The Demands of the Divine
Today, in our Tri-V series on “Biblical Studies for Nobles”…
(The bold is mine):
Our scripture lesson makes clear that God was pleased when Solomon, confronted with a choice of ‘what would you like—I the Lord am ready to bless you,’ he chose neither wealth nor military prowess nor length of days, nor anything else, but ‘give therefore Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad. For who is able to judge this, Thy so great a people?’ Now Solomon simply said, to put it into modern language, ‘ I want to be the chief justice of the land, with the utmost wisdom and ability possible, able to discern between good and bad, able to judge and to assess the evidence. Now, this pleased the Lord because this was, of course, the primary function of the chief magistrate of any country, whether a judge or governor or (to use the modern term) president or premier or a king, or whatever he might have been called in antiquity. It was the chief function of the head of state until fairly recent times.
As a matter of fact, we forget, because language obscures it, that the term, ‘The King’s Court,’ and ‘courtier’ originally referred to a court of justice. The King’s Court was the final court of appeals. This was the main function of a king in the Middle Ages. He heard all the cases of appeal. A king in antiquity and until fairly modern times, or a head of state, had two functions: 1) to be the military leader in case of war, which mean that was an occasional function, and 2) to be the chief justice of the land. This was his function. If he failed in this function (as King Richard II did), he was booted out of office. His primary function was to be chief justice, to hear every case of appeal.
And the first case of appeal that was cited with respect to Solomon in the passage immediately following was the case of the two prostitutes, one of whose children had died. This is a very revealing story because it indicates that in ancient times, whether the ruler was a pharaoh or a king or whatever, his function was to hear the case of any and everybody, no matter how insignificant a person, on appeal.
We know why monarchy disappeared, or you should have guessed by now from what I have said. When the king’s court became a center of fashion and Richard II who got booted out of office in England, began to make his court a place for the ladies and for poets and for musicians. It ended his value to the nation. He was useless. And when king’s courts became what we think of as a king’s court, a place for the minuet and for balls rather than a place of justice, monarchy was finished. It had become an expensive toy for the nation. It had no function left. It disappeared.
Other forms took their place. And at this point, we come to a question that is very important to us. According to Biblical Law, the chief justice, the final court of appeals, is the chief magistrate of the land.
Now when the United States was set out, the president was made the chief magistrate. Some years ago, when I was working with a foundation, I spent a great deal of time writing a study of what the early American presidents, through Lincoln to Andrew Johnson felt about their office. The Constitution was a little vague here. It reflected the changing times. The office was not precisely defined. And many scholars will tell you that the office of the Supreme Court was not properly defined and they will add that John Marshall usurped the power of judicial review. This isn’t entirely true, but there is an element of truth to it.
In this study, which some day if there’s interest, I may add to and publish, I found that the presidents through Buchanan, but not Lincoln, and then very definitely Johnson and Hayes (but not Grant), saw the presidential office basically as not an administrative office so much as a kind of chief justice. The power of the veto was construed as constitutional review of legislation. The basic questions they dealt with were questions of what were the Constitutional powers of the Federal government. Thus, prior to Lincoln, every president vetoed every attempt by the Federal government to appropriate money for roads—highway funds. Why? It was unconstitutional. Not that they didn’t like the idea; it was unconstitutional. And they were a judge of these things. This is why also (and you have this in the Constitution), the president has the power of pardon. This is a relic of his judicial function, in that he can issue pardons as the supreme justice of the land, in cases where injustice has prevailed.
Now in ancient times, what about the administrative functions of a king or a pharaoh or someone else? The administrative functions were regarded as basically minor. Who handled them? Why, the slaves or the eunuchs or the women of the harem. This was their function. These were clerical chores, nothing for the chief magistrate to be concerned with, because his duty was justice.
Now we can see what has happened to the United States by tracing the interpretation presidents have put upon their office. From that of chief magistrate, chief judge, whose duty is to see to the fact of justice, and this is why people used to write letters to the president if there was any injustice, and remember Mrs. Bixby’s letter to Lincoln along the same lines? They wrote letters because they regarded him as the main (head) judge of the country. But when presidents began to see their office as administrative, the country began to change. Why? Because when the head of State is the chief justice, his function is justice to the people. When he becomes an administrative officer, it is then to govern the people and to control them, and then power begins to accrue to him; because if he is administrative, then he enhances his office by furthering powers over the people. He becomes a bureaucrat; ruling over a bureaucracy, whose function it is to govern the people. The centrality of administration is a dangerous thing.
