The Mature Bride of Christ

Post 344

Have you ever contemplated what it would mean to be the bride of Christ the Son of God?
I don’t mean the girlish Cinderella fairytale of escapism in blissful romance and magical castles far away where all is perfect and no one ever disagrees; I mean the day to day reality of living as the spouse of God long after the bloom falls from the rose and the once blushing bride who marveled that the Prince chose her, gets used to the power and authority that comes with the name and she begins to feel her Lord’s equal in rights and opinions and will. The “ever after” of Eternity is a very long time.

Speaking of eternity, do you imagine that there is no time in eternity? Do you imagine that eternity is a state of nothingness and nowhere at no time because those cannot exist in eternity? Do you imagine that you never change or learn as events are experienced because you are locked in a perpetual state of being perfectly eighteen in body and mind? You would be mistaken.
Eternity is eternity only because of the passage of time and things and events to mark its passage. Without time and events to measure it eternity has no substance.
So what does the bride of Christ do for eternity? Even BonBons would get tiresome eventually, not to mention the whole “harps on clouds” bit. How long can you be content sitting around in beautiful gowns doing needlework as a virgin in waiting? (Matthew 25:5).
Do you imagine that Cinderella never matures past the youthful beauty of her photogenic point in time when she gets her first kiss from the Prince to “live happily ever after”? What happiness does “ever after” have in store for her as she matures from young bride, to mature wife in the kingdom of her Great Prince? Does she play any factor in that happiness or is she just a victim of fortunate circumstances for all eternity thereafter? Is marriage to the Lamb of God the end of it all, or is it perhaps the beginning of it all? Like our temporal typology of marriage; doesn’t that answer depend on your perspective of “it all”?

I ask all these questions for you to contemplate because the strained fairytale of a happily-ever-after marriage today refuses to examine beyond the glorious off-white gown and “I do”s. It refuses to look, because the overwhelming evidence is very disheartening and destroys the happy dream; “Let me have my happiness in this moment of bliss and I will worry about the misery when it comes.”
Isn’t that even biblical?:

…“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” Matthew 6:34.

It might be… if it didn’t follow the preceding verse in context:

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”… Matthew 6:33.

So if we are going to apply the first read verse in this way then we must also apply the second in the same way: Seeking implies something not yet attained. Why seek for things to be acquired later if the very next verse tells us not to worry about it?
No, the passage plainly tells us that there is a distinction to be made regarding what we should and should not be concerned about. Seeking both the kingdom of God and his righteousness are clearly commanded.
So Cinderella focuses on that far away kingdom in hope and preparation, and the troubles of this life don’t so dramatically affect her focus of attention as she faces them. In fact, as painful as they are to experience, she rejoices that these trials come, because they put her faith’s prepared righteousness to the test for perfecting it (*1). Her focus on seeking that kingdom and applying the righteousness of that kingdom’s lord is her secret to being Cinderella through her trials. Without the trials and her righteous responses, Cinderella is a non-story.
In all truth, these two things commanded are all that she needs to be attentive to. The happily-every-after is simply a guaranteed result.
* * *

BUT.
What if Cinderella stops short of the full command and only seeks the kingdom of God? What would Cinderella look like if she failed to seek the righteousness of her lord? What attraction would she have for the prince if she acted like all the other ladies in waiting hoping to be the one to reach that kingdom? What compatibility does the handsome prince have with the wicked stepsister?
Cinderella believes in the handsome prince and his kingdom, she earnestly wants to be the bride of the prince. Isn’t that earnest desire enough to guarantee success? It wasn’t enough for the wicked stepsisters who felt the same way:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:19-20.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” Matthew 7:21.

So in the old fairytale written to make a point, the princess-in-making has been given the nature of a princess of that kingdom even before she meets the prince. How did she get that nature, was she just born lucky?
In the old fairytale of long ago that part was not necessary to explain because even very young girls not yet personally committed to Jesus Christ were already being raised in the discipline to seat the characteristics of that kingdom, yet they also experienced the wicked nature of the flesh in their fallen humanity. The fairytale, by a vision of something far off to be attained, encourages her to supplant her dark nature of the wicked stepsisters with the characteristics of a princess that would be attractive to the prince and naturally welcome in his kingdom. As long as she put on and maintained the garments of righteousness as a nature in the longing to be counted a worthy citizen of that kingdom and delight to the prince, Cinderella need not worry about the details of the happily-ever-after: she would be ready and able to play her part in making it a long-term reality.

But let’s also contemplate the idea if the wicked stepsister succeeded in keeping Cinderella locked up, and was therefore the one to catch the prince’s eye and win his heart with her beauty.
Such a thought is naturally repulsive to us even today, because we see that she is very ugly where ugliness is undesirable. We can grasp that her physical ugliness represents her personal ugliness and we easily see that her personality and his are utterly incompatible. There is just no chance that the handsome prince could be persuaded to marry the ugly stepsister.
But now let’s go further in our contemplations; Let’s assume that after locking Cinderella in the tower, the ugly stepsister is the best looking thing at the ball and somehow she persuades the prince to marry her in his great kingdom and introduce her to his father the king; her new father in law. What natural reaction would the kingdom of happily-ever-after have with this new “woman of the house” long waited for in hope and expectation? Can you picture her walking the streets of gold, meeting the inhabitants, and implementing the power of her position as bride of the prince? Without the need of explanation we can easily see that her self-centered power-hungry ugly nature would desire to make servants of the inhabitants and consume the kingdom and its wealth for her glory and pride, even against any earnest efforts to be “a good wife” (*2). These results are the very nature and motive behind her earnest desire to marry the prince and attain the kingdom:

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, […] and all these things shall be added unto you.” Matthew 6:33 slightly abridged by perception of focus.

