Abrahamic Covenant — The Abrahamic Covenant is one of the Biblical Covenants. It appears roughly in Genesis 11:10-25:11, but these fourteen chapters should be divided into Biblical law and Biblical fact, with the understanding that a Biblical Covenant is a type of Biblical law. The offer feedback loop for the Abrahamic Covenant appears in Genesis 12:1-3, 7-8; 13:13-18; & 14:17-15:21. The Covenant, with its specific terms, appears in Genesis 17:1-27. The terms are clarified in Genesis 18:1-15; 21:1-4; & 21:9-21. The Abrahamic Covenant is a blood Covenant, as indicated in Genesis 15:9-10. It is the first local Covenant in Scripture, indicated by Genesis 17:9-10. The only Biblical law that we classify as statutory in Genesis 11:10-25:11 appears in Abraham’s last will and testament, in Genesis 25:5-6. Biblical law in Genesis 11:10-25:11 that we classify as case law appears in Genesis 14:1-16; 16:6-16; 18:16-19:29; 20:1-7; & 22:1-18. Passages in Genesis 11:10-25:11 that we classify as Biblical facts appear in Genesis 11:10-29; 30-32; 12:4-6; 12:9-13:2; 13:3-12; 16:1-5; 19:30-38; 20:8-18; 21:5-8; 21:22-34; 22:19-24; 23:1-20; 24:1-67; 25:1-4; & 25:7-11. The remainder of Genesis contains Biblical law and Biblical fact pertinent to the Abrahamic Covenant, but it contains no new Covenantal terms. At best, the Biblical law in the remainder of Genesis contains statutory law that clarifies the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. — We believe that the terms of the global covenant are implicitly incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant. We also believe that all subsequent blood Covenants in Scripture implicitly incorporate the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant, because each blood Covenant is essentially a set of amendments to the pre-existing, "everlasting" covenant.

absolute ownership — Because our concept of land that is lawfully allodial is more free from encumbrances than land in conventional or feudal jurisprudence, we distinguish conventional absolute ownership from our concept of absolute ownership typographically. See "5th Amendment (Original Intent)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_1_Am_V_(​Original_Intent​).htm​#AbsoluteTitle.

absolute title — Because our concept of land that is lawfully allodial is more free from encumbrances than land in conventional or feudal jurisprudence, we distinguish conventional absolute title from our concept of absolute title typographically. See "5th Amendment (Original Intent)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_1_Am_V_(​Original_Intent​).htm​#AbsoluteTitle.

Adamic Covenant — The Adamic Covenant is the first in the chronological sequence of Biblical blood Covenants. It appears in Genesis 3:1-24. As a blood Covenant, it is a set of amendments to a pre-existing Covenant (the Edenic Covenant). It is global, meaning that it applies to all human beings and has a universal in personam jurisdiction. Even so, it contains no terms that demand or prescribe human law. This Covenant therefore pertains more to understanding the basic attributes of the human condition than it does to understanding how humans should regulate one-another’s behaviors. It is revealed eternal law (divine law) that pertains to the moral sphere, but not directly to the jural or ecclesiastical spheres. — The Adamic Covenant is essentially a compact between humanity and HaSatan, with remedial amendments to the Edenic Covenant that are established by God. — Genesis 3:1-5 is the offer feedback loop for this compact between humanity and HaSatan. Genesis 3:9-13 is God listening mercifully to the rationalizations of the humans, rather than destroying them totally as indicated in Genesis 2:17. This listening is essentially an offer feedback loop for the establishing of the Adamic blood Covenant. Genesis 3:14-15 is the penalty for HaSatan, which is a set of terms of the Adamic Covenant. Genesis 3:16 are the penalty / terms for the woman. Genesis 3:17-19 are the penalty / terms for the man. In Genesis 3:20, the man renamed the woman to indicate that all subsequent human beings would suffer the conditions of the Adamic Covenant. In Genesis 3:21, God clothes the people with the skins of dead animals, which is why this is a blood Covenant. Genesis 3:22-24 are terms that are essentially passed as penalties to all subsequent humanity.

alienate — It’s necessary to use a customized definition of alienate. This is because the legal definition pertains primarily to real property, and also because it pertains especially to transfer of property from one person to another. In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word – which is concerned more about estrangement and less about whatever entity receives the estranged object, or how it is estranged – we define alienate as to lose or estrange any kind of primary or secondary property, regardless of how or to whom it is estranged. We distinguish conventional alienate from our concept of alienate typographically.

analogy-of-faith hermeneutic — The "analogy of faith" is the fundamental principle established by the "Magisterial Reformers" (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.) in their set of guidelines for interpreting Scripture. It is "the fundamental axiom that should govern all biblical interpretation". 2 This principle holds that the Bible interprets itself because it is the inspired Word of God, and therefore is marked by complete rational integrity. Because this is the fundamental principle of Reformation hermeneutics, this expression, "analogy of faith", is often used as a synonym for the Reformed Hermeneutic. 3 — This hermeneutic is foundational to the hermeneutics we use to interpret Scripture, where such interpretation has been crucial in writing the hermeneutical prologue, the theodicy, and the inventory. The Reformed Hermeneutic is primarily topical, and leads to impeccable understanding of the attributes of God and mankind’s fundamental place under God’s sovereignty. In the hermeneutical prologue, we show how to extend the Reformed Hermeneutic through chronological reading of Scripture to show how Scripture prescribes human law.

anarcho-capitalism — Anarcho-capitalism is a class of social, political, legal, and economic philosophy that holds that society should and could develop based entirely on free market principles. In other words, normal functions of secular government, such as "police, legal systems, judicial services, law enforcement, prisons", etc., would, under this kind of system, develop out of consensual free market processes and relationships rather than as functions of "the State". The most prominent exponent of this philosophy is Murray Rothbard, an Austrian School economist and "libertarian". — Quotes are from Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Chapter 12, "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts", pp. 219-246. This book is available on the internet at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website, URL: http://mises.org/​rothbard/​foranewlb.pdf.

animism — "The doctrine of the reality of souls. 1. Anthropology: (a)the view that souls are attached to all things either as their inner principle of spontaneity or activity, or as their dwellers. (b)the doctrine that Nature is inhabited by various grades of spirits. (s. Spiritism). 2. Biology, Psychology: the view that the ground of life is immaterial soul rather than the material body. 3. Metaphysics: the theory that Being is animate, living, ensouled (s. Hylozoism, Personalism, Monadism). 4. Cosmology: the view that the World and the astronomical bodies possess souls (s. World Soul)." 4 — Belief in the Trinity, and in the trichotomy, compel belief that the universe is indeed alive, because God is immanent within it. But they also compel belief that all the happenings in the universe are providential, and are not separable from the will of the singular transcendent God. Because animism virtually never recognizes the Trinity, divine providence, the trichotomy of human perception and action, or the transcendence of God, we believe it is an inherently erroneous doctrine.

antinomian — "1. Of or relating to the doctrine of antinomianism. 2. Opposed to or denying the fixed meaning or universal applicability of moral law" 5 — "a member of a Christian sect which held that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law, is necessary for salvation." 6 — "one that holds that under the gospel dispensation the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation" 7

antinomianism — "1. Theology The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace. 2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal." 8 — "Antinomianism, meaning lawlessness, is the idea that members of a particular religious group ascribe to a theology that effectively removes any obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality. . . . It comes from the Greek anti + nomia (against law) or anomia, which literally means lawlessness. . . . usually used in a pejorative sense" 9 — "The term is used . . . to designate freedom from law or compulsion or external regulation to human living." 10

approach — By approach, we usually mean hermeneutic, although we might on some occasions mean exegesis.

atonement — In its narrowest sense, atonement is the work that Meshiach did in surrendering Himself as a sacrificial lamb, dying, and paying for the sins of the elect. In a less narrow sense, it includes other things that Yeshua HaMeshiach did in His earthly life to redeem the elect. In its broadest sense, it includes all the christophanies in the "Old Testament".

Babel — Pertaining to the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11:1-9.

Biblical Covenant — A formal agreement between God and creation, especially between God and human beings, as recorded in Scripture. It is a special type of b’rit. B’rit appears about 280 times in the Hebrew Bible, and it pertains to an agreement between people, or between people and God. When a b’rit is primarily between people, we call it a b’rit / syntheke because it is essentially a contract. When a b’rit is primarily between God and people, we call it a b’rit / diatheke, because God is both a party and the Author of the agreement. This latter type of b’rit is what we call a Biblical Covenant. — There are basically six Biblical Covenants: Edenic, Adamic, Noachian, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Messianic. 11 With the exception of the Edenic Covenant, these are all blood Covenants. They are essentially aggregate passages that are legally so important that they exist at a constitutional level of Biblical law. As such, they are controls for understanding the rest of Scripture. These Biblical Covenants build on one another chronologically. In other words, the Edenic Covenant is like the initial constitution in the Bible. Each subsequent blood Covenant is like a set of amendments to the existing constitution.

Biblical fact — The distinction between law and fact is crucial to any jurisprudence. It’s foolish to think that Biblical jurisprudence is an exception to this rule. So the distinction between Biblical law and Biblical fact is crucial to a reliable understanding of Scripture. The distinction between a Biblical fact and an ordinary fact lies in the mechanisms relied upon to establish the fact. Ordinary facts are established as true, i.e., they are verified, through physical and psychic data. In other words, the combination of reason, raw perception, and testimonies of trusted witnesses establishes what humans accept as ordinary facts. But when we use the expression, Biblical fact, we are not talking primarily about reason, raw perception, or testimonies of witnesses. Instead, we are talking about truth claims made by Scripture. Scripture does not posit such truth claims primarily as law. They are posited primarily as historical facts. — A Biblical fact is a subset of the divine law. The distinction between Biblical law and Biblical fact is crucial to the chronological exegesis, and much less so to the topical exegeses. See "Preface", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawFact.

Biblical law — We see Scripture as divisible into passages that are essentially Biblical law, and passages that are essentially Biblical fact. 12 We divide Biblical law into constitutional law (composed of the Biblical Covenants), statutory law, and case law. Biblical facts contribute to the understanding of Biblical law in a manner that’s analogous to the way ordinary facts contribute to a court’s deciding ordinary case law (At the common law, the judge decides what laws apply to a case. The jury decides the facts of the case. If necessary, the judge massages the law in the light of the jury’s decision.). So Biblical facts are an essential aspect of the divine law, but Biblical law is the divine law’s control for understanding Biblical facts. The distinction between Biblical law and Biblical fact is most crucial to the chronological exegesis, and much less so to the topical exegeses. See "Preface", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawFact.

blood Covenant — A blood Covenant is a Biblical Covenant in which one or more animals are ritually sacrificed in a blood-letting ceremony as an offering to God, as part of the covenant’s offer feedback loop. These are the blood Covenants (with some proof citations): (i)Adamic (Genesis 3:21); (ii)Noachian (Genesis 8:20); (iii)Abrahamic (Genesis 15:9-10); (iv)Mosaic (Exodus 12:1-7); (v)Messianic (Matthew 27:34-44; John 1:29). — There are other Biblical Covenants that are not blood Covenants: Edenic Covenant (Genesis 1-2); the Covenant with Ishmael (Genesis 16:6-16); the Covenant with David (2Samuel 7:1-17); and the Covenant with Jeroboam (1Kings 11:29-39). The Edenic Covenant is exceptional because it has a legal status akin to a constitution, where the blood Covenants are akin to sets of amendments to the constitution. The other Biblical Covenants are akin to statutes and case law that implement and interpret the constitutional law. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #26.

bloodguilt — By bloodguilt we mean guilt for perpetrating bloodshed.

bloodshed — This is a moniker we use to designate the underlying concept indicated in Genesis 9:6. We believe the shed blood in Genesis 9:6 should not be understood as limited to literal shed blood. This is because severe damage, even death, can be brought against a human being without the literal shedding of blood. So we believe the shed blood of Genesis 9:6 is metaphorical, which is also indicated in Genesis 9:4, which equates life with blood. We believe the underlying concept designated by the metaphor is much more complex than the literal shedding of human blood. It designates death, damage, or injury perpetrated by one person against another (including the other’s property). Because threats can be so debilitating, we believe that serious threats must also be understood to be bloodshed. — Bloodshed is a metaphorical expression that generally designates death, damage, and/or injury perpetrated by one party against another. Such death, damage, and/or injury can arise in two fundamental ways: either (i)through the perpetration of a delict, an act that is malum in se that results in a dead, damaged, injured, or seriously threatened party; or (ii)through the violation of a contractual agreement. Because serious threats that pose a clear and present danger are inherently debilitating, we consider them a form of damage and injury. Legal actions that derive from bloodshed are always either ex delicto or ex contractu. We believe that all bloodshed is either out of a delict or out of a contract. Bloodshed is trespass against someone’s ownership of his/her physical body and/or other physical property, where such ownership is a right (which may encompass a contractual privilege), and where such trespass is either delictual or contractual, and where such trespass is malum in se. The range of punishments and remedies for bloodshed arising out of a delict are retribution, restitution, and injunction. The range of punishments and remedies for bloodshed arising out of a contract are either implicit or explicit in the contract. Delicts can either be gross (meaning that they are obvious to multiple people and are generally penalized through retribution) or subtle (meaning that they tend to be more on the private side and are generally penalized through restitution or injunction). — In addition to bloodshed perpetrated by non-governmental authorities, we consider slavery, all forms of legalized involuntary servitude, and all violations of property rights that are endorsed or protected by governmental authorities, to be institutionalized bloodshed – bloodshed perpetrated under color of law. — See (i)Maxims of the Global Covenant / #30; (ii)"Article I § 2 cl 3 / slavery", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_0_Art_I_Sec_1-7.htm​#Slavery; (iii)"Article III § 2 cl 1 (Unconscionable Contracts) / suicide", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_1_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Uncon_Con​).htm​#Suicide; and (iv)"Article III § 2 cl 1 (Injunctions) / more bloodshed", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_2_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Injunct​).​htm​#MoreBloodshed.

bloodshed police power — According to our understanding of the global covenant, there is a radical distinction between two different types of police power: (i) police power that enforces laws against bloodshed, and (ii) police powers that "regulate" everything else. We call the first type of police power, bloodshed police power. See "10th Amendment / police power", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PolicePower.

born again — Same as regeneration.

calling — Scripture makes it clear that God calls people to be and do certain things (Romans 11:29; 1Corinthians 7:20; Ephesians 1:18; Philippians 3:14; 2Timothy 1:8-11; etc.). Given our analyses and definitions of rights, privileges, and disabilities, it’s reasonable to believe that such a calling is a feature of each such person’s set of privileges and disabilities. We mark this feature as a calling.

canon — "The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that belong in the Bible." 13 — For more information about what we agree is the reliable canon, and therefore divine law, see Systematic Theology, pp. 54-68.

chance — "1. Property of being undetermined. 2. Property of being predictable according to the laws of probability." 14 — Anyone who believes that God is sovereign necessarily also believes that He is sovereign over everything that happens in time and space, and over everything that humans can choose or will. Therefore, there is no such thing as chance in the realm of eternal law: (i)Everything is determined by God’s will; and (ii)God has no need for "laws of probability" because everything happens according to His sovereign will. But human perception is extremely fallible, and it’s often extremely difficult for us to understand how things work. So we use "laws of probability" as mental constructs to help us to understand. As long as we understand that chance exists only in the human mind, but not in nature, it is useful in helping us to grasp the "laws of nature", our understanding of which is a subset of natural law. But whenever we believe that chance exists in nature, outside the human mind – as is the case with most scientists and most secular humanists – we have adopted the practical atheist’s worldview. To distinguish our theologically reliable conception of chance from the secular humanist’s delusional conception, we signify our conception with special typography: chance. 15 — See predestination and "1st Amendment (Secular Humanist Establishment) / chance", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_2_Am_I_(​De_Facto_Sec_Hum_Est​).htm​#Chance.

