and His hand has divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.”

The written book has the decrees of judgment and restoration for those who follow it. Yahweh has cast lot for us, His mercy is our calling to Him, and His spirit gathers us. If we take hold of the Covenant and obey it, we shall possess it forever!

The promises of this Covenant, that would fulfill its obligations, were designed by Yahweh to come through one man, and one man only. What that means is that men never saved men. But the ONE SENT by Yahweh did offer salvation to mankind. He qualified for this position of an office, which carries authority, and is the only one at this time who has died and been restored in Yahweh’s creation, who has obtained a permanent office within the government of Yahweh. For any man on earth to brag or say that salvation only can come through him, or that he can offer an office to you by following him, would be scripturally described as a false witness, or prophet.

I Yahchanan 2:22 “Who is a liar but he that denies that Yahshua is the Messiah? He is anti-messiah, that denies the Father and the Son.”

This scripture is showing that those who deny, or reject, that Yahshua holds the office of Messiah or Anointed King/Priest in the government of Yahweh, holding this position of High Priest and High King, forever, within Yahweh’s government, is anti-government. Government is necessary for truth, justice, and equity. The Laws of Yahweh, His Covenant govern us. If we deny that Yahshua has obtained a position of High Priest and King within this government, then we are denying the authority of Yahweh and Yahshua. By denying Yahshua, you are also denying Yahweh’s government and the authority that the anointed ones hold. Yahweh is shown to be the Head over His government and His creation, and rightly so! But we know that all things have been put into Yahshua’s hands as ruling High Priest and High King within the government of Yahweh. If we deny that Yahshua holds the office of Messiah, which is defined as the office/order of Melchizedek (meaning, king of righteousness), then we are essentially denying the government of Yahweh.

The word liar is defined as: one who breaks faith. This faith is the same government that Yahweh showed Abraham, who believed and instituted this government within his family. It is the faith once delivered to the saints. This faith was re-affirmed in a dream, by the Patriarch, Yaaqob (Jacob).

Genesis 28:12 “And he dreamed 2492, and behold a ladder 5551 set up 5324 on the earth 776, and the top of it 7218 reached 5060 to heaven 8064: and behold the angels 4397 of mighty one 430  ascending 5927 and descending 3381 on it.

The word dreamed is #2492 which means: to dream; to be fat; to be healthy, strong, passing through .
The word ladder is #5551 from #5549 which means: to lift up, cast up, exalt; being elevated
The word set up is #5324 which means: to stand, take one's stand, stand upright, be set (over), establish.
The word earth is #776 which means: inhabitants of the earth, land; Anyones land is that which is subject to anyone.
The word top of it is #7218 which means: to be the head, leader to be over; chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest); whatever is highest and supreme, a prince of a people, the chief city, the highest place; the head or summit of a mountain.
The word reached is #5060 which means: reach unto; to strike; to touch.
The word heaven is #8064 which means: heaven and earth.
The word angels is #4397 which means: one sent; messenger; representative; a prophet, a priest, of Israel.
The word ascending is #5927 which means: to go up; those who go up to the sanctuary; go to prince or judges; metaphorically- to increase, to grow strong. To be elevated, to be exalted (used of Yahweh).
The word descending is #3381 which means: to go down; to be cast down, to fall; of those who from prosperity and affluence are cast down into poverty.

Yaaqob was shown the great government of Yahweh, and the role He would play in the establishment of His government, bringing forth the Chief and Head over this nation that Yahweh was establishing, as well as those who would ascend and descend in the great government of Yahweh, the House of Yahweh, a Hebrew nation. He realized that the government of Yahweh would come from his lineage and those who hold fast to the Covenant of Yahweh would be part of this great promise, given to Abraham. He realized what and who was the House of Yahweh, a family of those who reverence Yahweh, and respect righteous rulership.

Genesis 28:17 “And he was afraid 3372, and said 559, How dreadful 3372 [is] this place 4725! this [is] none other but the house 1004 of god 430, and this [is] the gate 8179 of heaven 8064.”

The word afraid is 3372 which means: to stand in awe of, be awed; to fear, reverence, honour, respect.
The word place is #4725 which means: standing place, place; a town or village, the town of shechem. Place of anyone is his abode, habitation. From #6965 which means: to arise; to raise up, constitute; to make valid, confirm. To make a covenant.
The word house is #1004 which means: house; family of descendants; descendants as an organized body. Offspring, progeny.
The word god is #430 which means: rulers, judges; divine ones; messengers; mighty ones; god.
The word gate is #8179 which means: gate; at the gates of the city was the forum where trials were held, and the citizens assembled, some for business, leisure, conversation, whence in the gate refers to, in judgment; AHLB-Entrance into a city, as well as the activities carried out there such as marketing and judging.
The word heaven is #8064 which means: heaven, as the abode of Yahweh. Abode is defined as: a place in which one lives. The place where a person or organization can be found or communicated with.