Can you see now how important it is to include the second half of the command?

“[and his righteousness;]”

God the King has made perfectly clear that nobody naturally has the appropriate nature of the kingdom. All of us are born wicked stepsisters; it’s in our very nature of fallen humanity:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” Romans 3:10.

Therefore we must choose to seek after the righteousness of the prince of the righteous kingdom of which we want to be citizens who need not be ashamed there as here (II Thessalonians 3:14). We are talking about laboriously exchanging our natural nature for another. We are talking about becoming “somebody else” by efforts of refinement.

“Be not deceived: evil communications (G3657 companionships) corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some (of you Cinderella wanna-bees) have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame” I Corinthians 15:33-34.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” II Timothy 2:15.

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” II Corinthians 10:5.

The very next verse speaks of a future state and purpose that the simple Cinderella of pure heart working on her here-and-now nature in preparation need not concern herself with greatly. Yet it reveals to us a bit of the part we will play in maintaining the happily-ever-after:

...“and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” II Corinthians 10:6.

Until our obedience is fulfilled, we are unworthy to seriously contemplate the other. So we work on our obedience; our application of his righteousness; our new nature. We focus on becoming Cinderella while we wait for the Prince.
Who doesn’t think that beautiful, kind, loving, patient, forgiving, captivating, endearing Cinderella does not have the nature and experiential evidence to rightly revenge all disobedience? What do you imagine Cinderella does to the Stepsisters after she becomes princess; does she let them continue in their hurtful wickedness’s? No; because she is kind and cannot abide such in her kingdom. But is she cruel in her righteous revenge? No; cruelty is not in her Lord's righteous nature, which she has adopted as her own. Though justice is.

As we contemplate Cinderella and her life as an easy-to-comprehend likeness of the Christian, we see that there are two simultaneous endeavors going on within her. One: to be united with the prince, and Two: to be counted worthy of him. Seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.
* * *

OK, but now let’s imagine the better educated wicked stepsister after the ball, wisely imitating righteousness in the desire to win the prince’s kingdom by forcing the slipper to fit. By our analogy that beauty=goodness we understand that the ugly stepsister cannot be otherwise than ugly. She has a wicked heart and she has no intention of changing it.

“The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath” Proverbs 11:23.

But you know? Some shoes can be made to look like they fit while hiding the painful truth, and lipstick really does change the initial appearance of the pig. Well, that and a fine dress of righteousness and some deceitfully dirty glasses (I Corinthians 13:12). Today even boys can be made to look like very beautiful young women by their trappings. But a pig is still a pig no matter what you do to alter it.
Yet what great damage can be done by deceiving a righteous young man into being genuinely attracted to another young man that he thinks is a woman! Upon discovery the destruction of confusion is unspeakable, even if no lines of righteousness were crossed by the honorable young man, who was deceived because he wouldn’t cross those lines!
Similar is a wicked woman dressed in robes of righteousness (Proverbs 11:22). Today the art of lipsticking pigs is on the verge of magical (Proverbs 11:16a+18a+19+Matthew 24:24=Hebrews 3:13-14).

Our world is growing up quickly as it reaches its final stage of preparation and the lessons of experience are teaching the wicked in their wickedness at the same rate they are teaching the righteous in their righteousness. The wicked are likewise learning the power of righteousness, or at least the appearance of it. Criminals are now dressing in fine suits and good manners. Evil seducers are learning how to sweet talk with class and feigned morals. Prostitutes are now called Escorts, and they are being taught refinement and style in order to be able to play the illusionary part more convincingly. And in kind, the wicked are infiltrating the church to practice their deceitful craft of illusionary godliness (II Timothy 3:5-7).

So if they are both earnestly seeking the kingdom, and if they are both applying robes of righteousness to look the part, what really makes the difference between Cinderella and the wicked stepsister in this advanced age of Adamically fallen women?
In today’s advanced wickedness’ we need to discern WHY she is seeking the kingdom. Does she love the prince and his kingdom or is she just a Gold-digger looking to chew up some heavenly asphalt to the diminishment of the kingdom and be served as a queen in the process? To massage a coined term: Motive is nine-tenths of the ends.
Nobody even thinks to question Cinderella in her motives; which are obviously righteous and above reproach. But what if someone does? What are Cinderella’s motives for wanting to marry the prince? Suddenly even Cinderella herself begins to question her motives, that, before the question was presented, were as pure and true as the driven snow. But in attempting to answer the question, they begin to look like desires of selfishness. Does she want to escape the suffering? Sure. Does she want to be loved by the prince? Yes. Does she want to experience the majesty of the great kingdom with all its glory? Absolutely. So is she self-focused?

“Why I, I, I don’t know! I suppose I am. Oh dear!”

But is she? Of course not! She is the prince’s dream girl. and if you would just stop trying to complicate things you could see it as clear as polished glass. How do we know? Because she has sought after the kingdom of heaven and the prince’s righteousness her whole life in hope and longing and laborious efforts to be counted worthy of him, though she knows she is not. It’s not her own righteousness that she has been applying to herself. In her eyes this is not about her but about HIM!
* * *

Two great Commands in a unified singular goal:
This is a repeating primary concept in the kingdom of heaven. The concept is best and most easily expressed by the word Marriage; The union of two very different elements into a singular whole greater than its parts. This is the reason why it is so important to maintain the Holy sanctity of marriage as God ordained it, and why the wicked are so diligently subverting its Typology.
This kingdom concept of marriage is again expressed to us by the two very distinct tables of the Commandments. Did you even know that the Law and Commandments were given in two stone slabs?