Christian reconstructionism — "Reconstructionism is a distinctive blending of certain biblical doctrines. They are (1) personal regeneration, (2) the application of biblical law to all areas of life, and (3) the advance of the already-present kingdom in history through the preaching of the gospel and the empowering of the Holy Spirit." 16 We agree with reconstructionism in many of its goals, but we have extreme differences in regard to hermeneutics and application, especially in regard to "the application of biblical law". — See theonomic reconstructionism and "Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement", URL: http://www.the-highway.com/​recon_Duncan.html, (by Ligon Duncan).

christophany — An appearance of Yeshua HaMeshiach, Jesus Christ, in the "Old Testament".

chronological approach — God’s plan for redeeming humanity (at least the elect) – as revealed in the Bible – sets different demands and obligations on humanity at different times, epochs, and eras in the chronological unfolding of this plan. 17 We therefore conclude that humanity changes chronologically, whereas God does not. 18 We therefore believe that it’s crucial to distinguish exegeses that pertain to things that change from exegeses that pertain to things that don’t. The former we call a chronological exegesis, or chronological approach. The latter we call topical exegeses. The chronological exegesis focuses most emphatically on jurisprudential issues.

chronological exegesis — A chronological exegesis is an exegesis that uses the chronological approach within our overarching hermeneutical agenda.

collectivism — "a political or economic theory advocating collective control esp. over production and distribution or a system marked by such control" 19 — The Marxist system implemented in the Soviet Union is the most notorious example of a collectivist system. The collectivist conception of property and property rights is inherently opposed to the conceptions that exist in the global covenant. The collectivist conceptions lead inevitably to massive bloodshed perpetrated by government against its people, because such governments inherently neglect consent. A free market is the only kind of economic system that sufficiently regards consent.

common grace — "Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. The word common here means something that is common to all people and is not restricted to believers or to the elect only." 20

commons — The legal concept of commons is bound almost inextricably to the feudal concepts of land ownership. To extricate the concept of property that is held in common by multiple people from the feudal biases, we’re left with almost no choice but to create a new moniker, commons. By commons, we mean land over which no one party has dominion, and over which many parties have a common interest. Such land generally includes wild animals, wild plants, outside air, inland waterways, oceans, and land that is held in common. — See "1st Amendment (Emperor’s ‘Parade of Horribles’) / commons land", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_6_Am_I_(​Parade_of_Horr​).htm​#CommonsLand.

compact — A compact is essentially the same thing as a contract. But based on our reading of Scripture, we recognize two fundamental forms of such compacts, and designate them with this compact moniker. They are the jural compact and the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. The combination of these two types of compacts in a single society we call a social compact. There are two fundamental types of social compact, the secular social compact and the religious social compact. The religious social compact contains both a broadly-defined ecclesiastical society and a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society. In contrast, a secular social compact contains a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society but should not be understood to have a broadly-defined ecclesiastical society, due to the narrow subject matter jurisdiction of the secular social compact.

conscience — By conscience we mean "1 a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts". 21 We mark this word with a special typographical moniker (bold-underlined) to emphasize its profound theological significance. — The conscience operates in the moral sphere, overarching the sphere of human law, and therefore overarching both the jural and ecclesiastical spheres. Human law is partially a subset of the moral sphere, and the jural and ecclesiastical spheres are subsets of the sphere of human law.

consent — It’s necessary for us to use a customized definition of consent because, unlike traditional and current Anglo-American jurisprudence, we believe a lawful social compact is necessarily divided into two distinct sub-compacts that have distinct jurisdictions: the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact and the jural compact. Consent is necessarily defined differently in these two compacts based on the foundational impetus behind each compact: — (i)The impetus behind the broadly-defined ecclesiastical society is the gratification of myriad needs and desires through cooperation. The only way that such an ecclesiastical society can procure jurisdiction over a specific human being is by that human being’s prior consent, assent, or acquiescence. The broadly-defined ecclesiastical society’s purpose is not to curb bloodshed, protecting unalienable Rights. There is no inherent human law mandate that forces a human being to participate. So in a lawful, broadly-defined ecclesiastical society, there are no exceptions to the standard that no one with capacity should be forced. In a lawful, broadly-defined ecclesiastical society, all such human interactions are consensual. Essentially the same thing is true of a strictly-defined ecclesiastical society.  The difference between the broadly-defined and the strictly-defined is essentially that the strictly-defined is aimed strictly at the prosecution of bloodshed that arises ex contractu.  Because the positive-duty clause in Genesis 9:6 stipulates no human law penalty to be executed against those who refuse to assist in the prosecution of bloodshed, the support of the strictly-defined ecclesiastical society remains voluntary and consensual. — (ii)The impetus behind the jural society is the Genesis 9:6 mandate, more specifically, the prosecution of bloodshed that arises ex delicto, outside of any contract. The jural society’s purpose is to curb such ex delicto bloodshed, protecting unalienable Rights. In a jural society, consent about punishment is not required from someone who commits a delict. This is based on Genesis 9:6, which in essence says, "People who commit bloodshed thereby forfeit their rights commensurate with the gravity of the bloodshed. Their consent to their punishment is therefore negligible.". (Because it’s rationally necessary within the Genesis 9:6 context, the hermeneutical prologue finds that every human being gives pre-cognitive consent at conception, to avoid the perpetration of bloodshed, and to prosecute the perpetration of bloodshed.) Since the Genesis 9:6 mandate applies to all people, it in essence mandates not only that people avoid committing bloodshed, but also that every human being is responsible for punishing those who do. But unlike the negative-duty clause in Genesis 9:6, the positive-duty clause, the clause that stipulates that every human being is responsible for punishing perpetrators, is not accompanied specifically by a penalty.  Because it’s not accompanied by a penalty, the prosecution of violators of the positive duty remains within the realm of natural law, and does not extend from there into the realm of human law. So when a jural society establishes its geographical jurisdiction, all people within that jurisdiction are morally obligated to help in the execution of justice against perpetrators of delicts, but they are not obligated by the biblical prescription of human law.  They are obligated under human law only if they volunteer, consent, to be thus obligated. This translates in practice into a voluntary obligation to pay jural taxes and ecclesiastical taxes. — See "Preface / types of consent", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#TwoTypesOfConsent and "Article I § 8 cl 1 / types of consent", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_0_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_1.htm​#TwoConsents.

conventional — Something that’s conventional is something that’s done, or that exists, via convention, i.e., by way of "usage or custom". 22 This word has special theological significance because it is essential to a common-sense definition of status. If we start with the assumption that every human being has all the attributes of God (even omniscience and omnipotence) with many (if not most) of these attributes disabled, then every human’s status is defined by that set of disabilities that they have. By common sense, these disabilities fall into two categories, natural and conventional. Natural disabilities are given by God through nature. 23 Conventional disabilities are acquired through the person’s choices. Conventional disabilities can be either contractual or non-contractual. See "1st Amendment (Emperor’s ‘Parade of Horribles’) / racism", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_6_Am_I_(​Parade_of_Horr​).htm​#Racism.

covenant — This moniker, covenant, refers to either the eternal covenant or the divine covenant. Which it is can be ascertained by examining the context.

Covenant — This is the same thing as a Biblical Covenant.

covenant of grace — When the human beings violated the Edenic Covenant, God would have been utterly justified if He had annihilated the human race. But He chose to render mercy (grace) instead of pure justice at that time. The Adamic Covenant was therefore a covenant of grace. All subsequent Biblical Covenants are also in many respects manifestations of the covenant of grace. 24

covenant of redemption — This covenant "is an agreement among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in which the Son agreed to become a man, be our representative, obey the demands of the covenant of works on our behalf, and pay the penalty for sin, which we deserved." 25

covenant of works — This is the term used in traditional theology for the covenant that existed between mankind and God in the garden of Eden. It is largely equivalent to what we call the Edenic Covenant. 26

covenant theology — "Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations." — Quote is from the "Desiring God" website, URL: http://www.desiringgod.org/​articles/​what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology.

creation — The universe, including all objects and entities. This moniker indicates that according to Scripture, the universe did not come into existence by chance, but was clearly created by God (Genesis 1-2).

Davidic Covenant — The Covenant that appears in 2Samuel 7:4-17.

decretive will — God decreed "before the creation of the world" everything that comes to pass. God’s "providential actions are the outworking of the eternal decrees that he made long ago". 27 God’s choice to make these "eternal decrees" is what we call His decretive will, or will of decree.

deism — "[T]he view that God has no immediate relation with the world; God indeed is responsible for the world but for reasons unknown or conjectured God has no commerce with it; accordingly, the supplications and hopes of men are illusory and fruitless. This doctrine is sometimes referred to as the ‘absentee landlord’ view." 28

delict — An act that is malum in se which results in a dead, damaged, or injured human being, or which makes a serious and obvious threat to do the same. We distinguish delict from delict because delict is defined as violation of rights, which are by definition property rights, and which derive from the fact that all human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26,27; 9:6). Delict is a secular expression that does not have the same theological foundations. — In our parlance, a delict is one of the two forms that bloodshed can take, the other being death, damage, or injury through contract violation.

delict (gross) — We distinguish two overarching types of delicts – gross and subtle – based on who brings the legal action against the delict, and on the type of penalty to be brought to bear against the perpetrator. Actions against gross delicts are usually brought by the jural society, rather than by citizens. 29 The penalty against a gross delict is usually retribution. — We call this type of delict gross because it conforms so obviously to the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #1 and "Article I § 8 cl 1 / gross v. subtle", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_0_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_1.htm​#GrossSubtle.

delict (subtle) — We distinguish two overarching types of delicts – gross and subtle – based on who brings the legal action against the delict, and on the type of penalty to be brought to bear against the perpetrator. Actions against subtle delicts are usually brought by citizens or denizens who are not officials of the jural society, rather than by the jural society per se. 30 Penalties against perpetrators of subtle delicts are usually restitution and/or injunction. If the delict is in process, meaning that further damage is threatened, then at least part of the remedy is injunctive. If there is a dead, damaged, or injured person, and further damage is not being threatened, then injunction is not called for, even though restitution is, and retribution may be. — We call this type of delict subtle because it’s not so obviously derived from Genesis 9:6. But we believe that both justice and careful reading of the Noachian Covenant demand that we include subtle delicts in our understanding of the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #1 and "Article I § 8 cl 1 / gross v. subtle", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_0_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_1.htm​#GrossSubtle.

delictual — Of, relating to, or derived from a delict.

deluge — The global flood described in Genesis 6-9.

denizen — A person natural born in a country who has not consented or acquiesced to citizenship status. — It’s necessary to use this customized definition of "denizen" because we find nothing in the American legal lexicon that is equivalent. The "primary, but obsolete" definition of denizen turns the natural born person automatically into a subject. The more modern definition, as "one holding a middle state between an alien and a natural born subject" is equally inappropriate. — See denizen, subject, and "Article I § 8 cl 4 / denizen", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_3_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_4.htm​#Denizen.

dichotomy — Ordinarily, (i)"The view that man is made of three parts (body, soul, and spirit) is called trichotomy."; (ii)"The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit) is called dichotomy."; and (iii)"The view that man is only one element, and that his body is the person, is called monism.". 31 — Along with all reliable theologies, we believe that God is both transcendent and immanent. A topical approach to Scripture regarding the nature of God leads us to this conclusion. But we’re convinced that a purely topical approach to understanding the basic nature of human beings fails to yield completely reliable results. Most theologies that are based on the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic, and that are otherwise generally reliable, conclude that man is basically a dichotomy. They make this conclusion because "the usage of biblical words translated ‘soul’ (Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche) and ‘spirit’ (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma)" are often "used interchangeably". 32 So they conclude that mankind are made of two parts, "body and soul/spirit". We agree with believers in dichotomy that the usage of these biblical words is ambiguous. Even so, we believe that there is plenty of conceptual evidence in Scripture to support our belief that human beings are a monism in our created and resurrected natures, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. It’s essential to notice that our definition of monism is radically different from most theologies and philosophies, especially those found in "eastern" religions. This is because deciphering these issues based on "element[s]" is inherently misleading. These issues need to revolve instead around questions of (i)What can human beings perceive?, and (ii)Can human beings act in these fields of perception? — See Spiritual, psychic, and physical.