Machiavelli saw this. Machiavelli, when he was a civil servant in Florence, tells us of the power he and other underpaid clerks, who had barely enough to live on, exercised over the most powerful men in Florence, including the Medici. How? Well, administration had developed and there were licenses and fees and permits and things that were beginning to be required. And what did he and his fellow civil servants do? They would look and see, here comes Pietro so-and-so, one of the big wheels in Florence, a rich man. He’s got everything I don’t have. I’m going to give it to him! So they would shuffle through the papers and say, well, I’m sorry, your papers are lost. We’ll see what we can do to locate them, but meanwhile there’s nothing you can do about your construction, or nothing you can do about getting your business permit, we’ll work on it. And they would keep the poor man dancing attendance, coming back and forth and begging them to do something to get this matter straightened out. And they would enjoy their power. Machiavelli realized the power that the merest underling can have when administration becomes central. But in the Bible, the basic function of the State is not administration; it is to be a ministry of justice. It has next to no powers of administration—very little.
It is a significant fact, and a commentary on our time, that Solomon, who asked for wisdom to discern justice, is not known to us as a judge, but is known for his harem. It says something about us, and it says something about the Church that they can preach about this passage and not point out the significance of it as far as the office of Solomon was concerned. It was this that built up Solomon’s power and made him famous and made Israel the center of world trade. Why? It was a place where justice was sure.
We know from the records of various archeologists and scholars who’ve dug up all kinds of records that the trade of the world flowed through Israel and it became a center of commerce—commerce from India, commerce from all portions of Europe, including almost certainly Britain and Scotland, and there are one or two scholars who believe that his ships (because there is a record that they made three-year journeys), came to Mexico and Peru and brought silver back to Israel. We know that we’re told that silver became suddenly very common in Solomon’s reign. There was no source of silver in the Old World, enough to make silver that cheap. But Solomon’s justice, his ability as the chief justice of the land, to assure on appeal that justice would be meted out to everyone; slave and master, foreign-born and citizen alike, brought businesses, traders, people from all over the world to Israel to make Israel the center of world commerce and a place of almost unbelievable prosperity. Justice insured this.
The wisdom of Solomon, therefore, was nothing abstract. It was practical, geared to the courts. The Book of Proverbs, we cannot understand unless we see that the proverbs are comments of a judge distilling wisdom in relationship to the courts. This, then, is the central function of the State, to be related essentially to justice.
Another point, a sixth point with respect to the procedure of the court, the arrest could be made on the Sabbath, as Numbers 15:32-36 makes clear, but trials could only be held during other days of the week. This, like other aspects of Biblical Law, has passed into America Law so that in American Law, an offender may not be tried or convicted on Sunday, although he may be arrested, committed, or discharged by a magistrate on a Sunday.
A seventh point with regard to the procedure of Biblical Law was the right to a speedy trial, to justice without delay.
And then finally, according to Biblical Law, the judge was not an impartial referee. He was a partisan champion of God’s Law. He was to be impartial with respect to men, without favor to rich or to poor, to high or to low, but to be partial with respect to God’s Law. It was the duty of judges to bring God’s justice to bear on every situation. In the words of I Chronicles [II Chronicles] 6:23, “…by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness.” The court, thus, was central to the State in Biblical Law and the head of State was the chief justice of the land, whose basic function was justice, not the manipulation of people.The Ninth Commandment
Procedures of the Court
Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony
The bolded words, transcribed as points:
- The Noble is the judge, and is expected to judge aright.
- The Noble leads the military, and leads the court.
- The Noble hears all cases on appeal, regardless of how important or unimportant the victim.
- When the Court becomes a centre of fashion, status display and primping, and not a centre of justice and military command, then the Court is dead.
- In the early United States, there were some questions on whether the President or the Supreme Court determined what was unconstitutional. Certainly, Congress could remove a Supreme Court judge: but note that Eisenhower refused to intervene when the Court began to rewrite the laws.