“And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written” Exodus 32:15.

Is that important to know? Not necessarily, but the knowing helps us understand the Typology and engine of function. As we explore the Ten Commandments we can identify a distinct difference in nature between the first four and the last six, with the fifth being an authority transition between them and therefore easily grouped as five on each table. The first group outlines our relationship with divine authority: God, which can be summed up like this:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment” Matthew 22:37-38.

The second group of Commandments outline our relationship with our fellow man, which can be summed up like this:

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” Matthew 22:39-40.

Imagine then if we choose to apply only half of the twin great commandments. What can we expect would be the result if we focused only on our love for God but failed to consider our fellow man? In all well-meaning and good intent we would become Tyrannical to our fellow man in our attempt to please God by application of his first table of laws. This is imaged in our previous discussion as seeking the kingdom of heaven without seeking God’s righteousness. We saw this historically acted out in the conduct of the ancient Jews in their growing plethora of silly rules as extensions of the law to ensure compliance, and again today in the Islamists that follow Mohammadism killing and subjugating all the infidels. “The Law of protecting the kingdom of God must be applied without mercy or pardon.” Such can be described as the Masculine approach to governance.
But the other approach is likewise imaged in our discussion as seeking his righteousness without concern for God or his kingdom. “Forget God and religion; be nice to your fellow man is what’s really important.” We see this acted out in the overthrow of the law by Democracy. Historically Democracy is in earnest a relief of the oppressed people and a ready answer for Despotism, but, as exampled by the historical Roman Catholic Church and today’s abortion laws, always soon ends in far greater blood and a more desperate Tyranny than what it overthrew by subversion. Such can be described as the Feminine approach of governance.
By realizing there is a very important reason for the order of first and second with its related designations of chain-of-command authority, as well as the simultaneous dual application of both portions of the singular Commandments, we see that there is a very complex result that is far greater than its parts.

As we now understand by prophecy that humanity is in its last age of experiential preparation before that kingdom’s Prince comes for Cinderella, we can see that the masculine approach of the guiding Law had to come first, then became tyrannical by corruption, and thereby caused need for the Democracy of deliverance to come next, to likewise fail in its turn by corruption; each corruption brought on by a failure of tempering the one with the other, which were both given at the beginning in the genders of Adam and Eve as a married couple.
Today near the end of the human timeline, we are seeing the glorious early maturity of Democracy in liberation from the Law before it implodes by its very nature of lawless laws. This is most easily described as applying self-righteousness while casting disdain for the Lord of the kingdom we hope to acquire. “You can’t get his stuff if you don’t marry the man.” So the last Church of the Revelation 3 order of history does what she has to do to get his name and therefore his stuff by power and authority of bearing his name. She has no real interest in the Prince himself, but only what association with him can do for her: “It’s all about ME.”
It’s the wicked stepsister locking away the real Cinderella and standing in her stead hoping to win the prince by dressing like her because she has learned that that’s what he likes.
But a pig is still a pig.
The prince is looking for his princess, with a bigger picture of reasoning in mind. That union is only the beginning of something that needs such a union. We are talking about The Kingdom of Heaven, which Christ told us to preach to those who knew the basics (Matthew 10:6-7, 22:9), and to preach the basics as the gospel of salvation to those who didn’t (Mark 16:15-16). They go together, one before the other, as a set for a single purpose far greater than the parts. Of course!
So how long have you been a Christian focused only on acquiring the kingdom by the basics of salvation as the end of it all? By not focusing on seeking the king’s righteousness as commanded, such limited vision remains existentially focused and is strangled to fruitlessness by the thorns and thistles of this earthly life.
* * * * * * *

(*1) “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting (G3007 lacking) nothing” James 1:2-4.

(*2) “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” Matthew 7:22-23.
*

The Family Chauffeur

Post 343

As a last Post to complete the related subject of my small community likeness to our national problem that is clearly explained by the Grand Tapestry, I offer the following sum.

Rather than apply the law and legally recall (i.e. impeach) a few of the belligerently willful Assembly members for both violation of the law, and failure to remain within the tenor of their commission, our small resolving force of citizens, against my solitary recommendations, chose instead to make an appeal by petition to get the present Assembly to comply with our wishes, withdraw the Minor Offense Ordinance they just passed unlawfully, and follow the lawful process to pass it.
After submitting the petition with a stunning 652 signatures, (about 75% of the voting population), the Assembly very reluctantly reconsidered their vote and unanimously voted to send it back to the Commissions originally established to review it, before the Assembly votes on it again.
Not a single Assembly member expressed a changed heart; those that voted against it before were still against the way it was passed, and those that voted on it before openly stated that they still feel the ordinance is good, they legally did the right thing, the public is ignorant, and they only reconsidered their vote because the public by mass “bullied” them to do so.

So, after remaining even more deeply entrenched in their seats than before, and, for the time being safe by complying to the latest request of the population, the Assembly also commissioned a Special Commission of seven that would consist of both Assemblymen and Citizens to review the ordinance for acceptability.
The following is a short parable that explains just what we have now:
* * *

The Family Chauffeur
There once was a well-established family that hired a family chauffeur for the kids. They created and signed a simple contract and turned over the keys of the family car. The duties were simple; maintain the car, be available at all regular hours to take the family where they spontaneously desired, and follow the family’s written schedule taking the members wherever they were need to go; such as soccer practice, music lessons, school, work, etc. It was a great relationship and the family learned to love the chauffeur as a valuable member.
Over the next few years the stoic family chauffeur saw many interesting interactions with various family members, some good and some bad. There was a regular and ongoing squabble among the children, and whenever two or more members asked the chauffeur to drive them, there was always an argument as to where that should be. If one asked to be taken to the mall, the other would declare a hatred for the mall. If one requested the skating rink, the other wanted the beach in the opposite direction. Even when the chauffeur was determined to take the children to school-- per the family written schedule-- the children demanded to be taken to the park instead.
When appealing to the parents for help or ideas, Mrs. State simply showed the chauffeur the contract, suggested some unique applications, and left the details up to the chauffeur to work out with the children. The chauffeur began to quietly see himself less as a chauffeur, and more like a nanny with rebellious children that needed to be managed. The children got less and less what they demanded and were more and more driven to where the chauffeur deemed was in their best interest. The children usually accepted this as the easiest way to resolve family contentions.