disability — We claim that the status of every human being is determined by their disabilities. We claim this because the naturalistic view of humanity is that each human has developed from rudimentary elements (like dirt) through a series of chance chemical reactions. In contrast to this naturalistic view, the Biblical view holds that God created humanity from the dust of the earth (Genesis 1-2) and endowed each human with the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26,27; 9:6). So rather than define the human status in terms of abilities that arise by chance out of dirt, we define the human status in terms of disabilities that are given by God to creatures that are God like. Every human is disabled from being omnipotent and omniscient. Males are disabled from being female, and females are disabled from being male. So status is the combination of rights, which are the same in aggregate for all humans, and disabilities, which are unique in aggregate for every human. So disabilities are more crucial to understanding human status than abilities. Disabilities exist in two kinds: natural and conventional, by common sense.

disability (contractual conventional) — Conventional disabilities exist in two kinds: contractual and non-contractual. Contractual disabilities are always conventional, by common sense. Contractual disabilities are always acquired through consent. Because some obligations of the divine covenant transcend human choice (like being made male or female), while others do not, some human obligations of the divine covenant are not contractual disabilities, while others are (like avoiding consumption of animal blood under the Noachian Covenant, Genesis 9:4).

disability (conventional) — A conventional disability is one acquired conventionally. Conventional disabilities are divided into two kinds: conventional disability (contractual) and conventional disability (non-contractual).

disability (natural) — According to common sense, disabilities exist in two kinds: natural and conventional. God gives natural disabilities, regardless of human choice. Example: Humans have no natural ability to fly; so we all have a natural disability in this regard.

disability (non-contractual conventional) — Conventional disabilities exist in two kinds: contractual and non-contractual. A non-contractual conventional disability is a disability acquired through custom and usage that does not arise out of a contractual obligation. For example, alcoholism is acquired through custom and usage (i.e., repetitious consumption), but it does not arise out of contractual obligations.

dispensationalism — A Bible-based theology that holds, among other things, that God structures "His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements". Dispensationalism "holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture". — Quotes are of the "Desiring God" website, URL: http://www.desiringgod.org/​articles/​what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology.

divine covenant — A divine covenant is the single covenant that exists between God and a given group of people, at any given point in the Biblical chronology. It is that part of Scripture that pertains to that group. For example, after the Israelites had escaped from Egyptian slavery and had settled in the "promised land", all such Israelites were party to the Edenic, Adamic, Noachian, Abrahamic, and Mosaic Covenants, where the Adamic, Noachian, Abrahamic, and Mosaic Covenants are essentially sets of amendments to the existing constitution, the Edenic Covenant. Therefore, the divine covenant that had in personam jurisdiction over these Israelites at this time was this particular aggregate of Biblical Covenants. At the same time in history, numerous nations existed that had no rigorous cognition of these Covenants. Nevertheless, because the Edenic, Adamic, and Noachian Covenants are global (but the Abrahamic and Mosaic are not), these global Covenants aggregated into the divine covenant that had in personam jurisdiction over all these other peoples and nations. So a divine covenant is that part of divine law, and that accumulation of Biblical Covenants, that pertains to a specific set of people. — If it’s understood that different parts of the divine law have different in personam jurisdictions, then it’s safe to assume that the entire canon of Scripture is a single covenant, what we can call the divine covenant, in this more general sense of the term. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #29.

divine law — Because we think it unwise to break with tradition without justification, we make a few clear concessions to tradition. One such concession is the usage of "divine law" to signify the Bible as a whole, especially what we recognize as being the canon. Divine law is the Holy Scriptures as contained in the orthodox (i.e., righteous) Christian canon. See "Preface / types of law", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawTypes.

divine providence — We believe that God is both transcendent (meaning that He "is far ‘above’ the creation in the sense that he is greater than the creation and he is independent of it") 33 and immanent (meaning that He continues to be involved in creation). 34 "Though the term providence is not found in Scripture, it has been traditionally used to summarize God’s ongoing relationship to his creation." 35 By adopting this doctrine, we avoid four doctrines that are clearly wrong according to Scripture: deism, pantheism, chance (or randomness – See chance.), and fatalism (or determinism). We define divine providence as follows: "God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1)keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2)cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3)directs them to fulfill his purposes.". 36

ecclesiastical — Pertains to an ecclesiastical compact.

ecclesiastical compact — The use of "ecclesiastical" in this expression should not be confused with the normal legal usage, which pertains "to anything belonging to or set apart for the church" (ecclesiastical). 37 This is because we define "church" and religion much more broadly than is normal in common parlance or legal jargon. We base our use of "ecclesiastical" on the general definition of ecclesia, "An assembly". 38 But an ecclesiastical compact is more than a mere assembly. It’s necessary to use this term in a narrow and strict sense on one hand, and in a broad sense on the other.  In the strict sense, the ecclesiastical compact is an agreement or system / network of agreements that aims specifically at complying with the ex contractu subset of the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. In the broad sense, it is the aggregation or coalescence of all the agreements, gifts, and contracts of an assembly or society into a single system or network of such agreements, gifts, and contracts. In this broad sense, an ecclesiastical compact is this system or network conceptualized as a single compact. But this single, broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact excludes whatever agreements, gifts, and contracts are fundamental to the existence of a jural compact, and fundamental to the existence of a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. The aggregation of all agreements, gifts, and contracts in a whole society, including both ecclesiastical and jural compacts, is what we call a social compact. So in the broad sense, an ecclesiastical compact is the social compact minus the jural compact and minus the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3.

ecclesiastical compact (geographical jurisdiction of) — An ecclesiastical compact must be understood to have two different definitions, one broad and one strict. Under the broad definition, the ecclesiastical compact is by definition an umbrella contract or agreement that aggregates contracts and agreements in a society.  Such a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact has no inherent geographical jurisdiction, but may have a geographical jurisdiction that’s recognized by all parties to the compact. Under the strict definition, the ecclesiastical compact has geographical jurisdiction over whatever geographical territory is implicitly or explicitly indicated by whatever contracts are actively being adjudicated by the ecclesiastical society. Because the ecclesiastical compact must have power to enforce adjudicated contracts, it’s probable that the ecclesiastical compact’s geographical jurisdiction would coincide with the jural compact’s geographical jurisdiction. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #8.

ecclesiastical compact (in personam jurisdiction of) — An ecclesiastical compact must be understood to have two different definitions, one broad and one strict. Under the broad definition, the ecclesiastical compact is by definition an umbrella contract or agreement that aggregates contracts and agreements in a society. Such a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact can only have in personam jurisdiction over people who have explicitly volunteered and consented to being party to the broadly-defined compact. Under the strict definition, the ecclesiastical compact has in personam jurisdiction only over parties to contracts that are being actively adjudicated by the ecclesiastical society. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #6.

ecclesiastical compact (subject matter jurisdiction of) — An ecclesiastical compact must be understood to have two different definitions, one broad and one strict. Because of the strict subject matter jurisdiction of the lawful secular social compact, secular social compacts are incapable of having immediate jurisdiction over any broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact. However, the lawful religious social compact does not have this disability. Under the broad definition, the ecclesiastical compact is by definition an umbrella contract or agreement that aggregates contracts and agreements in a society. The subject matter jurisdiction of such a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact depends entirely upon the subject matter of the emcompassing religious social compact. So a lawful religious social compact can contain both a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact and a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. But a lawful secular social compact can contain only a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. Under a secular social compact, a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact cannot exist because it can have no real subject matter jurisdiction because such subject matter would require the unanimous agreement of all parties to the compact, which would redefine the compact as a religious social compact. Under a religious social compact, the subject matter jurisdiction of the broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact is the same as the subject matter jurisdiction of the religious social compact, minus the subject matter jurisdiction of the jural compact, and minus the subject matter jurisdiction of the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. Under the strict definition of ecclesiastical compact, such compact’s subject matter jurisdiction is the same as the subject matter jurisdiction of whatever contracts are being actively adjudicated, plus the court’s interpretational policies, rules of court, etc. A contract between the parties is obviously a necessary prerequisite to the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society having subject matter jurisdiction over the contractual dispute. — See ecclesiastical law, positive law (ecclesiastical), and Maxims of the Global Covenant / #7.

ecclesiastical court — A lawful ecclesiastical court is a court that has jurisdiction over ecclesiastical subject matter.

ecclesiastical functions — These are the lawful functions of an ecclesiastical compact. They include all lawful functions of the social compact excluding the jural functions. It’s critical to maintain a clear distinction between the ecclesiastical functions and the jural functions of any and every social compact because of the radical difference between the jural compact’s in personam jurisdiction and the ecclesiastical compact’s in personam jurisdiction.

ecclesiastical law — All contracts have obligations, by definition. Most contracts also have penalties for parties who violate their obligations. Such obligations and penalties are essentially positive law that arise from such contracts. Since an ecclesiastical compact, in the broad sense, is the aggregation of all contracts within a society into a network of agreements and contracts, ecclesiastical law is the aggregation of such contractual human law, particularly as it pertains to any given, specific situation. — According to our analysis of the global covenant, human law / positive law that is Scripturally lawful exists in two overarching kinds: jural and ecclesiastical.

ecclesiastical society — In the typical school of jurisprudence, an ecclesiastical society is understood to be a religious society. The hermeneutical prologue holds to the view that every society is a religious society, even societies of secular humanists, "atheists", and agnostics. The hermeneutical prologue holds to the view that every human being, and every society, worships something, and is therefore religious in nature. Every human being, and every society, values something more than anything else, even if that most valued thing is nothing more than one’s next meal. That human being’s, or that society’s, most valued thing is that human being’s or society’s God or gods. — The term ecclesiastical society has essentially two different definitions within the hermeneutical prologue, the theodicy, and this inventory, one being strict and narrow and the other being broad. In the broad sense, an ecclesiastical society is the network of people who, by their associations, agreements, and contracts, form an ecclesiastical compact, in the broad sense of this latter term. In the narrow sense, an ecclesiastical society is the network of people who form a contract together that is aimed at the enforcement against bloodshed that arises ex contractu. A social compact is by definition composed at bare minimum of an ecclesiastical compact (narrowly defined) and a jural compact. These two sub-compacts are mutually exclusive because they have radically different in personam jurisdictions. See Maxims of the Global Covenant, / #3 and / #9.

ecclesiastical sphere — For our purposes, morality pertains to decision-making with respect to choices on a continuum between good and evil. The moral sphere pertains to both psychic and physical objects, and in some respects, to Spiritual objects as well. The moral sphere is that subset of eternal law that pertains to human choices. The subsets of divine law, natural law, and human law that pertain to human choices are also subsets of the moral sphere. By definition, the ecclesiastical sphere is that subset of the moral sphere that is utterly exclusive of the jural sphere. It pertains to whatever choices an ecclesiastical society can lawfully make. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #28.

Edenic Covenant — The Edenic Covenant is the Biblical Covenant that appears in Genesis 1-2. In the hermeneutical prologue, we give substantial evidence to prove (i)that this passage is a Biblical Covenant, (ii)that it is the foundational Biblical Covenant for the rest of Scripture (i.e., the original constitution), and (iii)that it is clearly and obviously a global Covenant.

eisegesis — Normally eisegesis is understood to be the act of trying to force Scripture to say what we want it to say, rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. It is "reading one’s own thoughts into the text – as opposed to exegesis". 39 It is the act of imposing preconceptions on Scripture. — It is ultimately impossible to avoid imposing some preconceptions on Scripture. But some preconceptions do violence to the text, while others do not. Anyone with a genuine commitment to understanding Scripture will seek to minimize this pre-conceptual violence, and to allow eisegesis to stand only when it doesn’t violate the text.

election — "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure." 40 This doctrine is sometimes called "unconditional election" because "it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us.". 41 Here are a few passages that prove that election and reprobation are Biblically factual attributes of human existence: Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-30; 9:11-13; 11:7; Ephesians 1:4-6. — The elect are those people sovereignly chosen by God, i.e., elected, to be saved from His wrath against sinners. The reprobate are those who receive judgment instead of mercy.

eternal covenant — The eternal covenant is the unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and all of His creation, especially including mankind, where this agreement stipulates the conditions of their relationships. The terms of the eternal covenant are the eternal law.

eternal law — Eternal law is the aggregate obligations that are contained within the eternal covenant. All other laws are subsets of the eternal law. Like the eternal covenant, eternal laws are immutable, meaning that they never change. Eternal law is a constant that keeps the universe intact. If eternal law were not immutable, then the laws that govern the universe would be changeable, and reality would be so slippery that human science would be impossible. Likewise, if eternal law were not immutable, then the laws that govern human behavior would be so slippery that social coherence would be impossible. The eternal law pertains primarily to the relationships between the three Persons of the Godhead. Eternal law is subtended by natural law, which is subtended by divine law, which is subtended by human law, which in jurisprudence is generally called positive law. — See "Preface / types of law", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawTypes.

ex contractu — A legal action that arises out of death, damage, and/or injury caused by one party against another, by way of the violation of a contract.

ex delicto — A legal action that is ex delicto is an action that is instigated in response to a delict.

exegesis — Exegesis is the act of allowing Scripture to speak for itself. It is the act of extracting the true meaning of a passage. It is "the process of interpreting a text of Scripture", 42 and is the "explanation, critical analysis, or interpretation of a word, literary passage, etc., especially of the Bible". 43 — It’s important to contrast exegesis with eisegesis, the act of imposing preconceptions on Scripture.

face-value hermeneutic — This hermeneutic attempts to admit "only a ‘literal’ . . . interpretation of a given passage" of Scripture. 44 In the hermeneutical prologue, we contrast the face-value hermeneutic and the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic, and we show that the face-value hermeneutic is inadequate in the task of discerning the biblical prescription of global human law.