Yaaqob, stood in awe and respect of Yahweh and its place of governing. He was shown the place of Yahweh, where judgment was given, by the judges and rulers. There he entered, by an oath, into the Covenant of Yahweh which was revealed to him, just as to his father Isaac, and his forefather, Abraham.

The inheritance of this Covenant is restricted upon our actions of keeping the Covenant. Our inheritance is Yahshua Messiah, Yahshua Messiah’s inheritance is us. He kept the Covenant, and we are obligated to walk exactly as He walked, according to the Covenant. If we were to inherit eternal life, outside of the Covenant, by adding or taking away from the Covenant, then the inheritance is not from the promise, nor would we receive anything from Yahweh! Because the Covenant has already written that we receive the promise of eternal life through Yahshua, in our obedience to the Covenant, we can’t receive it any other way. Yahshua was the example for us, that is, if you believe that Yahshua lived, walked according to the Covenant, died, and was resurrected/restored according to the Covenant.

The 2nd volume of the book of the Testament of the Covenant, commonly referred to as the New Testament, is not new, but a renewing of this Covenant vow to Yahweh. The Law of the Covenant of Yahweh had to be restored by Messiah, because it had become ancient and old and replaced by the traditions of men. So while it might have seemed new to those who had not read it or practiced it, it was not new to Yahshua called Messiah. Instead of keeping the Covenant, once delivered to the saints, they (Pharisees) were keeping their interpretations of the Covenant, based on hundreds of years of commentary by rabbis who had come out of Babylon. The Covenant that Yahweh gave to those called, Hebrew, is an everlasting Covenant.

Judges 2:1 “And an angel of the Yahweh came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, “I swore unto your fathers; and I said, I WILL NEVER BREAK MY COVENANT WITH YOU.”

I don’t think you can get any plainer than that.
Never is defined as: Not ever; on no occasion; at no time. Not at all; in no way; absolutely not.
Never is word #5769 which means: 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world a) ancient time, long time (of past) b) (of future) 1) for ever, always 2) continuous existence, perpetual 3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity. AHLB- #2544- Beyond the field of vision of time and space.

The word perpetual means: 1. Lasting for eternity. 2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time. 3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: ex: a treaty of perpetual friendship. 4. Continuing without interruption.

This is important for those who say they follow the Holy Scriptures which are a writ of the Covenant of Yahweh. This Covenant is forever. It cannot be altered, changed, or amended in any way by anyone for it to be everlasting. Only Yahweh can change it, because it is his creation. He has already stated in no uncertain terms, that this Covenant will never be changed. He made sure to establish this in the Covenant, so that He would be found to be true, and every man a liar, who says that they can follow this Covenant by their design.

Deuteronomy 4:2You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish form it, that you may keep the commandments of the Yahweh your mighty one, which I command you.”

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

Deuteronomy 4:13,14He declared to you His Covenant which He commanded you to follow, Ten Commandments He wrote on two tablets of stone. And Yahweh commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.”

Now think about what you just read from the Covenant! You shall not add to it, nor take away from it, or you can’t be a part of it! The contract is quite simple. You follow it, the way it is written, you can’t add to it, nor take away from it! You don’t have the authority to do it, because you never wrote the Covenant, Yahweh did! We are simply agreeing to follow it! So why would anyone think that the Son of the Father who wrote the Covenant would change something that He doesn’t have the authority to change? No where can you find in this Covenant/contract, that anyone has the authority to change it! You will not find a provision that Yahweh will send His Son, later on, to change His Covenant/contract! Yahweh has promised that HE WILL NOT BREAK HIS WORD!

Romans 3:3-8 “For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of Yahweh without effect? Yahweh forbid: yea, let Yahweh be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, ‘that you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged’. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of Yahweh, what shall we say? Is Yahweh unrighteous who takes vengeance? Yahweh forbid: for then how shall Yahweh judge the world? For if the truth of Yahweh has more abounded through my lie unto His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that righteousness may come? whose damnation is just.”

We are shown by the writings in Romans, that we are the ones who have broken our word to the Covenant, Yahweh has never broken His. And He proves this by giving us opportunities even after we break the Covenant. Yes, that’s right, He has the option once we break the Covenant to cut us off from the promise of the Covenant, but in His mercy, is forgiving and allows us entrance back into covenant with Him, through His mediator, His Son, Yahshua called Messiah. If not for Yahshua, we would be cut off without a way back into Covenant relationship with Him! Yahweh does not use our sins to glorify Himself! If He did, He would have to abandon His Covenant, with its judgments. Only He can abandon the Covenant, because He is the author and creator of it, and is the only one who has the authority to change, alter, abridge, or annul it!