Somewhere along the way, the family children all climbed into the car for their familiar trip to school but the chauffeur decided that they would be better served in a different kind of educational establishment. The family car pulled up in front of a military academy. The children were confused. Then became scared. And finally, in a desperate attempt to avoid this change, started to think about the contract and proper roll of the chauffeur. Had any of them actually read the contract? Did any of them actually know the prescribed power that the chauffeur had been given? And finally; What could be done to change the new and dramatic reality of standing before this new institution of re-education called the Minor Offense Academy For Wayward Children?
In a very rare and unusual display of solidarity, all the family children were united in voice declaring to the chauffeur that it was his duty to take them to their regular school. He argued that he had observed their long undisciplined behavior, and as a wise adult he knew better than they did what was good for them. He declared; “I have been a part of this family a long time now, do you honestly think that I would do anything to harm this family?”
But, while still quite confused as to the reach of his authority, the scope of the actual contract, and the merits of a military school; the children knew instinctively that they were supposed to be taken to their regular school and so they unanimously appealed to the chauffeur to take them to their proper school per their desire, which they knew was somehow an obligatory part of the contract on many levels.
The smart chauffeur knew by their unified determination that if he did not comply they would go to their parents about his stubborn willfulness as well as his breach of contract, and things would get significantly ugly to the degree of risking his employment. He was, after all, just the chauffeur.

So, although he made it very clear that he felt the ignorant children belonged in a military school for their own good, he reluctantly drove them to the Home Rule School on their regular written schedule, per their demands.
The end?
Not hardly!
Rather than just hire a new responsive chauffeur, it has now become necessary for one of the older children to sit in the front seat anytime any of the children want to go anywhere, just to make sure the unresponsive chauffeur they retained drives them to the proper destination.
But the now entrenched chauffeur is not deterred. He knows that they will eventually get tired of this and he will ultimately get his way. Military school for the whole lot of them, and a bit of peace for himself!
* * *

I now intend to bring all these many strings together and with them weave the fabric of the Grand Tapestry that explains all of Creation in a way that can be practically applied.
*

The Minor Offense Ordinance

- A New America Here At Home -
342

Kyle’s open letter of noteworthy points,
I never thought I would see the day when I discovered a darkness even darker than Nancy Peloci’s “We have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” advice to Congress. But last night the Haines Borough Assembly just passed that mark. From Leftist to rightwing, men and women, wealthy businessmen and paupers, Mud Bay and Highway and towns people, persons of deep faith and serious dope smokers; a very impressive ensemble of notoriously contrarily opinionated Haines Citizens, whose votes are ALWAYS divided right down the middle, showed up last night to the Public Hearing at 6:30 in unprecedented solidarity to make very clear by attendance, as well as an impressively long string of three-minute speeches, declaring that the people do not want the Minor Offense Ordinance. Yet strangely it passed… and “strangely” is not nearly a powerful enough word, which we will get to near the end of this address. The list of shocking “in spite ofs” goes on-and-on even beyond the past three weeks of public hearings on this ordinance, and many citizens, both committee and privately, put their lives on hold to individually research and then compile their several mind’s work to address the assembly in written form, exposing advised precautions to consider, as well as the high volume of direct and indirect violations of U.S. Law, Alaska Statute, and Haines Borough Charter. Yet the Assembly plunged ahead with an equally unprecedented determination to pass this ordinance against all argument and against all reason, and in direct violation of their oath of office to “support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the Charter of the Haines Borough.” Borough Charter 2.04.040 (*1).
Allow me to short-list just a few of the many strange facts that brought this ordinance to life by less-than authorized means.

• By document and website, the Assembly chose to tell the people, whom they represent, that this ordinance was mandated by Alaska Court Order No 1797. But there is no mandate. Yet after being directly challenged on this fact, and even confessing this truth, they chose not to correct the lie.

• The Assembly chose to tell the people that this ordinance was about tabling existing infractions. Yet after being challenged on this beguilement they chose not to correct the deception:

• Although the public pointed out the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Charter-changing right-steeling concepts and wording such as in proposed 1.24.010, 1.24.060 and 1.24.070 among others, including phrases like: “It is not a defense to the charge that it was factually or legally impossible to commit the offence allegedly attempted…”, the Assembly chose to leave those lawless words and intents unremoved and unchanged.

• The alteration of our retained rights and the re-coding of our home rule infractions into State managed Minor Offenses by the nature of this charter-amending ordinance “determines the culture under which our government operates and is the enforcement mechanism for all of our public behavior and transactions” (Carol Tuynman), and therefore makes this a Charter amending ordinance by nature, requiring a public vote: “Proposed amendments [to the charter] shall be submitted to the voters…” Haines Borough Charter Article 17.02 (*2).