faith — Ordinary faith is the same thing as personal trust or confidence. Saving faith is personal trust and confidence in God, especially the one-and-only God who orchestrated the creation of the divine law, in particular, Yeshua HaMeshiach. It is trust in Yeshua "as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God.". 45 Such trust is not developed primarily by human effort. It is formed "by grace . . . through faith" (Ephesians 2:8). In other words, God sovereignly pulls us into a relational feedback loop with Him, which gives us confidence to speak to Him and be in a communication feedback loop with Him, which increases faith. Human faith is subordinate to God’s grace, but such faith is crucial to human redemption and regeneration. It is "the gift of God, not works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8; NKJV).

fall — This can either refer to the fall of Satan or the fall of mankind. — In the case of mankind, the Edenic Covenant makes it clear that mankind once lived in Eden (as Biblical fact) in a community with each other and God. In other words, they lived in an ecclesiastical compact (broadly-defined) in which there was harmony between the Spiritual, psychic, and physical fields of perception and action. The humans violated one of the obligations of the ecclesiastical compact. The penalty they suffered for this violation was (i)they were turned out of Eden; (ii)they suffered perceptual disintegration (no more harmony between Spiritual, psychic, and physical fields); (iii)they were excused from community with God; (iv)they eventually died; (v)etc. This penalty is what we call the fall of mankind. — A comprehensive reading of Scripture makes it clear that before the humans violated the ecclesiastical compact that they had with God in the garden of Eden, HaSatan was the chief angel of appearances. When the humans fell, Satan fell at approximately the same time, becoming the chief angel of deception, delusion, and death. This was the penalty that God imposed on HaSatan. This penalty is what we call the fall of Satan.

fatalism — "By ‘fatalism’ is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. . . . In a true fatalistic system, . . . our humanity is destroyed for our choices really mean nothing, and the motivation for moral accountability is removed." 46

garden of Eden — Refers to the setting where the un-amended Edenic Covenant was in full force and effect. See Genesis 1-2.

general revelation — See revelation.

geographical jurisdiction — Same thing as jurisdiction (geographical).

gift — A gift is a privilege given by God. Such privileges combine with disabilities given by God to establish a person’s or a society’s status. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #18.

global — Something is global when it ("it" being in the nature of a Covenant or a law) has an in personam jurisdiction that pertains to all living people. See "Preface / types of law", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawTypes.

global covenant — Since covenant, by itself, refers to either the eternal covenant or a divine covenant, and since eternal covenant is always global (meaning that global eternal covenant is redundant), the expression global covenant always refers to a global divine covenant. It refers to any divine covenant that has a universal in personam jurisdiction. During the Edenic epoch, global covenant is the same as the Edenic Covenant. During the anarchy epoch, global covenant is the Edenic Covenant combined with all the amendments contained in the Adamic Covenant. For the entire law-enforcement epoch, including the present times, global covenant is the Edenic Covenant modified sequentially by the amendments in the Adamic and Noachian Covenants.

global Covenant — Global Covenant refers to any one of the three Biblical Covenants that is global, i.e., that has an in personam jurisdiction that applies to all living human beings: Edenic, Adamic, or Noachian.

global jurisdiction — A jurisdiction that is global, meaning that it has in personam scope and purview over all living human beings.

grace — Grace is the unmerited mercy of God. All human beings are sinful, and are therefore inherently repugnant to the Holy Creator. By grace, God imputes the sinlessness of His Son to His elect, and thereby allows them into His presence. By common grace, God has mercy enough on all human beings to allow them, for a time, to continue earthly existence.

gross delict — Same as delict (gross). A gross delict is a severe delict that demands immediate intervention by a third party, and whose penalty is usually retribution.

guardian-dependent relationship — A lawful relationship between a guardian and the ward over whom the guardian has authority. Such relationships are inherently contractual, even though the ward may lack capacity to contract. For example, a parent is a natural guardian to his/her child. A child is a natural product of an agreement between a sperm-donor and an egg-donor. So the agreement implicitly covers the creation of such a child, making such parents implicitly or explicitly the guardians of such child.

hermeneutic — A hermeneutic is a set of underlying principles of interpretation that people use in interpreting Scripture. Hermeneutics as a field is "the study of correct methods of interpretation". 47

human law — This is essentially the same thing as positive law. In theological investigations, human law is typically the preferred term, while positive law is generally preferred in jurisprudence. In the hermeneutical prologue, it simply means laws imposed by humans upon other humans. — See "Preface / types of law", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawTypes.

humanism — "Any view in which the welfare and happiness of mankind in this life is primary." 48

idol worship — Idol worship is the worship of anything other than the God portrayed in the Bible.

idolatry — Idolatry is the same thing as idol worship. It is the worship, or even the valuing, of anything more than God, especially God as depicted in the Bible.

immanent — This is an adjective used to described one of the attributes of God. It means that God is continually involved in creation. 49

impartiality — God clearly demands that humans be impartial when dispensing judgment to other humans. Scripture indicates that God is no respecter of persons, and He demands that humans be likewise. But this attribute of God is not without nuance. God is clearly impartial with respect to human rights. But He is NOT impartial with respect to privileges and disabilities. The latter are gifts that God distributes to humans to make every human unique, and to ensure that the human race is diverse and full of variety. It’s silly to think that He is impartial in His distribution of such privileges and disabilities.

in personam jurisdiction — Same as jurisdiction (in personam).

inerrant — "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." 50

infallible — Some people claim that "the purpose of Scripture is to teach us in areas that concern ‘faith and practice’ only; that is, in areas that directly relate to our religious faith or to our ethical conduct. This position would allow for the possibility of false statements in Scripture, for example, in . . . areas such as in minor historical details or scientific facts . . .. Its advocates often prefer to say that the Bible is ‘infallible,’ but they hesitate to use the word inerrant.". 51

injunction — An injunction is a remedy for an imminent threat of serious bloodshed. It is similar to an injunction, but there are a few significant differences. In traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence, an injunction is an equitable remedy to something that is threatening. Since it is a remedy in equity, it is prone to unrestricted use (because equity is not rigorous enough to adequately protect rights). Unrestricted use of this remedy constitutes a huge propensity to abuse, and therefore to bloodshed. We believe that injunctions, especially administrative standing injunctions, are perfect examples of such abuse by the mega-state. We believe that an injunction is a justifiable penalty against any subtle delict that takes the form of a threat. We therefore believe that the injunction is rightly a jural function, not equitable, and not ecclesiastical. But the threat / subtle delict that the injunction is intended to remedy must be real, obvious, clear, dangerous, and not merely a bogeyman that is the by-product of ill-conceived economics. See "Article III § 2 cl 1 (Injunction) / injunction", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_2_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Injunct​).htm​#Injunction.

irresistible grace — Irresistible grace is grace that ultimately dominates a person’s life. It doesn’t mean grace that cannot be resisted in an immediate sense, because all people resist God’s grace. It is grace that cannot be resisted in the ultimate sense.

jural — Pertains to the bloodshed mandate of Genesis 9:6, and our exegesis thereof. More specifically, it pertains to actions taken to remedy bloodshed ex delicto, as distinguished from bloodshed ex contractu. This word should not be confused with the legal definition of jural because our definition of jural is much more rigorous and specific. Jural pertains specifically to retribution against bloodshed ex delicto, but it may also pertain to restitution and injunctions as responses to subtle delicts. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3.

jural compact — An agreement or system / network of agreements that aims specifically at complying with the delictual subset of the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. All lawful positive law in a social compact derives from the two sources that constitute the social compact: the jural compact and the ecclesiastical compact. All human laws that derive from the jural compact are aimed at actions that are ex delicto. All human laws that derive from the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact are aimed at actions ex contractu. Human laws that derive from the broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact can exist only in an ecclesiastical compact that subtends a religious social compact. Our analysis of the global covenant demands that all positive law either conform to this pattern, or be treated as unlawful. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3.

jural compact (geographical jurisdiction of) — Because the impetus behind the jural compact extends to every human being, it extends to every human being regardless of where such human being may be located. It extends to wherever the jural society is willing and able to enforce its authority, i.e., to whatever physical territory it is physically able to reach. Even so, logistics demand that every jural society recognize its limitations, and establish and defend reasonable geographical boundaries. The latter boundaries are the geographical jurisdiction of the jural compact. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #8.

jural compact (in personam jurisdiction of) — Because Genesis 9:6 says "Whoever sheds man’s blood", and because the Noachian Covenant is global, every lawful jural compact has personal jurisdiction over every human being within physical reach of the jural society. This jurisdiction can be lawfully activated only when the geographical and subject matter jurisdictions are also activated. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #6.

jural compact (subject matter jurisdiction of) — Jural compacts derive, by definition, from the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. So a lawful jural compact is limited in its subject matter jurisdiction to one of the two forms of bloodshed. Bloodshed can arise either out of a contract, or not out of a contract. Jural compacts are formed to execute justice against bloodshed that does not arise out of a contract, meaning against delicts. To establish subject matter jurisdiction, a jural society’s court must answer in the affirmative the following question: Is there a delict? Or in traditional language, Is there a corpus delicti?. See jural law, positive law (jural), and Maxims of the Global Covenant / #7.

jural functions — These are the lawful functions of a jural compact. They include all functions that aim specifically at enforcement against bloodshed ex delicto. — It’s critical to maintain a clear distinction between jural functions and ecclesiastical functions because every lawful social compact contains both an ecclesiastical compact and a jural compact, and the respective in personam jurisdictions of these two compacts are radically different, according to our analysis of the global covenant.

jural jurisdiction — By jural jurisdiction, we mean the jurisdiction of a jural society.

jural law — According to our analysis of the global covenant, positive law that is Scripturally lawful exists in two overarching categories: positive law that pertains to delicts and positive law that derives from contracts. Jural law is human law that pertains to delicts. Human law that derives from contracts is what we call ecclesiastical law.

jural mandate — By jural mandate we mean that aspect of the bloodshed mandate that pertains to delicts, and is the motivating impetus behind the jural society.

jural police powers — By jural police powers, we mean the same thing as bloodshed police powers in cases in which the bloodshed arises ex delicto. They are the limited police powers that lawfully belong to a jural society.

jural society — What we call a jural society is emphatically not the same thing as a jural society in normal American jurisprudence. A lawful jural society is the network of people who, through their mutual agreement, attempt to enforce against bloodshed that arises ex delicto. Through their agreement, they form a jural compact. A jural compact is one of the two compacts that subtend the social compact, the other being an ecclesiastical compact (which can be broadly-defined or narrowly-defined. Secular social compacts can have only the narrowly-defined type of ecclesiastical compact. In contrast, lawful religious social compacts should have both broadly-defined and narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compacts.). These two sub-compacts are mutually exclusive because they have radically different in personam jurisdictions. See "Preface / #SocialCompact", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#SocialCompact, and Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3, #6, #7, #8, and #9.

jural sphere — The jural sphere is the portion of the moral sphere that pertains to human choices about delictual bloodshed. The jural sphere pertains exclusively to decisions about behaviors and objects that fall within the scope and meaning of bloodshed that arises out of delicts, and the punishment thereof. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #28.

jurisdiction — Because American jurisprudence is so much at variance with reliable Biblical jurisprudence, and because American jurisprudence is so deeply influenced by secular humanism, it’s necessary to use a customized definition of "jurisdiction" in the hermeneutical prologue. — Jurisdiction pertains to a rudimentary jurisprudential concept that applies to the delineation of a court’s power and authority. Since the hermeneutical prologue attempts to derive jurisprudence from Scripture starting with the Edenic Covenant, our definition of jurisdiction is even more rudimentary. In the meaning that applies most directly to discerning biblically prescribed human law, jurisdiction pertains to the power and authority of any person or group of people to execute human law (i)against primary property, (ii)against secondary property (including human labor, real property, chattel, and power to contract), (iii)with regard to a specific subject matter, and (iv)over a specific geographical location. Based on these four criteria, we claim that jurisdiction has three requirements for (or components to) its lawful existence: (i)the existence of personal jurisdiction, (ii)the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and (iii)the existence of geographical jurisdiction. — Because the hermeneutical prologue searches not merely for the biblical prescription of human law, but also at times for eternal law, natural law, and divine law that transcend human law, jurisdiction sometimes also has a meaning that transcends human law. This broader meaning should always be clear from the context.

jurisdiction (geographical) — Geographical jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a specific geographical location. In traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence, it has been called territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is distinct from venue in that traditionally the latter has been conceptualized as distinct from jurisdiction. Based on our discovery that property is absolutely crucial to human nature according to the global covenant, we conclude that it is crucial to include territorial jurisdiction as indispensable to establishing jurisdiction. We call it geographical jurisdiction instead of territorial jurisdiction to emphasize our more rigorous definition of property. — Based on our discovery that the global covenant has two sources of human law, delicts and contracts, we conclude that every lawful social compact has two sources of geographical jurisdiction: its jural compact and its ecclesiastical compact. Every jural compact has geographical jurisdiction over whatever physical territory it is physically able to reach. Every broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact has geographical jurisdiction only over physical territory that is specified explicitly or implicitly in the broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact. Every narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact has geographical jurisdiction only over whatever territory is specified in whatever contract is being adjudicated by the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #8 and #17.

jurisdiction (in personam) — In personam jurisdiction is jurisdiction over persons, or over a person. Based on our discovery that the global covenant has two sources of human law, delicts and contracts, we conclude that every lawful social compact has two sources of in personam jurisdiction: its jural compact and its ecclesiastical compact. Every jural compact has in personam jurisdiction over every human being within physical reach of the jural society who perpetrates a delict. Every broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact has in personam jurisdiction only over parties to the broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact. Every narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact has in personam jurisdiction only over parties to contracts that are being adjudicated by the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #6.

jurisdiction (subject matter) — Subject matter jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a specific subject matter. Based on our discovery that the global covenant has two sources of human law, delicts and contracts, we conclude that every lawful social compact has two sources of subject matter jurisdiction: its jural compact and its ecclesiastical compact. Every jural compact has subject matter jurisdiction over bloodshed that arises ex delicto. Every narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact has subject matter jurisdiction over bloodshed that arises ex contractu, whenever a given contract is submitted to the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society for adjudication. Every broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact has subject matter jurisdiction over whatever subject matter is encompassed by the broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #7.

jurisdictional — Of or pertaining to jurisdiction(s).

jurisdictional dysfunction — This adjectival clause indicates that whatever entity it describes is dysfunctional because it fails to conform to reliable jurisdictional boundaries.

just weights and measures — Numerous passages in Scripture mandate that God’s people only use "just weight[s]" and "just measure[s]" (Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-15; Proverbs 11:1; 16:11; 20:10; 20:23; Micah 6:11). This simply means that if someone sells someone else a gallon of gasoline, it should be a gallon, and not a quart. If a person sells two yards of cloth, the cloth should measure six feet, and not four-and-a-half. Use of unjust weights and measures is essentially fraud and theft, and therefore bloodshed. See "Article I § 8 cl 5 / weights & measures", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_4_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_5.htm​#JustWeightsMeasures.

justification — "Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight." 52

local — When something is local, it has an in personam jurisdiction that does NOT encompass all living human beings. Local therefore describes the in personam jurisdiction of contracts, compacts, and covenants, especially Biblical Covenants and the divine covenant, as being limited, inclusive of some people and exclusive of others. It should be understood in contrast to global, which is an in personam jurisdiction that includes all living human beings. Of the Biblical Covenants, the Edenic, Adamic, and Noachian are global, while the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Messianic are local. See "Preamble / #Interpretation", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_1_Preamble.htm​#Interpretation.

local Covenant — A local Covenant is one of the Biblical Covenants that has a local in personam jurisdiction.

local jurisdiction — A jurisdiction that is local, meaning that it has in personam scope and purview only over the parties to the contract / compact / agreement out of which the jurisdiction arises, and does not encompass all living humans.

mentor-dependent relationship — A mentor-dependent relationship is the same thing as a guardian-dependent relationship.