The Pharisees who sat in Mosheh’s office of governing the people had the authority to do what is required and taught by the Covenant, but they rejected it in its fullness and completeness, because of their own lusts for power and authority. In their lust they rejected the ONE SENT to them and the people, who would and could have established the kingdom of Yahweh, in all its power and glory during their time. But it was not time yet for this Covenant to be completed, and had Yahshua done this, then the Gentiles would not have been given an opportunity to enter into this great and awesome government. Remember this Covenant is Yahweh’s plan, a plan of governing, which is done according to time, space and purpose. We can see that throughout the scriptures that certain parts of the plan were fulfilled at certain times within a timeline that Yahweh established within His Covenant.

Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Yahweh, mighty one, made in earth and the heavens.”

The word generations is #8435 which means: 1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies a) account of men and their descendants 1) genealogical list of one's descendants 2) one's contemporaries 3) course of history (of creation etc) b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph). AHLB- #1257- the bearing of children.

At this time the children of Yahweh have not entered the place where Yahshua dwells. But Yahshua is in the place where Yahweh dwells. This will not take place for us, until Yahweh fulfills all things according to His plan. Yahshua fulfilled his appointment, in its appointed time, according to the plans of the Covenant. We are all written within this Covenant, this plan of governmental rulership, that is, if we follow the Covenant.

Isayah 32:1Behold a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.”

There is commentary in the Ryrie Study Bible that gives us a clear commentary on this scripture, that is in line with the Covenant relationship, and what it represents in the plan of Yahweh.

Ryrie Study Bible, page 1004: “A picture of the ideal King and government, fully realized only in Messiah when He comes again to establish His righteous government on earth.”

Reading further concerning this prophesied government we find the following:

Isayah 1:26 “And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning: afterward you shall be called, the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”

Ryrie Study Bible, page 971: “These prophecies will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom.

Our ideal King is Yahshua called Messiah. And if we want to rule with Him as His princes, we must walk exactly as He walked, according to the Covenant that He followed. Judgment must first take place in order for the proper restoration of what is called the Messianic kingdom, to be accomplished.

I Kepha (Peter) 4:17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of Yahweh: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Covenant of Yahweh?”

Notice Kepha said, “the time is come,” meaning judgment began first with those who obey the Covenant of Yahweh! All the prophets and righteous people before Yahshua, were judged by the same Covenant that we are all being judged by! There is not two Covenants or two ways into the Kingdom of Yahweh, or two different sets of judgment. Yahshua spoke of only one way, one kingdom, one judgment against us!

The word gospel, properly translated as Covenant here in this scripture in I Kepha 4:17, is word #2098 which means: “the glad tidings of the kingdom of Yahweh soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Yahshua the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Messiah, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Yahshua Messiah, as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of Yahweh, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of Yahweh in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of Yahweh.

Yahchanan Mark (Mark) 9:5,7, 37 “And Kepha answered and said to Yahshua, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for you, and one for Mosheh, and one for Eliyah. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.”

Yeremyah 32:39And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their after them.”

The glad tidings are the body of the laws, which is the glad tidings of this Covenant! They are the laws which are used in judgment at a house of Yahweh, us, the living body of believers. This is talking about people, not religious organizations, or corporations. Kepha was not talking about a 501c3, religious organization, he was talking about each individual, where judgment is placed upon them by their obedience to the Covenant of Yahweh. Kepha made it clear as to what he was speaking of in the preceding verses. The KJV has the Covenant written as the oracles of Yahweh.

I Kepha 4:11 “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of Yahweh, if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which Yahweh gives, that Yahweh in all things may be glorified through Yahshua Messiah, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. So be it.”

Acts 7:38This is He, that was in the assembly in the wilderness with the malak which spoke to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.

Ryrie Study Bible, page 1551, “the church in the wilderness. Literally, the assembly in the wilderness; i.e., the gathering of the people to receive the law. The word translated church (or congregation, assembly, or gathering,) is used in the N.T. as 4 kinds of groups:
1.) The children of Israel gathered as a nation;
2.) townspeople assembled in a town meeting.
3.) in a technical sense, all believes who are gathered together in the one body of Messiah, the church universal, and
4.)most frequently, in reference to a local group of professing believers.”

We can see that Mosheh was sent as a judge and ruler to present the Covenant, write the Constitution, the righteous government and give it to a nation. Yahshua called Messiah, did the same thing, and like Mosheh, He was rejected. Yahshua restored the Covenant to the people in His teachings and instruction.

Yahchanan Mark (Mark) 9:7 “And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.”

In the Hebrew the word defined, beloved, comes from the word, David: Hebrew word #1732- beloved.

Isayah 55:3 “Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.”

Yeremyah 33:15 “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.”

Judgment and righteousness comes from through the Covenant of Yahweh.

Yeremyah 33:20-22 “Thus saith the Yahweh; If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season. Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.”

The word night is #3915 which means: protective shadow.
Yahshua’s reign upon the throne, was the institution and restoration of the Covenant of Yahweh.

Yechetzqyah (Ezekiel) 37:24 “And David my servant