• This deceptively packaged ordinance is in violation of Charter Title 2.12.070 by combining administrative tabling and Charter changing elements. By unlawfully combining the two natures of this singular ordinance it confuses how it must be enacted: Article 3.02(c) “a simple majority vote of the total membership of the assembly may pass an ordinance” vs. Article 17.01 “This Charter may be amended by the Haines Borough electorate ratifying an amendment at a regular or special election,” and Alaska Statute 29.10.100 “A home rule charter may be amended as provided in the charter, except that no amendment is effective unless ratified by the voters.” Yet by this forbidden combination and the disguise of its true nature, the Assembly called it an administrative “tabling ordinance” and went about passing it by simple majority vote of the Assembly, keeping the choice of changing the nature of our chartered laws out of the hands of the people. This is a blatant ignoring of identifying a restrictive nature as to when the Agents can act and when they must let the people act: Borough Charter 2.12.090 “When an act is required by ordinance (this is) and the act may be done as well by an agent [i.e. Assembly] as by the principle [i.e. the people]…”
This act cannot be done as well by our agents as by our express will by vote.
Alaska Statute 44.62.312(3) confirms this concept by saying: “the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them;” and (4) “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people…” Yet the Assembly did just that by passing this ordinance on their own, and in direct opposition to every voice of the people who spoke at every meeting held on this ordinance.

• On Sept. 8, 2015 at the Public Hearing, the Assembly allowed an Assemblyman to speak on a topic that had already been closed. This violated Charter Title 2.10.060B: “Every member while speaking shall speak only to the subject under debate.” That violation speech resulted in a likewise violating vote that spawned an impressive chaos of following violating votes and reconsiders that eventually resulted in eliminating the previous rightfully established third public hearing-- with its extended date for cause-- and unlawfully enacted a vote of passage at the next scheduled Public Hearing time-slot (see Borough Assembly Minutes 9/8/15 p2 of 4 for a very interesting read).

• At that next scheduled meeting, of Sept. 22, 2015-- last night-- after a very impressive public turnout that-- at least for those who spoke-- TO THE PERSON, stood firmly against the passage of this ordinance, and by solidarity the silent-attending agreed, it was declared by two Assembly persons that although maybe one-hundred strong, our united voice against this ordinance was a small percentage of the 1700 citizens of the Haines Borough. They declared that they were enacting this ordinance in the name, and by the wishes of, the silent population that elected them. It seems apparent that while the exact ratio is admittedly debatable, they utterly reject the universally recognized concept declaring that each individual who acts or votes, accurately represents a far larger number of those who do not. 1 to 10 is not at all outside the scope of an easily accepted ratio. And so, since all of the “100” persons who acted have declared by appearance, written submission, or speech, that this ordinance is not of the will of the people, it cannot be reasonably assumed that the silent majority was not heard decidedly. The fact that there was not a single contrary opinion among them boosts those ratios enormously.

• After the lengthy three-minute public speeches, acting Chair; Madam Lapham, berated the public by saying, as close as I can remember; “I don’t know why the people site; Police State and Nazism, and Communism… the public need to chose their words more wisely,” “I take offense...” Her context and wording and tone expressly told the public that she did not believe we believed what we were saying and therefore dismissed our speeches as insignificant blather and not the real concerns of the people to be received. She even berated one speaker, who said reading this ordinance was reminiscent of what he experienced in East Germany before the wall came down, by accusing him of not living through Communism and so not knowing what was and was not Communistic. This dismissive reaction to the public speeches given in the time slot of “being heard” is an untenable violation of the law. This directly and offensively violates the “reasonably heard” laws as well as the tenor of her commission as pubic servant.

• Only at this last meeting, when the vote was to be cast, did Assemblyman Case expose to the public that his medical condition interfered with his ability to read. Normally I would not even mention such an infliction in the effort to respect the individual who suffers what he did not bring upon himself, but because of how this vote went down this bit of information becomes legally important. Both Alaska Statute and Borough Code makes clear that the people have a very important and foundational right to be heard by those who represent them. Alaska Statute 29.20.020: “The governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings,” and Haines Borough Code 2.08.060A: “The public shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” There is no way that three-minutes to speak can be construed to be a reasonable opportunity to be heard on matters of this importance. But the public is allowed to write letters and emails to the Assembly conveying their concerns, so this may be construed as to fulfill that meaning even if it doesn’t accurately conform to the letter, and possibly even the intent. So after spending many hours carefully researching and wording each letter, the public has gone to great lengths in the effort to be heard so that the assembly can grasp their concerns to be applied when they vote. Yet now we learn too late, by his own confession, that Mr. Case cannot physically read the import of the public, and therefore has failed to provide a lawfully required and very important element of being an actual representative of the people. And, while I have long suspected that many of the Assembly does not read the presentations of the people, we have solid evidence that says at least two of the six members of the assembly votes without hearing the public’s concerns.

• Several points of the law regarding process were submitted by Mr. Denker and read, and some even referenced by assemblyman Campbell at this meeting before the vote was taken. In the composition of those laws are specific requirements of access to information before a meeting, which the Assembly was still missing, as well as information which the public was guaranteed timely but not yet provided. The several laws state clearly that this information must be in place: The Haines Borough Charter Preamble and Bill of Rights (*3) declares “The right to access a well maintained public record of all actions of public officials in accordance with this charter, so that the citizens of the borough may retain control over the affairs of their government.” Borough Code 2.60.120 states; “The minutes shall be filed in the office of the clerk as soon as feasible, but in no case later than two weeks following the committee meeting, and shall be a public record open to inspection by any person.” Borough Code 2.10.030(A) states: “The mayor, with assistance from the clerk, shall arrange [the committee information] according to the order of business and the clerk shall furnish each member of the assembly, the mayor, the manager and the chief fiscal officer with a copy of the same in packet form five calendar days in advance of the assembly meeting.” Yet in spite of Assemblyman Campbell’s efforts to caution the Assembly against voting on a subject of which all pertinent information was not available, as obligatory by law, Madam Lapham as the acting Chair moved forward with the determination to have the vote anyway.