Messianic Covenant — The Messianic Covenant is the Biblical Covenant that appears in the B’rit Chadashah (the "New Testament"). It is the set of amendments to the constitutional law – the divine covenant – that existed immediately prior to God’s delivery of these amendments. The terms can be rightly understood to be anything spoken by Yeshua HaMeshiach, Jesus the Messiah. Words spoken by the apostles have statutory authority in Biblical law. Although it has universal implications, the divine covenant that results from the Messianic Covenant is essentially local.

mind — According to our reading of Scripture, all human existence is bounded within three fields of perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. By common sense, we believe the psychic faculties of every human being are divisible into two overarching categories: the faculties of the mind and the faculties of the soul. Within this context, we define mind as being about making decisions, i.e., choices about good and bad, right and wrong. It is equivalent to the individual’s moral sphere.

monism — Ordinarily, (i)"The view that man is made of three parts (body, soul, and spirit) is called trichotomy."; (ii)"The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit) is called dichotomy."; and (iii)"The view that man is only one element, and that his body is the person, is called monism.". 53 — Along with all reliable theologies, we believe that God is both transcendent and immanent. A topical approach to Scripture regarding the nature of God leads us to this conclusion. But we’re convinced that a purely topical approach to understanding the basic nature of human beings fails to yield completely reliable results. Most theologies that are based on the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic, and that are otherwise reliable, conclude that man is basically a dichotomy. They make this conclusion because "the usage of biblical words translated ‘soul’ (Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche) and ‘spirit’ (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma)" are often "used interchangeably". 54 So they conclude that mankind are made of two parts, "body and soul/spirit". We agree with believers in dichotomy that the usage of these biblical words is ambiguous. Even so, we believe that there is plenty of conceptual evidence in Scripture to support our belief that human beings are a monism in our created and resurrected natures, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. By monism, we do not mean "that man is only one element, and that his body is the person". By monism, we mean that in his created and resurrected natures, mankind’s perception is not fragmented into Spiritual, psychic, and physical, but rather that these three fields of perception are unified seamlessly into a single field of perception and action. This monism doesn’t claim that man is only one element, as may be a common theme in "eastern" religions. Instead, it claims that man’s perception and action are unified based on the heart, i.e., based on the Spiritual field of perception and action. We believe that deciphering these issues needs to revolve instead around questions of (i)What can human beings perceive?, and (ii)Can human beings act in these fields of perception?, rather around questions about what is most elemental. Our belief that human beings are a monism in our created and resurrected natures is based on a common-sense belief that "there is but one fundamental Reality" 55 (even though human beings may be incapable of perceiving all of such "Reality" at once). — See Spiritual, psychic, and physical.

moral sphere — We use the moniker, moral sphere, to indicate the realm of Biblical jurisprudence that transcends, but contains, human law. We believe that morality pertains to decision-making with regard to choices on a continuum between good and bad. We believe that every decision is a choice of options ranging from best to worst. We believe that all such decisions happen in the moral sphere. We believe the moral sphere pertains to objects in all three fields of perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #28.

Mosaic Covenant — The Mosaic Covenant is the Biblical Covenant mediated by Moshe (Moses). It is a local Covenant that amends the local divine covenant that existed under Abraham and the Patriarchs. The terms that amend the pre-existing covenant appear in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

natural — We usually mean this moniker to be equivalent to disability (natural) or privilege / ability (natural). It has slightly different meanings when used in natural law and natural rights. — See status. Also see "1st Amendment (Emperor’s ‘Parade of Horribles’)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_6_Am_I_(​Parade_of_Horr​).htm​#Racism.

natural law — Natural law is one of the four overarching categories of law that we recognize as an aspect of biblical history. — There is no doubt that natural law, as a concept, appears prominently in ancient Greek philosophy, and that it was incorporated into Christian thinking by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, as well as through ancient Roman jurists after the “christianization” of that empire. Over the centuries, there have been numerous definitions of that moniker. The definition we’re using here should be understood to emphasize the moral law as primary and foundational. The hermeneutical prologue holds that natural law is composed of a tripod: (i)the laws of nature as they exist exogenously to the human being; (ii)the laws of nature as they exist endogenously to the human being; and (iii)the moral law. The hermeneutical prologue describes in greater detail how natural law, as primarily moral law, encompasses human law but is very distinct from it. — According to the hermeneutical prologue, eternal law overarches the other three categories: natural law, divine law, and human law. The moral-law leg of the natural law tripod is the moral law to which all human beings are subject as a result of being created with the imago Dei. Although the moral law is changeless, the human understanding of it, and ability to apply it properly, change with time. Natural law is a subset of the eternal law that includes the endogenous and exogenous laws of nature, and both the changeless moral law and the changing human understanding of the changeless moral law. The moral-law leg of the natural law tripod is what humans – by the light of the moral law written on the heart of every human by virtue of being created in the image of God, combined with the light of reason – can see of the eternal law. Similar to the way that natural law is a subset of eternal law, divine law is a subset of natural law. — Natural law, in our nomenclature, should emphatically NOT be taken as equivalent to natural law or the "laws of nature". The "laws of nature" are a subset of the natural law that do not carry the same moral authority as the divine law. — See "Preface / types of law", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#LawTypes, and "1st Amendment(Subsequent Cases) / lawful v. legal", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_5_Am_I_(​Subsequent_Cases​).htm​#LawfulLegal.

natural privileges — Same as natural abilities and privilege / ability (natural). See status.

natural revelation — Natural revelation is essentially the same thing as general revelation. It is God’s revelation of Himself generally in all of creation, and is distinct from special revelation.

natural rights — We define natural rights as being largely the same as natural rights. However, we believe it’s a mistake to remove the definition of "natural rights" from its foundation in the Augustinian lineage of biblical theology. We believe that natural rights are just claims that all people have as a result of being created with the imago Dei. Living within the behavioral boundaries of the imago Dei demands that people not only exercise their own natural rights, but also acknowledge the natural rights inherent in other people. So one person’s natural rights are another person’s natural obligations. We call such rights, such just claims, "natural" because all people are endowed with them by their Creator.

Noachian Covenant — The global Covenant whose components appear in Genesis 6-9.

omnipotence — The quality or state of being all-powerful. According to our analysis of Scripture, all human beings, even the second Person of the Godhead, are disabled from being omnipotent. The first Person of the Godhead is omnipotent. The second Person is not omnipotent, even though He is able to do whatever He needs to do, whenever He needs to do it, in order to maintain His status as God. 56 Ordinary human beings will never be omnipotent, although the elect will be able to do whatever they need to do whenever they need to do it, like the second Person of the Godhead, at the consummation of the law-enforcement epoch.

omnipresent — "Present in all places at all times". 57

omniscience — The quality or state of being all-knowing. According to our analysis of Scripture, all human beings, even the second Person of the Godhead, are disabled from being omniscient. The first Person of the Godhead is omniscient. The second Person is not omniscient, even though He knows whatever He needs to know whenever He needs to know it, in order to maintain His status as God. 58 Ordinary human beings will never be omniscient, although the elect will be able to know whatever they need to know whenever they need to know it, like the second Person of the Godhead, at the consummation of the law-enforcement epoch.

pantheism — "1. The doctrine that reality comprises a single being of which all things are modes, moments, members, appearances, or projections. [—] 2. As a religious concept Pantheism is to be distinguished from Immanent Theism and Deism by asserting the essential immanence of God in the creatures." 59

personal jurisdiction — Same thing as in personam jurisdiction.

physical — According to our analysis of Scripture, human beings are a monism in our created (and resurrected) nature, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. ("Monism" emphatically is not equivalent here to its usual meaning in so-called "eastern" religions.) This means that in our fallen nature, there are three overarching fields of human perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. These are not "element[s]" in the usual theological sense of that word. The psychic field of perception and action is distinguished from the physical field and the Spiritual field in that (i)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the psychic realm, generally pertain to both good and evil, while (ii)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the Spiritual realm, pertain only to good, and while (iii)intellect, and perhaps mind, but not soul, are often sub-functions of the physical realm, where both good and evil exist. The physical field of perception and action is the field that all living human beings have in common. All ordinary sense data and sensory objects exist in this field. — Some evidence: (i)In 2Corinthians 12:2-4, Rav Shaul speaks of being "caught up to the third heaven", which he equates with "Paradise". If it’s genuinely paradise, then there is no evil there. If it’s the "third heaven", then there must be at least two others. We claim this "third heaven" can only be perceived through Spiritual perceptual faculties / sensory mechanisms / input devices. (ii)In 2Peter 3:5-13 "heavens" (ouranoi) is used to refer to the physical sky. We call this the first heaven. We conclude that the physical sky is perceived through physical perceptual faculties / devices / organs (or whatever you may want to call them). (iii)Evidence for the existence of the second heaven appears in Ephesians 6:12 ("heavenly places", epouranios) and Revelation 8:13; 14:6 ("midheaven", mesouranema). This second heaven is outside the realm that’s perceivable via physical senses, but it is a battleground of warfare between good and evil, and therefore outside the Spiritual "paradise". Because of its close relationship to the Greek word, psuche, we call this second heaven the psychic perceptual realm. We claim that it can only be perceived by humans through psychic perceptual devices / faculties / senses / etc.

positive law (ecclesiastical) — Positive law is to jurisprudence what human law is to theology. It is merely law imposed by people upon other people. According to our analysis of Scripture, positive law exists in two kinds: what we call ecclesiastical and what we call jural. Ecclesiastical positive law derives from contracts, and is based on the prior consent of the parties to such contracts. Like all real positive law, ecclesiastical positive law demands a penalty, and it demands someone willing and able to enforce the penalty. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3, #5, and #12.

positive law (jural) — Positive law is to jurisprudence what human law is to theology. It is merely law imposed by people upon other people. According to our analysis of Scripture, positive law exists in two kinds: what we call ecclesiastical and what we call jural. Jural positive law derives from delicts, i.e., from bloodshed ex delicto. Lawful jural positive law always pertains to prosecution of violations of property rights that exist without regard to the existence of contracts. In contrast, ecclesiastical positive law always pertains to the prosecution of violations of conventional privileges that arise out of contracts. Like all real positive law, jural positive law demands a penalty, and it demands someone willing and able to enforce the penalty. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #3, #4, and #12.

pragmatism — By pragmatism, we mean the philosophy that developed primarily in America in the 19th and 20th centuries which had a profound effect on American culture. Although portents of this philosophy appeared in classical Greece, it was developed in America primarily by C.S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Peirce defined it like this: "‘In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception: and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.’ This is often expressed briefly, viz.: The meaning of a proposition is its logical (or physical) consequences.". 60 James put it more succinctly: "‘"the true," to put it briefly, is only the expedient in the way of thinking.’". 61 — Pragmatism is essentially the adoption of the Aristotelian maxim that, "Necessity is the mother of invention.". Pragmatism expands the Aristotelian notion so that in the world of Peirce, James, and Dewey, every worthy thought and action is a function of necessity. Whether this is a problem for Bible-believing people depends entirely upon how "necessity" is defined. If necessity is defined above all in terms of what is needed to glorify the God of the Judaeo-Christian Bible, and to build His Kingdom, then necessity is a good thing, pragmatism is a good thing, and legal realism is a good thing. But of course this is not how Peirce / James / Dewey defined necessity. In the final analysis they define pragmatism purely in terms of (i)the needs of the Tower of Babel project, (ii)the needs of the human animal, and (iii)the needs of individual narcissists. In other words, pragmatism is merely a subset of secular humanism.

preceptive will — God’s preceptive will (also known as will of precept) is His will that He intends for humans to use as precepts in their determination and choice of good actions. There are basically two different types of preceptive will. One is the product of general revelation, and gives rise to the moral-law leg of the natural law. Knowledge of this kind is generally suppressed by humanity as a result of the fall. The other kind of preceptive will is a product of special revelation, and is a function of the work of redemption.

predestination — "The doctrine that all events of man’s life, even one’s eternal destiny, are determined beforehand by Deity. . . . In historic Christianity utterances of Paul are given as the authority for the doctrine (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:30; Rom. 9:18). St. Augustine believed that man’s own sinfulness made his salvation utterly dependent upon the sheer grace and election of God."  62

primary property — See property (primary).