Eisenhower promised Gov. Earl Warren the first opening on the Supreme Court if Warren delivered California at the Republican convention. Warren did — easy-peasy. Then the Chief Justice died.Sucker Play: The Supreme Court Card
Earl Warren knew what kind of power he wanted. It wasn’t the power of the guns and the armies: that could be left to the beloved war hero.
- The slaves and the women handle administration in the ancient courts, and safety-seeking bureaucrats today… and the Vilani and the Bwap of the far future.
How many Imperial Courts are run by non-chattel1 slaves and women and the occasional robot? That’s something for the Referee to decide.
- The Noble as the source of justice, is not the same as the Noble as the source of administration, “to govern the people and to control them”. One form of authority promotes liberty and justice under God, and the other promotes slavery and oppression For The Greater Good.
And we all know which kind of rule the Vilani prefer. And not just the Vilani, either.
- Pleasing bureaucratic underlings matter in governments focused on the centralized control of everything. In governments where justice (or war) is the focus… not so much.
- “It is a significant fact, and a commentary on our time, that Solomon, who asked for wisdom to discern justice, is not known to us as a judge, but is known for his harem. It says something about us, and it says something about the Church that they can preach about this passage and not point out the significance of it as far as the office of Solomon was concerned.”
There was a time when I’d be suspicious on this point, and consider the possibility that the priests and the pastors and the seminary were suppressing information that the laymen shouldn’t worry his little head about.
I don’t think this is true, anymore. Today, it’s more likely that the Christian clergymen2 are simply flat-out ignorant about what the Bible teaches. The seminaries have done their job well:
“One hundred percent safe baby milk about love and kindness;
one hundred percent free of dangerous meat about justice and law.”
Meanwhile, Our Betters – who despise God, liberty, and justice – laugh and laugh.
- The wisdom of Solomon, grounded in the law of God, meant actual, predictable, enforced justice for impoverished prostitutes and wealthy traders alike.
- The Noble is to be impartial and even-handed to the people before him: but not in regard to God and His Law-Word. That word sets the stage, and lays down the ground rules.
- Justice for the People – not Manipulating and Managing the People – is to be the core function of the Noble.
The Vilani Alternative
Note that all of the above necessarily comes from the Solomani viewpoint.
The Vilani, ‘who never heard of Moses’ (as the saying goes),
- has precious little interest in justice per se;
- frankly dismisses any and all claims of a law-code above that of the Proper Authorities;
- see no difference between “liberty” and “destructive, lawless anarchy”;
- and views the Individual as value only in as much as he serves the Collective;
but, in contrast,
- have a great interest in social stability and cultural unity;
- values steady and predictable wealth generation;
- strives to the goal of efficient management of the masses as a collective unit;
- is more than willing to gain universal compliance with every possible tool3, certainly including genocide and forcible personality reconstruction.
Reducing the rate of “the costly waste of unnecessary change and uncontrolled innovation” is also of profound value in Vilani eyes.
1Chattel slavery is banned within the Imperium. Other forms of slavery? Not so much.
2True: the scientists simply aren’t any better, as our Public Health Experts have gleefully demonstrated, at a steep cost to the public (and not themselves).
Drug companies sounded an alarm several years ago. They were concerned that an increasing proportion of clinical trials was failing, and that much of their research effort was being wasted. When they looked into the reasons for their lack for success, they realized that they were basing projects on scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals, on the assumption that most of the results were reliable. But when they looked more closely, they found that most of these papers, even those in top-tier academic journals, were not reproducible. In 2011, German researchers in the drug company Bayer found in an extensive survey that more than 75% of the published findings could not be validated.
In 2012, scientists at the American drug company Amgen published the results of a study in which they selected 53 key papers deemed to be “landmark” studies and tried to reproduce them. Only 6 (11%) could be confirmed.The Replicability Crisis in Science from
Nature, September 1, 2015.
I would argue that science and it’s Replicability Crisis — and the rampant incompetence (and corruption/deceit) regarding COVID-19 — is just an echo of the core of the problem, the spiritually-rooted contempt for truth, law, and justice coupled with a repulsive grovelling before Certified Authority.
<Waves to the seminaries.>
3There is one limit, interestingly enough: psionics is seen as far to disruptive and unpredictable to tolerate, even as a tool to enforce the Consensus.