• Assemblyman Campbell then earnestly asked the question; “Why is it so important that we pass this now, especially since it won’t be implemented until January?” To which he did not receive an honest answer to his question, but did receive some mocking replies. Assemblyman Campbell earnestly pleaded with reason to delay the unlawful vote, but he was harshly overruled by the Chair as being out of order.

• In a last-ditch desperate attempt to do as much quick patching of a heinously flawed document that was obviously about to be passed, Mr. Campbell made several successive motions to amend the proposed ordinance by including in bulk the recommendations of various committees that had been heard but ignored. Some of his motions carried while others were defeated. Eventually, after the Chair unofficially belittled Mr. Campbell for his seemingly “unending” attempts to do his best to at least diminish the flaws of the document before it went to vote, the vote was called for, and taken…… and Mr. Campbell refused to vote, on the grounds that the missing information made the vote unlawful according to requirements of the Charter itself.

• Not being deterred from her note-worthily unexplainable determination, the Chair utterly ignored his claims of unlawful vote, and, with the Clerk, began immediate explorations of the charter for options to force Mr. Campbell to vote. They tried portions of Code 2.10.200: “All assembly members present shall vote unless the presiding officer, for special reasons, permits a member to abstain.” But neglected to allow for the part of the same Code that reads: “or is allowed to abstain by law.” He stood firm and refused to vote, again declaring it violates the law. Eventually after a recessed deliberation with the Clerk, and the Mayor by teleconference, the Chair determined that Mr. Campbell’s refusal to vote would be considered as a “presumed” vote.

• So in a true-life fulfillment of the gnat-straining-camel-swallowing proverb, the blaring fact of declared lawlessness of the Assembly was utterly ignored, and a confusion ensued as to just how to count his vote. To stem the confusion the question presented by Assemblyman Berry then became: “Which form of rules should be followed; Roberts Rules of Order, or the Borough Charter?” (Title 2.10.050): By the one set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to go with the majority and make it a 2-4 vote to pass the ordinance, but under the other set of rules his “presumed vote” would have to be deemed a descent and therefore make it a 3-3 tie vote. By Assembly deliberation the Borough Charter won over the Roberts Rules, and the Mayor by teleconference voted in favor to break the tie, and the ordinance was unlawfully and strangely passed 3-4 with one member not voting.

And that, my friends, is a very short list of the many details in how your Assembly chose to represent you, the silent majority. I bet you didn’t know that you wanted to be stripped of your Habeas Corpus rights, or your right to Trial by Jury, or your previously maintained right to adjudication by your piers, or your right to expect your Assemblymen to adhere to the law, or…


Sincerely,


- Kyle Ponsford, counted among the unsilent.
(address and phone number removed)
* * * * * * *

(*1) NOTE: All information and links of existing Borough Code in this address will be based on established Code current through ordinance 15-07-417 last accessed on 9/23/15. Subsequent changes to the Code in these links after this date may not represent the evidences as described and or copied in this address. Such example accessed for confirmation on 9/29/15 is as follows in note (*2):

(*2) “Title 17
(Reserved)
The Haines Borough Code is current through Ordinance 15-07-417, passed August 11, 2015.
Disclaimer: The Borough Clerk's Office has the official version of the Haines Borough Code. Users should contact the Borough Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.”

(*3) The Preamble and Bill of Rights are artfully buried at the bottom of the Table of Contents page as if it were not actually a part of the Charter.
*

From Federal to Local

- The battlefront moves closer to home-
September 25, 2015
Post 340

Without any pre-warning, after a casual conversation across the counter at a local business, I found myself suddenly dropped right in the center of a real-life local mirror of what I have been addressing on a Federal level in my Blog. It has consumed my life for the past many weeks and revealed to me that the same demonic forces that unexplainably drive the Federal, is right here in my small remote Alaskan home town.
Well, it has been a real exercise in education and experience regarding what can easily be seen as a result of failure. But, having a deep understanding of the strategies behind the spiritual players who move the temporal pieces on the grand chessboard, I was not shocked or surprised at how this went down. What did surprise me was the degree of darkness to which “normal” citizens in seats of authority in America are willing to go to do the will of the dark master that they don’t even know they serve. I was amazed to see and hear their own shock of confusion as some of them even eventually recognized the insanity of what they were doing but couldn't seem to stop themselves. One Assemblywoman who passed the ordinance, could be seen holding her face near the end of the meeting, and the Assemblyman seated next to her reported that he heard her mutter; "This doesn't feel right."
There are powerful details that I really wish I had the ability to share but the nature of this written form restricts the volume, and so I will attempt to limit myself to a small portion of the public facts that support my previously intended point.

What we are facing on the cellular level is the digging and dunging the roots of the national tree in the aforementioned parable. The nutrients and sustenance of the nation are acquired through the "grass-roots" of the individual communities. The scratching and dunging is uncomfortable and jolting, but if it does not cause the tree as a whole to start producing good fruit...
In that light, I intend my next few Posts to provide the general idea of the battle we have been facing on the home front, which I expect is being played out in every community across America right under our oblivious noses. I did not intend to go in this specific direction on my Blog, but it nonetheless fits very well and timely with my general direction and what I have already been writing. More importantly; it provides real teeth to my argument that makes the prophesied two-party last Global Dominate Empire a reality in our time. What just happened here in my town is our small part in the birth of Mystery Babylon.