private property — By private property, we mean any property that is private.

privilege / ability — A privilege is essentially the same thing as a privilege. But the former has a much expanded meaning because the ultimate source for all privilege is God, while the ultimate source for all privileges is human government. A privilege is the opposite of a disability, and is therefore equivalent to an ability. Privilege / ability and disability both relate directly to status. In all lawful jurisprudence, it’s crucial to distinguish rights from privileges. Rights are that aspect of status that all people have in common, and in which all people are equal. For example, all people are equal in the right to own property, and in the right to form consensual agreements with other people. But these two rights manifest differently in different human beings. Distinct manifestations of rights are privileges. Privileges are that aspect of status that makes every human being unique. For example, ownership of one’s body is a right that must be recognized and honored by all humans, but this ownership manifests as a privilege, a gift given by God, that makes each human unique. Likewise, we are all born with the right to own our body, but we are each born with a lack of capacity, a lack of privilege, a disability, a lack of ability to exercise that right meaningfully. We each therefore are born with a need to be in mentor-dependent relationship until we acquire that capacity. Participation in such a mentor-dependent relationship is a privilege. Understanding status is crucial to understanding reliable Biblical jurisprudence. See (i)Maxims of the Global Covenant / #4; (ii)"1st Amendment (Emperor’s ‘Parade of Horribles’) / racism", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_6_Am_I_(​Parade_of_Horr​).htm​#Racism; and (iii)"5th Amendment (Free market)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_2_Am_V_(​Free_Market​).htm​#FreeMarket2nd.

privilege / ability (conventional) — A privilege / ability that’s acquired conventionally. See status.

privilege / ability (natural) — A privilege / ability that’s acquired naturally. See status.

progressive revelation — By this expression, we merely mean what is obvious from Scripture, that God reveals the Truth to human beings chronologically, over time. According to Moses, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever" (Deuteronomy 29:29; KJV). "At each stage in redemptive history, the things that God had revealed were for his people for that time, and they were to study, believe, and obey those things. With further progress in the history of redemption, more of God’s words were added, recording and interpreting that history . . . ." 63 This is all we mean by progressive revelation. It means that revelation is progressive, and cumulative.

property — Based on Genesis 9:4-6, we see that the bloodshed in Genesis 9:6 is a trespass against life, because life and blood are equated. Based on the principle that God gives every human being ownership of his/her life, 64 the bloodshed in Genesis 9:6 is clearly a trespass against property. We conclude that property ownership is basic to being alive and being human. So we define property as the ownership (i)of one’s body, which we call primary property, and (ii)of things secondary to one’s body, which we call secondary property. — We give ample Scriptural evidence in the hermeneutical prologue to prove that the right to "rule over", possess, own, property, is a basic attribute of being human. See "10th Amendment / property rights", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PropertyRights.

property (primary) — Every human being is endowed by God with the ownership of his/her physical body. Ownership of such property is an unalienable Right, meaning that it can be taken lawfully only (i)when the takee is guilty of bloodshed or (ii)when the takee is under lawful contractual obligation. Jurisdiction over this kind of property is roughly equivalent to in personam jurisdiction. — See "10th Amendment / property rights", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PropertyRights and "5th Amendment (Introduction) / free market", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_0_Am_V_(​Intro​).htm​#FreeMarket1st.

property (secondary) — Each human being’s ownership of things secondary to one’s body. Every human being is endowed by God with the right (though not necessarily the privilege) of owning property external to one’s body. This is what we call secondary property. Ownership of such property is an unalienable Right, meaning that it can be taken lawfully only (i)when the takee is guilty of bloodshed or (ii)when the takee is under lawful contractual obligation. — Jurisdiction over this kind of property is roughly equivalent to what traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence called in rem jurisdiction. We don’t assume that the traditional distinction between in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction is Biblically valid. Instead, we believe that the traditional distinction between these two jurisdictions has been a de facto invitation to unlawful governments to separate people from their lawful property. We therefore believe that jurisdiction over secondary property is a lawful extension of jurisdiction over primary property (in the same way that secondary property is an extension of primary property). Therefore, jurisdiction over property (including both secondary and primary) and personal jurisdiction are equivalent.— Secondary property may sometimes take the form of lawful contractual agreements. — See (i)"Article III § 2 cl 1 (Introduction) / jurisdiction", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_0_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Intro​).htm​#JudicialJuris; (ii)"10th Amendment / property rights", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PropertyRights; and (iii)"5th Amendment (Free market)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_2_Am_V_(​Free_Market​).htm​#FreeMarket2nd.

property right — A right and a property right are largely the same thing in reliable Biblical jurisprudence. That’s because a right is something that every human being has because all human beings are equal in rights. Rights are attributes of being human that must be respected by every human being, and by all societies, in accordance with the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed. The most basic right is the right to own property, because ownership of one’s body is so basic to being human. So the property right is the right to own property. Another fundamental right is the right to enter into consensual agreements with other people. Depending upon context, (i)property right can be equivalent to right; (ii)property right can be a subordinate, specialized type of right that pertains specifically to property, and (iii)the right to contract can be treated as a property right. See "10th Amendment / property rights", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PropertyRights.

providential — Of, or pertaining to, divine providence.

psychic — According to our analysis of Scripture, human beings are a monism in our created (and resurrected) nature, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. ("Monism" emphatically is not equivalent here to its usual meaning in so-called "eastern" religions.) This means that in our fallen nature, there are three overarching fields of human perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. These are not "element[s]" in the usual theological sense of that word. The psychic field of perception and action is distinguished from the physical field and the Spiritual field in that (i)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the psychic realm, generally pertain to both good and evil, while (ii)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the Spiritual realm, pertain only to good, and while (iii)intellect, and perhaps mind, but not soul, are often sub-functions of the physical realm, where both good and evil exist. — Some evidence: (i)In 2Corinthians 12:2-4, Rav Shaul speaks of being "caught up to the third heaven", which he equates with "Paradise". If it’s genuinely paradise, then there is no evil there. If it’s the "third heaven", then there must be at least two others. We claim this "third heaven" can only be perceived through Spiritual perceptual faculties / sensory mechanisms / input devices. (ii)In 2Peter 3:5-13 "heavens" (ouranoi) is used to refer to the physical sky. We call this the first heaven. We conclude that the physical sky is perceived through physical perceptual faculties / devices / organs (or whatever you may want to call them). (iii)Evidence for the existence of the second heaven appears in Ephesians 6:12 ("heavenly places", epouranios) and Revelation 8:13; 14:6 ("midheaven", mesouranema). This second heaven is outside the realm that’s perceivable via physical senses, but it is a battleground of warfare between good and evil, and therefore outside the Spiritual "paradise". Because of its close relationship to the Greek word, psuche, we call this second heaven the psychic perceptual realm. We claim that it can only be perceived by humans through psychic perceptual devices / faculties / senses / etc.

redemption — We believe, along with theologians who we believe are reliable on this issue, that all the blood Covenants in Scripture are manifestations of God’s grace, meaning that God chose to save some people, his elect, rather than to destroy all people because of sin. These Covenants are evidence of God’s plan to save His elect. This long-term plan of saving His elect through this historical process is generally what we mean by redemption. But in many theologies that are reliable on this issue, redemption pertains to something more specific: (i)an aspect of the atonement offered by Yeshua HaMeshiach at His crucifixion; (ii)an aspect of the personal regeneration of individual elect people; or (iii)some other feature of personal salvation.

regeneration — "Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called ‘being born again’ (using language from John 3:3-8)" 65 or being "saved".

religion — We define "religion" much more broadly than is normal in common parlance or in legal jargon. The hermeneutical prologue holds to the view that every society is a religious society, even societies of secular humanists and "atheists". The hermeneutical prologue holds to the view that every human, and every society, worships something, and is therefore religious in nature. Every human being, and every society, values something more than anything else, even if the most valued thing is nothing more than one’s next meal. That human being’s, or that society’s, most valued thing is that human being’s, or that society’s, God or gods. The belief system that exalts this most valued thing is what we call that human being’s, or that society’s, religion.

religious — We sometimes use religious to indicate that something pertains to religion. But more often we use religious to refer specifically to a religious social compact. See "Article I § 8 cl 4 / secular v. religious", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_3_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_4.htm​#SecularReligious.

religious ecclesiastical — Of or pertaining to an ecclesiastical compact that subtends a religious social compact.

religious ecclesiastical compact — An ecclesiastical compact that subtends a religious social compact.

religious police powers — The collection of police powers that are lawful under any given religious social compact. See "10th Amendment / police power", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PolicePower and "1st Amendment (Subsequent Cases) / religious police powers", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_5_Am_I_(​Subsequent_Cases​).htm​#ReligiousPolicePowers.

religious social compact — A religious social compact is most easily defined in contradistinction to a secular social compact. A secular social compact is by definition secular, meaning that it is intended to encompass, or presumes to encompass, multiple religions. In contrast to this, a religious social compact, by definition, is a social compact that is intended to encompass only a single religion. Religion should be understood to designate any belief system, including any of the normally recognized religions and any philosophy, including secular humanism and atheism. See "Article I § 8 cl 4 / secular v. religious", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_3_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_4.htm​#SecularReligious and "5th Amendment (Introduction) / taking", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_0_Am_V_(​Intro​).htm​#Taking.

repent — "1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life 2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one’s mind" 66 — "Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ." 67

reprobation — "the decision of God to pass over those who will not be saved, and to punish them for their sins" 68

republic — Republic is not defined with rigor in American jurisprudence. In keeping with the global covenant, we define a republic as a republic that meets these criteria: (i)It is composed of a social compact that contains clearly defined and distinguished jural and ecclesiastical compacts. (ii)It functions by the "consent of the governed". (iii)Such consent is not equivalent to majority rule, but is equivalent to the consent that is more fundamental than majority rule, and makes majority rule possible.

revelation — The eternal covenant – with its terms, its eternal law – is the mechanism by which our transcendent God remains immanent in His creation. In accordance with Scriptures like Deuteronomy 29:29(28), Psalm 19:1(2), and Romans 1:18-21, God reveals His eternal law to human beings. This is generally what we call revelation, His revealing of His eternal law. We believe that Scripture makes it clear that there are two overarching kinds of revelation: special and general. "The knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity, is often called ‘general revelation’ (because it comes to all people generally). General revelation comes through observing nature, through seeing God’s directing influence in history, and through an inner sense of God’s existence and his laws that he has placed inside every person." 69 In other words, general revelation is God’s general manifestation of Himself in nature, which results in the human perception of what we call natural law, the most fundamental aspect of which is the unchanging Moral Law. Special revelation "refers to God’s words addressed to specific people, such as the words of the Bible, the words of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles, and the words of God spoken in personal address, such as at Mount Sinai or at the baptism of Jesus." 70 Special revelation is where God facilitates an individual’s special perception of the natural law, where such special perception has resulted in the production of what we call the divine law. 71

right — A right is an attribute that God gives equally to every human being. All rights derive from the Biblical fact that all human beings are created (begotten, or generated) in God’s image (Genesis 1:27; 5:1-2; 9:6). There are two such attributes / rights that are more basic to the development of reliable human law than other such attributes / rights: (i)the right to own property (starting with every person’s ownership of his/her body, which is inherently private property) and (ii)the right to enter into consensual agreements with other people. Rights are basic to every human being’s status, even more so than privileges / disabilities. It’s lawful, under the global covenant, to take another person’s rights only when that person is guilty of bloodshed, or through lawful contractual obligations. See (i)Maxims of the Global Covenant / #26; (ii)"Article III § 2 cl 1 (Introduction) / jurisdiction", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_0_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Intro​).htm​#JudicialJuris; and (iii)"1st Amendment (Emperor’s ‘Parade of Horribles’) / racism", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_6_Am_I_(​Parade_of_Horr​).htm​#Racism.

salvation — By salvation, generally, we mean the whole process of redemption. By salvation, specifically, we mean that aspect of general salvation that pertains to a specific person. Regarding specific salvation, we believe that this is the "Order of Salvation": (1)election ("God’s choice of people to be saved"); (2)the proclamation of God’s offer of salvation (by God through human beings, and by God through nature); (3)regeneration (being born again); (4)"Conversion (faith and repentance)"; (5)"Justification (right legal standing)"; (6)"Adoption (membership in God’s family)"; (7)"Sanctification (right conduct of life)"; (8)"Perseverance" (remaining true to one’s commitments in this salvation process, through God’s grace); (9)"Death (going to be with the Lord)"; and (10)"Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)". 72

sanctification — "Sanctification is a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives." 73

secondary property — See property (secondary).

secular — The global covenant has in personam jurisdiction over all living human beings, regardless of what religion, ethnic group, race, color, age, sex, nation, etc., any given person may be from. We use secular as an adjective to reference this fact about Biblical law. Even so, it’s extremely important to not get secular confused with secular. Understanding the difference between what is secular and what is not is the essence of understanding the distinction between What is Caesar’s? and What is God’s?. The normal legal definition of secular is incapable of answering these questions. — We generally use the word secular to indicate that the American compact was inevitably intended to encompass all religions. It’s essential to distinguish this specialized usage of this word from the normal legal definition of secular ("not spiritual; not ecclesiastical; relating to the present (temporal) world"). 74 This is because even a superficial study of American history makes it obvious that the framers did not intend for the united States to be secular in the legal sense. Instead, it was clearly intended to encompass all Judaeo-Christian denominations. But the nature of the global covenant makes it unavoidably obvious that the American compact must encompass people from any religion who consent to abide by positive laws that derive from the global covenant. So the united States must be not only interdenominational, but also inter-religious. See "Preface / #Secular", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​#Secular and "Article I § 8 cl 4 / secular v. religious", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_3_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_4.htm​#SecularReligious.

secular ecclesiastical — Pertains to an ecclesiastical compact that subtends a secular social compact. See "Article III § 2 cl 1 (Unconscionable Contracts) / suicide", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_1_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Uncon_Con​).htm​#Suicide.