The following Post will be a copy of my second written address as sent to the Haines Borough Assembly regarding the upcoming enactment of what is called the Minor Offense Ordinance. It will have added links where applicable for documentation and support.
*

Exploring The Remedy

Post 339

(Required pre-reading: Exodus 32)

Alright, Now that you have had the opportunity to search this out a bit on your own and exercise your spiritual relationship with God’s Spirit by fellowship in study, Let’s see if we came up with the same basic answer, even if a bit of the details didn’t come through:
But before we jump in-- and we will-- I confess that I left you a detouring stumbling block to see how you navigated it. Did you find it, or were you manipulated into seeing only what you were prepared to see and so took the natural but complicated side-road that I offered, thinking that you were still on the main path of discovery?
Here it is:

In the transcribed video of a recent Post, did Mr. Gowdy actually seem to you like he was praying for a miracle? And if you got the impression that he was, was that prayer to his We The People constituents that are the government’s god in Type? In otherwords; Did Mr. Gowdy seem to cry out to the People begging for help in solving their unsolvable problem with the office of President, or was he more apparently just trying to convince us that he was doing an honorable thing so that he would be praised? “Dear God, please bless what I do” (*1).
The fact is that even the republican portion of Congress has shown not the slightest evidence that they want our righteous help or authoritative opinions in their “Constitutional” doing; they only want our applause and re-election. Therefore all the study that we did for this answer is basically inapplicably theoretical, which we call Academic (Luke 13:35 vs. Jeremiah 33:3).

OK. So identifying the very large stone of stumbling that derails us to an entirely different road of inapplicable thinking and theoretical responding to the complex conditions we find there, Let’s pretend for a moment that our faithful Representative Mr. Gowdy was indeed making, even quietly, a desperate prayer to the American People for a miracle, and let’s pretend to make a wise answer to that prayer.

As you reviewed Exodus 32 for a study in Typology looking for specific answers regarding how to solve our Nation’s high-office corruptions, I trust you were reminded by familiarity of our earlier significant study in the collection of Posts titled The Uncommon Christian Walk. That large-perspective information is very useful now and beneficial in identifying just where we are in the Rehab Program so that we can comprehend if such an answer fits with our condition, or if we are to look for another section for a better ensample to deal with our problems.

But leaving all that aside for the time-being to study this out AS IF Congress was asking for our help, Let’s now explore what we discovered:
* * *

Exploring the Remedy:
So, in Exodus 32 we see Christ the Legislator-- Typed by Moses-- coming down from God off His mountain to address the nation’s corruptions of the law by intending to re-give the law very simply and written in stone so that we can’t continue “changing them” by Judicial reinterpretation for our Executive doing.
But when he got here, Christ-- Typed by Moses-- sees the hedonistic debauchery going on and decided the nation is already too perverted to accept the Commandments without feeling oppressed, so he chucks them over a cliff and, instead of wrath, he hugs everybody with his all-inclusive big arms, crying in joy; “God loves you one and all! Don’t sweat this; I have you covered.”
Is that what you got?
Wow, neither did I. So how does Moses Type the Christ?
The answer is that we have a very faulty concept of Christ, who was indeed Typed by Moses.
Let’s try to walk through this together:

A Different Kind of Relationship:
After casting down the tablets of the commandments, as having already been broken by the people (Matthew 5:32a), the legislation designed to keep them from sinning was at this point a meaningless hindsight; the crime has already been committed and so now its time for the repercussions that the law was intended to keep them from experiencing (Galatians 3:10). In effect, the law is the threat of the punishment.

After casting down the tablets, the very next thing we are told, is that Moses ground their golden idol to powder, broadcast it over water, and made the people drink it (v.20).

Oh boy, that will really teach them a lesson~, right?

What is with this apparent silliness as a first reaction to something so heinous as spiritual adultery? Did you-- like Congress lightly exploring the Constitution for a remedy-- just blow by this meaningless little trifle while looking for solid answers? That’s not a good practice! The answers are usually in the part you ignore, because you ignore them due to complete ignorance of their meaning and importance. Therefore, they go unapplied, and so the problem exists, that causes the search for answers, that are never found, because we are only looking for answers that we already understand.

The people didn’t know at the time what it meant either, but that ignorance did not keep the law of Impeachment from working when it was applied. We find our answer to this mystery in Numbers 5, when the details were later spelled out in a much longer document than Ten simple Laws on stone. The verses that trigger our connection are these:

“…Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her…it is an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance (Revelation 15:19)… And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:… And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter” Numbers 5:12,17,24.

Oh! there is a whole lot more in this chapter of jealousy that does more than just separate the guilty from the innocent, which you really should study out, because the lack of knowledge causes us to err in our judgment of the part we think we do understand, but for brevity sake let’s continue with our topic now that we know this is an issue dealing with a breach of the vows of the Union.
We now know that this first “silly and trivial” act by Moses was, on the surface, to confirm the guilty of their immorality against their spouse, and publicly separate them from infecting the innocent with their wicked ways that we might describe as venereal disease. While a rotten thigh is a personal matter to suffer secretly, nobody is going to miss a swollen belly as a public shame for her sins; an empty pregnancy, a cloud without rain, an act of promise incapable of good fruit. This is hardly a silly or trivial step in Moses’ remedy. This bitter-water test is in fact the process of Impeachment with the expectation that the truth will be discovered, even by divine providence using perhaps unfamiliar laws of nature as directed, and in the discovery comes the bitter curse that is not a remedy but still not a punishment.
Likewise; impeachment only identifies the crime publicly and removes the offender from Office to avoid further damage, as well as take away the benefits of the honorable place. The punishment is carried out in another later setting:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 7.