secular geographical jurisdiction — This refers to the geographical jurisdiction of a secular social compact.

secular humanism — Something that is secular is something that is "not spiritual" that relates "to affairs of the present (temporal) world". 75 By humanism we mean (i)"Any view in which the welfare and happiness of mankind in this life is primary."; and/or (ii)"A twentieth-century philosophy . . . or religion that rejects belief in all forms of the supernatural; that considers the greater good of all humanity on this earth as the supreme ethical goal; and that relies on the methods of reason, science and democracy for the solution of human problems.". 76 By combining these two words into a single expression, we define secular humanism as a religion that exalts the gratification of human physical and psychic aspirations above the Spiritual need to acknowledge the supremacy of God in all things. So secular humanism is a religion that presumes to operate without regard to the priorities established by the global covenant. It is inherently a form of idolatry. It is a man-centered religion that relegates God to irrelevance. When combined with nominal Christianity via ad hoc supreme Court decisions, from the most optimistic perspective, it is the de facto established religion in early 21st century America. See (i)"1st Amendment (De Facto Secular Humanist Establishment)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_2_Am_I_(​De_Facto_Sec_Hum_Est​).htm; (ii)"Article I § 8 cl 5 / fiat money", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_4_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_5.htm​#FiatMoney; (iii)"Article III § 2 cl 1 (Unconscionable Contracts) / summary", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_1_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Uncon_Con​).htm​#UnconscContractSumm; and (iv)"1st Amendment (Subsequent Cases) / Scalia’s position", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_5_Am_I_(​Subsequent_Cases​).htm​#ScaliaPosition.

secular jurisdiction — By secular jurisdiction we mean the jurisdiction of a given secular social compact.

secular police power — By secular police power we mean the lawful police powers of a secular social compact. Because the subject matter jurisdiction of a secular social compact is by definition very limited, its police powers are likewise very limited, at least with regard to subject matter. See "10th Amendment / police power", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_7_Am_X.htm​#PolicePower.

secular religion — Secular religion is belief in that subset of the natural law that holds that bloodshed, meaning damage ex delicto or ex contractu perpetrated by one person (or set of people) against another person (or set of people), is globally prohibited by global moral law, and should be globally enforced through human law. Because it is global and applies to all religions, including religions that promote delicts and contract violations, this belief is obviously the secular religion. As a religion, it includes not just this belief, but also whatever actions this belief demands. The secular religion is essentially the same thing as the global covenant as the global covenant exists in the law-enforcement epoch, but with an emphasis on the human law subset thereof. — See "1st Amendment (Introduction and Original Intent)", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_0_Am_I_(Intro_-_Orig_Intent).htm.

secular social compact — A secular social compact is a social compact that is secular, i.e., that is intended to encompass all religions, with the understanding that they must conform to the human law that’s prescribed by the global covenant. We distinguish two overarching types of social compact, secular and religious. — The united States at foundations are a confederated republic that attempts to embrace all faiths within a single umbrella compact. This by definition means that this compact is secular. See "Article I § 8 cl 4 / secular v. religious", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_2_1_3_Art_I_Sec_8_Cl_4.htm​#SecularReligious and "5th Amendment (Introduction) / secular takings", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_0_Am_V_(​Intro​).htm​#SecularTakings.

secularism — An attribute of society that embraces the inherently secular nature of the global covenant. See "Article III § 2 cl 1 (Unjust Enrichment) / paradox", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_3_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Unj_Enrich​).htm​#Paradox.

secularization — Secularization is to secularization what secular is to secular. It signifies the process of encompassing multiple religions, in conformity to the global covenant. See "1st Amendment (Secular Humanist Establishment) / chance", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_8_2_Am_I_(​De_Facto_Sec_Hum_Est​).htm​#Chance.

sin — The Hebrew word for sin, chatath, derives from the root, chata, which means "to miss the mark". In reliable Christian theology, "Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.". 77

social compact — We define a social compact as the explicit or implicit compact that unites the jural compact and the ecclesiastical compact within a single society. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #15. Also compare to compact theory of government, social contract, or compact, and social contract.

social contract — "The original covenant by which, according to certain philosophers of modern times – Hooker, Hobbes, Althusius, Spinoza, Locke, Pufendorf, etc. – individuals have united and formed the state. This theory was combined with the older idea of the governmental contract by which the people conferred the power of government upon a single person or a group of persons. This theory goes back to ancient philosophy and was upheld by medieval thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, Marsilius of Padova. Though most of the philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century realized that no such original compact as the idea of the Social Contract called for, had actually occurred, the idea, nevertheless, served as a criterion to determine whether any act of the government was just or not, i.e., whether consent of the governed might be assumed . . . . The theory of the Social Contract had a remarkable influence upon the political philosophy of the American colonies." 78 — Compare to social contract, or compact and compact theory of government.

socialism — "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" 79 — The socialist conceptions of property and property rights are inherently at odds with the conceptions that derive from the global covenant because the former do not adequately account for the fact that every human being is given unalienable Rights by God. Socialist governments, by their very nature, neglect consent, meaning that government confiscates property without the owner’s consent. A free market is the only kind of economic system that sufficiently regards consent. See "Article III § 2 cl 1 (Unjust Enrichment) / conclusion", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_4_1_0_3_Art_III_Sec_2_Cl_1_(​Unj_Enrich​).htm​#UnjustEnrichConcl.

soul — We divide the psychic realm into the realm of the mind and the realm of the soul. Mind is all about making decisions, i.e., about making choices on a continuum between best and worst. Soul is all about perceiving in the psychic realm and putting decisions into action in the psychic realm.

sovereign — "God’s exercise of power over his creation is . . . called God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty is his exercise of rule (as ‘sovereign’ or ‘king’) over his creation." 80 — In accordance with ample evidence from Scripture, we believe that God is omnipotent, and therefore sovereign over the entire universe, and everything, and everyone, within it. — Since human beings are created in the image of God, we each have a degree of sovereignty, mixed with a heavy dose of disabilities. We are therefore sovereign over ourselves in our limited sovereignty, even while God is sovereign over us. — Every human government has some human sovereign that is some subset of the human race. This is how the sovereign is defined in a secular social compact: The sovereign is composed of all who consent to abide by the global mandate against bloodshed. We designate this special definition of sovereign also with special typography: sovereign.

special grace — We believe that God gives common grace to all people for one overarching reason: to advance His plan for redeeming His elect for the sake of His glory. This act of general salvation is done by God not only through common grace, but also more specifically by special grace, which is equivalent to saving grace, which is grace that generates saving faith, which is trust in the Second Person of the Trinity that is crucial to redemption.

special revelation — See revelation.

sphere — "a field or range of influence or significance"; 81 domain, range, area, scope, etc., of the field of morality (moral sphere), jural subject matter jurisdiction (jural sphere), or ecclesiastical subject matter jurisdiction (ecclesiastical sphere). — The use of the word "sphere" should be taken as comparable to the use of Venn or Euler diagrams.

Spiritual — According to our analysis of Scripture, human beings are a monism in our created (and resurrected) nature, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. ("Monism" emphatically is not equivalent here to its usual meaning in so-called "eastern" religions.) This means that in our fallen nature, there are three overarching fields of human perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. These are not "element[s]" in the usual theological sense of that word. The Spiritual field of perception / action is distinguished from the physical and psychic fields in that (i)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the psychic realm, generally pertain to both good and evil, while (ii)mind, intellect, and soul that are sub-functions of the Spiritual realm, pertain only to good, and while (iii)intellect, and perhaps mind, but not soul, are often sub-functions of the physical realm, where both good and evil exist. The Spiritual realm is distinct largely because no evil exists there, even though choices do. — Some evidence: (i)In 2Corinthians 12:2-4, Rav Shaul speaks of being "caught up to the third heaven", which he equates with "Paradise". If it’s genuinely paradise, then there is no evil there. If it’s the "third heaven", then there must be at least two others. We claim this "third heaven" can only be perceived through Spiritual perceptual faculties / sensory mechanisms / input devices. (ii)In 2Peter 3:5-13 "heavens" (ouranoi) is used to refer to the physical sky. We call this the first heaven. We conclude that the physical sky is perceived through physical perceptual faculties / devices / organs (or whatever you may want to call them). (iii)Evidence for the existence of the second heaven appears in Ephesians 6:12 ("heavenly places", epouranios) and Revelation 8:13; 14:6 ("midheaven", mesouranema). This second heaven is outside the realm that’s perceivable via physical senses, but it is a battleground of warfare between good and evil, and therefore outside the Spiritual "paradise". Because of its close relationship to the Greek word, psuche, we call this second heaven the psychic perceptual realm. We claim that it can only be perceived by humans through psychic perceptual devices / faculties / senses / etc.

status — While status is one’s legal relationship with the rest of society, status is one’s legal relationship to God. Although it’s impossible for any of us to know with certainty the status of anyone, including ourselves, as long as we live in the present fallen, sinful condition of humanity, there are common-sensical statements that we can make about it that are important to a reasonable understanding and interpretation of Scripture. For example, it’s clear that every human being’s status is determined by their rights / privileges on one hand, and by their disabilities on the other. Every human being is disabled from being omnipotent and omniscient, because there can ultimately be only one sovereign in the universe, and God and only God has this sovereignty. Based on the basic attributes of human beings found in the terms of the global covenant, other important truths can be stated about human status. — See "Memorandum of Law & Fact about Contracts / status", URL: ../../../../../​Memos/​MemoOnContracts/​html/​#Status.

strawman — An artificial person created by de facto government with the following characteristics: (i)De facto government creates it at the natural birth or the naturalization of a natural person. (ii)It has the attribute of delectus personae, meaning that only this single, specific natural person can fill the offices within this artificial person. (iii)From the de facto government’s perspective, its reason for existence is to help the de facto government to become de jure, with minimal violence. (iv)From such natural person’s perspective, its reason for existence is to help such natural person to protect his / her property from the unlawful activities of de facto government / collaborators. (v)De facto government destroys it when a death certificate is issued. (vii)During the life of the strawman, the natural person has the exclusive right to determine how strawman will function. — For a more detailed treatment of this, see A Memorandum of Law & Fact Regarding Natural Personhood.

subject matter — Same as subject matter jurisdiction.

subject matter jurisdiction — Same as jurisdiction (subject matter).

subtle delict — By subtle delict, we mean the same thing as delict (subtle).

syncretism — "the combination of different forms of belief or practice" 82 — Such mixture of Biblical beliefs and practices with extra-Biblical beliefs and practices is often understood in Biblical theology to be a bad thing. In the hermeneutical prologue, we find ample Biblical evidence to define the general boundary between defective syncretism and virtuous syncretism.

takee — The person from whom a taking is made.

taking — We define a taking more rigorously than taking is defined. Our definition is more rigorous because we (i)define all lawful governments as social compacts; (ii)define all lawful social compacts as being composed of a jural compact, a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact, and (in religious social compacts only) a broadly-defined ecclesiastical compact; and (iii)directly link expenditures with takings, with regard to both the jural compact and the narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compact. A taking is therefore a tax, a taking, a fee, a penalty, or any other kind of government revenue procurement that is lawful under these rigorous definitions of jurisdictions, powers, and rights. — In some contexts, taking may also sometimes indicate the general procurement of valuables (real property, "money", chattels, etc.) by a government, regardless of whether the government or the taking is lawful. — See "5th Amendment (Introduction) / takings clause", URL: ../../0_TIAJ/​0_A_0_Am_V_(​Intro​).htm​#TakingsClause.

tax — A taking made for the sake of funding lawful ecclesiastical functions or lawful jural functions. See taxation (ecclesiastical) and taxation (jural).

taxation (ecclesiastical) — Ecclesiastical taxation exists for the sake of the enforcement of ecclesiastical positive laws. This is the only lawful rationale behind collection of such taxes, both in the case of narrowly-defined ecclesiastical compacts and in the case of broadly-defined ecclesiastical compacts. Since the in personam jurisdiction of a narrowly-defined ecclesiastical society is constrained, being limited to participation in specific contracts, ecclesiastical taxation is lawful only when such revenues are spent to enforce positive laws that derive from such contracts. When they are spent on anything else, they are collected under color of law, and are a system of gross delicts perpetrated by government against its people. Since the in personam jurisdiction of a broadly-defined ecclesiastical society includes all parties to the religious social compact, broadly-defined ecclesiastical taxation includes all taxation to which all parties to the compact have given prior consent. — See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #13.

taxation (jural) — Jural taxation exists for the sake of the enforcement of jural positive laws. This is the only lawful rationale behind the collection of such taxes. Since the subject matter jurisdiction of a jural society is constrained, being limited to penalizing bloodshed ex delicto, jural taxation is lawful only when such revenues are spent to enforce positive laws that pertain to bloodshed ex delicto, and only when such revenues are collected through voluntary means. When they are spent on anything else, they are collected under color of law, and the same is true when they are collected by forced confiscation. When they are unlawful, they are a system of gross delicts perpetrated by government against its people. See Maxims of the Global Covenant / #13.

theocracy — A theocracy is "Government of a state by the immediate direction of God (or by the assumed direction of a supposititious divinity), or the state thus governed". 83 It’s also defined as "A view of political organization in which God is sole ruler. All political laws come under what is held to be the Divine Will. Church and State become one.". 84 — It’s clear that the Bible aims at theocracy. A theocracy existed under the Mosaic Covenant. 85 A theocracy is prophesied in the New Testament in the form of the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4-5). It’s clearly the aim of Bible-believing people to create a theocracy on earth. But there are extremely serious conditions that are prerequisites to such a theocracy. It’s essential to discover those conditions, and to seek to meet them, rather than to aim at theocracy willy-nilly.

theonomic Christian reconstructionism — "A theonomic reconstructionist may be succinctly and fairly defined as ‘someone who believes that none of the non-ceremonial law of the Old Testament is set aside in the New and that all people, rulers and ruled alike, are under obligation to follow such law personally, and to enact it where appropriate in legislation.’" Theonomic reconstructionism also "rejects natural law and social contract theory". We have extreme hermeneutical differences with theonomic reconstructionism, which lead to insurmountable differences in many other regards. 86 — See Christian reconstructionism and "Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement", URL: http://www.the-highway.com/​recon_Duncan.html (by Ligon Duncan).

topical approach — We use a hermeneutic in which we attempt to distinguish God-centered issues (the nature and attributes of God and creation) from man-centered issues (the nature and attributes of mankind, and humanity’s place in creation). In this hermeneutic, we assume that anything that’s inherently jurisprudential is time-sensitive and dependent upon chronology. Since God doesn’t change, 87 we assume that God-centered issues do not depend upon chronology. Since humanity changes, we assume that man-centered issues are dependent upon chronology. So in this hermeneutic, we use two different, overarching types of exegesis: (i)a chronological approach to exegesis for man-centered issues, and (ii)a topical approach (an examination of topics / issues without regard to chronology) to exegesis for God-centered issues.

topical exegesis — A topical exegesis is an exegesis that uses a topical approach within our overarching hermeneutical agenda.

Tower of Babel — The edifice erected by the Babel society described in Genesis 11:1-9. — Any effort at social consolidation that incorporates bloodshed as a means to such consolidation is inherently doomed, because it is inherently the Tower of Babel redux.

transcendent — This is an adjective used to described one of the attributes of God. It means that God "is far ‘above’ the creation in the sense that he is greater than the creation and he is independent of it". 88

trichotomy — Ordinarily, (i)"The view that man is made of three parts (body, soul, and spirit) is called trichotomy."; (ii)"The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit) is called dichotomy."; and (iii)"The view that man is only one element, and that his body is the person, is called monism.". 89 — Along with all reliable theologies, we believe that God is both transcendent and immanent. A topical approach to Scripture regarding the nature of God leads us to this conclusion. But we’re convinced that historically, the topical approach to understanding the basic nature of human beings has failed to yield completely reliable results. Most theologies that are based on the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic, and that are otherwise generally reliable, conclude that man is basically a dichotomy. They make this conclusion because "the usage of biblical words translated ‘soul’ (Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche) and ‘spirit’ (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma)" are often "used interchangeably". 90 So they conclude that mankind are made of two parts, "body and soul/spirit". We agree with believers in dichotomy that the usage of these biblical words is ambiguous. Even so, we believe that there is plenty of conceptual evidence in Scripture to support our belief that human beings are a monism in our pre-fallen, created and resurrected natures, and a trichotomy in our fallen nature. It’s essential to notice that our definition of monism is radically different from most theologies and philosophies, especially those found in "eastern" religions. This is because deciphering these issues based on "element[s]" is inherently misleading. These issues need to revolve instead around questions of (i)What can human beings perceive?, and (ii)Can human beings act in these fields of perception?. So our definition of trichotomy differs from the ordinary definition of "trichotomy". The latter posits that human beings are "body, soul, and spirit", as though human beings are neatly partitioned into elements. We believe that since the fall, human perception is inherently fragmented into three basic fields of perception and action: Spiritual, psychic, and physical. Our use of the word, "trichotomy" to designate this specific meaning should not be accused of heresy simply because the same word has been used in ancient and modern theologies to designate genuinely un-Scriptural concepts. Scripture itself should have the final say on this issue.

Trinity — "We may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God." 91

Truth — Since our examination of Scripture leads us to believe that humanity (at least the elect) has the capacity (at God’s pleasure) to perceive what the apostle Paul called the "third heaven" (2Corinthians 12:2-4), we conclude that such humans have such a capacity to perceive and act in a field of perception and action (the Spiritual field) in which there is no evil, and in which there are no lies or un-truths. We call the truth in such a field, in which there are no un-truths, Truth. We contrast the Truth of the Spiritual field of perception / action with the more relativistic truth in the psychic and physical fields, where pure Truth isn’t perceived because there are always shades of un-truth mixed in. So in these other two fields, truth exists on a continuum between total lie and fairly accurate truth. We mark this more shaded type of truth as truth.

TULIP — This acronym points to a set of Bible-based doctrines that address the basic nature of the relationship between God and every human being. The acronym is this: "T" stands for "total depravity"; "U" stands for "unconditional election"; "L" stands for "limited atonement"; "I" stands for "irresistable grace"; and "P" stands for "perseverence of the saints". These doctrines are sometimes called the "doctrines of sovereign grace" and "the five points of Calvinism". A good place to begin a study of these important biblical doctrines is at the "Desiring God" website, URL: http://www.desiringgod.org/​search/​results?​utf8=%E2%9C%93&​q=TULIP&​commit=%25#gsc.tab=0&​gsc.q=TULIP&​gsc.page=1. — The standard articulation of these doctrines arose from the "Synod of Dort", URL: http://www.the-highway.com/​dordt.html. Another, more extensive Bible-based defense of these doctrines appears at a "Desiring God" electronic book, URL: http://www.desiringgod.org/​media/​pdf/​booklets/​BTT.pdf.

value — We generally use this word to designate the mental act or attitude of valuing or valuation. We believe such acts have a primordial foundation in primal feelings, desires, and inclinations given by God. Upon this primordial subconscious / unconscious foundation, these feelings / desires become to some degree conscious and are channeled into views. This combination of such primordial feelings / desires with views is what we call value. So it is the combination of feeling / desire with cognitive act.

view — Because humanity exists in a fallen state in which our perception of truth is tainted with un-truth, our perception of all aspects of physical and psychic reality are likewise tainted with un-truth. — "All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves." 92 — We see a view as very similar to a value, but slightly more cognitive.

Footnotes

1These words and expressions appear in underlined-bold in the main text. They are usually hyperlinks into this glossary. — See typographical conventions.

2 R.C. Sproul, "Knowing Scripture", article in Tabletalk Magazine. — URL: https://www.ligonier.org/​learn/​articles/​knowing-scripture/, retrieved 4 December 2020.

3 R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 1977, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515.

4Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 28, "Animism", by Wilbur Long.

5The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000, URL: http://www.bartleby.com/​61/​38/​A0343800.html.

6Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 64.

7Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 39.

8The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000, URL: http://www.bartleby.com/​61/​39/​A0343900.html.

9Theopedia: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, URL: http://www.theopedia.com/​Antinomianism.

10Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 29, "Antinomianism", by Vergilius Ferm.

11There are other Biblical Covenants, like God’s Covenant with Ishmael (Genesis 16:6-16), God’s Covenant with David (2Samuel 7:1-17) and God’s Covenant with Jeroboam (1Kings 11:29-39). But these are not blood Covenants, and they are not so crucial to ascertaining the terms of the divine covenant. But they are also not totally negligible. We therefore treat them more as statutes or case law than as Biblical Covenants. The latter are more like a constitution and collections of constitutional amendments.

12In fact, rabbinical Jews have historically divided the "Old Testament" into "Torah (Law, Teaching), Nevi’im (Prophets) and K’tuvim (Writings). But Christians divide the OT into four parts – Pentateuch, Historical Books, Writings and Prophets." (Complete Jewish Bible, p. xxvii.). We take the "Writings", "Prophets", and "Historical Books" – when these are not clearly either Biblical law or Biblical fact – as commentaries aimed at helping us to understand how to interpret such Biblical law and Biblical fact.

13Systematic Theology, p. 54.

14Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 64, "Chance", by A. Cornelius Benjamin.

15 For a more thorough treatment of our position regarding chance, see this: R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology, 1994, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan. — URL: https://​www.ligonier.org.

16Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstructionism, Chapter 11, "Understanding Christian Reconstruction", p. 62, 1988, American Vision, P.O.Box 720515, Atlanta, Georgia 30328. This book is available on the internet, URL: http://www.entrewave.com/​freebooks/​docs/​a_pdfs/​gddc.pdf.

17See the hermeneutical prologue.

18A doctrine often called "The Immutability of God" in Reformed systematic theologies.

19Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 162.

20Systematic Theology, p. 657.

21Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 177.

22Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 182.

23The ancient argument over nature versus nurture continues to this day. By understanding that humanity as a species acquired a set of conventional disabilities at the fall, it’s easier to understand that each human being has natural disabilities that derive directly from the human race’s conventional disabilities.

24Systematic Theology, pp. 519-522.

25Systematic Theology, pp. 518-519.

26Systematic Theology, pp. 516-518.

27Systematic Theology, p. 332.

28Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 91, "Deism", by Vergilius Ferm.

29Historically, they’ve been called public delicts.

30Historically, they’ve been called private delicts.

31Systematic Theology, pp. 472-473.

32Systematic Theology, p. 473.

33Systematic Theology, p. 267.

34Systematic Theology, p. 267.

35Systematic Theology, p. 315.

36Systematic Theology, p. 315.

37Black’s 5th, p. 459.

38Black’s 5th, p. 459.

39Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 12.

40Systematic Theology, p. 670.

41Systematic Theology, p. 679.

42Systematic Theology, p. 109.

43Webster’s New World Dictionary, p. 509.

44Gospel and Law, p. 62.

45Systematic Theology, p. 710.

46Systematic Theology, p. 657.

47Systematic Theology, p. 108.

48Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 147, "Humanism", by Corliss Lamont.

49Systematic Theology, p. 267.

50Systematic Theology, p. 90.

51Systematic Theology, p. 93.

52Systematic Theology, p. 723.

53Systematic Theology, pp. 472-473.

54Systematic Theology, p. 473.

55Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 217, "Monism", by Vergilius Ferm.

56Both the Divinity and the Humanity of Meshiach are crucial to orthodox Christianity, and we believe fervently in both doctrines. Even so, it’s not necessary for Meshiach to be omniscient or omnipotent to be Divine. To be Divine, He only needs to live eternally free of sin. There is ample Biblical evidence that He was free of sin, and therefore Divine. There is also ample Biblical evidence that He was fully Human. For evidence that He was not omniscient, consider Matthew 24:36. In that passage, His disciples came to Him and asked Him about the end times, and when He would return. He responded by saying, among other things, that nobody knows, except the Father. Not even the Son knows: "The day and the hour knows no man, not even the Son". He was telling His disciples that there was something that He did not know. So He was telling them that He was not omniscient. To say that He was not omniscient is to say that He was Human. To say that He didn’t know what He needed to know when He needed to know it is to say that He was vulnerable to sin, which is a perversion of reliable doctrine. The same set of principles applies to omnipotence. He was not omnipotent because He was Human. But He was always able to do whatever He needed to do whenever He needed to do it, because He was Divine. — The hermeneutical prologue and most reliable Reformed systematic theologies treat these issues at much greater length.

57Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 589.

58Both the Divinity and the Humanity of Meshiach are crucial to orthodox Christianity, and we believe fervently in both doctrines. Even so, it’s not necessary for Meshiach to be omniscient or omnipotent to be Divine. To be Divine, an essential prerequisite is that He be free of sin, unlike any other human. There is ample Biblical evidence that He was free of sin, and therefore Divine. There is also ample Biblical evidence that He was fully Human. For evidence that He was not omniscient, consider Matthew 24:36. In that passage, His disciples came to Him and asked Him about the end times, and when He would return. He responded by saying, among other things, that nobody knows, except the Father. Not even the Son knows: "The day and the hour knows no man, not even the Son". He was telling His disciples that there was something that He did not know. So He was telling them that He was not omniscient. To say that He was not omniscient is to say that He was Human. To say that He didn’t know what He needed to know when He needed to know it is to say that He was vulnerable to sin, which is a perversion of reliable doctrine. The same set of principles applies to omnipotence. He was not omnipotent because He was Human. But He was always able to do whatever He needed to so whenever He needed to do it, because He was Divine. — The hermeneutical prologue and most Reformed systematic theologies treat these issues at much greater length.

59Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 239, "Pantheism", by Wilbur Long.

60Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 261, "Pragmatism", by V.J. McGill.

61Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 262, "Pragmatism", by V.J. McGill.

62Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 264, "Predestination", by Vergilius Ferm.

63Systematic Theology, p. 130.

64If this were not true, then it would be absurd for the apostle Paul to call people to give their bodies to God (Romans 12:1; 1Corinthians 6:19-20), because people cannot give what they do not own.

65Systematic Theology, p. 699.

66Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 727.

67Systematic Theology, p. 713.

68Systematic Theology, p. 670.

69Systematic Theology, pp. 122-123.

70Systematic Theology, p. 123.

71Some people claim that the canon is closed because God no longer speaks through special revelation, but only through general revelation. We don’t believe this is correct. We believe that God still speaks through both general and special revelation. But we also believe that the canon is rightly closed since the last apostle died. We believe the latter is true because we believe that using general and special revelation to properly interpret the existing canon of Scripture is our primary task, and adding new amendments to the divine covenant is now beyond the lawful power and authority of anyone other than the Messiah.

72Quotes come from Systematic Theology, p. 670.

73Systematic Theology, p. 746.

74Black’s 5th, p. 1214.

75Black’s 5th, p. 1214.

76Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 147, "Humanism", by Corliss Lamont.

77Systematic Theology, p. 490.

78Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 310, "Social Contract", by Walter Eckstein.

79Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 828.

80Systematic Theology, p. 217.

81Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 841.

82Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 893.

83Black’s 5th, p. 1325.

84Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 332, "Theocracy", by Virgilius Ferm.

85See Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1Samuel 1-8.

86Quotes are from J. Ligon Duncan, III, "Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement", URL: http://www.the-highway.com/​recon_Duncan.html, "A paper presented to the Social Science History Association, Atlanta, Georgia, USA", October 15, 1994.

87A doctrine often called "The Immutability of God" in Reformed systematic theologies. See Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:11-12; 13:8; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; etc.

88Systematic Theology, p. 267.

89Systematic Theology, pp. 472-473.

90Systematic Theology, p. 473.

91Systematic Theology, p. 226.

92Pascal’s Pensées. Also see Pascal’s Pensées, URL: http://www.leaderu.com/​cyber/​books/​pensees/​pensees-SECTION-7.html.