Therefore, by following the Typology intended as an ensample; we should begin our cleansing process with the impeachment of the accused adulterous President who has openly and publicly broken the Constitutional vows of the Union and is already a public disgrace to the moral sanctity of the Nation by his shameless public conduct. To leave him free of the Bitter Water curse is to sanction his toxic influence to infect the mentality of the Nation further: "Apparently his adulterous notions are officially acceptable."
* * *

Next Moses turns to the priest. In our governmental Typology of study; the Judicial:

“and Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?” Exodus 32:21.

Seriously contemplate the question itself: Who’s being accountable here: The Judicial or the Executive? The Priest or the People? Where does the fault seem to fall in such a question? Why did Moses ask it in such a convoluted way?

Aaron’s guilt in the punishable act is a virtual fact in the question. But we already discovered that the Judicial is appointed by the flavor of the Presidents and so when the Judicial goes bad it is because of the heart’s desire of the Presidents that put them there. The Judicial is simply the enduring spirit of the collective Presidents. How then do you put the burden of blame on the Judicial? Moses didn’t, but neither did he absolve Aaron of his part:

“And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made” Exodus 32:35.

Again we see the inseparable complexity in the described event, where the Priest made it happen, but by the will of the people. In our application; the Judicial and President. I find it fascinating that Aaron was seemingly not punished or even held criminally liable for his part in leading the people in their sins, even after his ridicules excuses for why and how he did it (Exodus 32:22-24+25) summed up in his lack of denial while passing the blame, as we first saw as a pattern back in Genesis 3:12-13. In that place we see that the Judicial really does receive a consequence, but for important reasons it is not shown in this narrative as Aaron makes his pitiful, but apparently accepted defense.

“And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief” Exodus 32:22.

We come back to the concept that the spirit that guides a man is the spirit that he wants to guide him (Romans 6:16-18). It is the man who chooses his own wife who then flavors his entire life. The alcoholic is guided by his spirits, the demon possessed are guided by demons, the Holy Spirit is the spirit that guides a Christian. A wife or a spirit is not accountable or even responsible for what you do; the doing is all up to you, they just guide you as you submit to their leading because it’s where you are willing to go (James 1:14). (For more on this concept see: Numbers 31:15-16, Revelation 2:14, Numbers 25:1-2 = Genesis 24:3-4 vs. 28:6-9).
The limited boundaries in the designated role of influence becomes important when we realize that the spirit you have, may in fact desire and even attempt to rule you against your will. You may get more than you bargained for when you took it on, but it’s your bargain to deal with now (Genesis 4:6-7). This “extra guidance” is going beyond it scope of authority and when appealed to, the Law has the power and authority to unseat it due to bad behavior. Influence is not behavior, which is why the Judicial has the independent authority to make any influential Opinion it so desires… AS LONG AS that opinion conforms to the limitations expressed by the Constitution, which limitations do not include oppression and forced compliance… unless permitted by submission: i.e. voluntary servitude.
Even Christ Jesus; God in the flesh, did not cast out spirits that were welcome by their hosts. It is a foundational principle of authority (Psalm 66:18, Ezekiel 14:3, II Kings 5:13).

Aaron was only expanding on what the people wanted to do, but what he promoted brought a much greater sin than the people would have done without his involvement… but do it they did:

“and the Legislature said unto the Supreme Court, What did these Presidents unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?” Exodus 32:21 applied.

So, without going into the greater details at this point, it would behoove us to likewise delay the impeachment process of the Judicial branch in the effort to more specifically identify the source of the problem before perhaps coming back to deal with the unconstitutionality of the Judicial Opinion that brings greater sin.

“And the Judicial said, Let not the anger of my Legislative lord wax hot: thou knowest the Presidents, that they are set on mischief” Exodus 32:22 applied.
* * *

Let’s pause here for just a moment to be sure you understand that this interpretation in application is not conclusive: meaning, this is not the full and complete and only interpretation that we can glean from this passage. It has many applications in different onion layers; we are only applying it here in one specific search for answers.
But having said that; Any and every application tried, must match the spirit of the example in the text without warpage or it is a faulty application:

“The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools” Proverbs 26:7.

Also, such an application can only be rightly discerned and used by those whose spirit can see clearly:

“As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools” Proverbs 26:9.

This is why I have no desire to push these applications onto those whose drunken spirit of stupor cannot comprehend the sharp point even when applied directly. When they try to apply such offered applications, they only stupidly impale themselves without even realizing what they have done. These are not simple issues and nobody wants a drunk to perform heart surgery.
History shows the grave consequences of having not yet learned about germs and vaccines or the importance of hygiene and clean environments for surgery. How much greater then, the bitter shame, when these important things once learned and valued are cast away as insignificant and unimportant by a self-declared enlightened society? (Romans 1:22). America is even now returning to former Dark Age diseases and sicknesses due to little more than the abandonment of once common hygiene practices such as covering ones mouth when coughing or washing ones hands before cooking, and going still further to include not immunizing against known dangers or bringing back diseases by the abandonment of monogamy, and further still by the eating of (GM) Genetically Modified foods as opposed to the seed germ which God made by nature. Having abandoned the wisdom of the Creator; Common sense, like Common Law, is today quite uncommon. And if incomprehensible in the physical; how am I to be understood when I am actually speaking of spiritual things? (Ephesians 5:31-32).
Like the read but unseen verse of Moses making them drink the bitter water that causes the curse; Ignorance, by the false perceptions of partial knowledge, keeps us from finding the actual answers that are right before our eyes but not seen (II Timothy 2:15-16). Sometimes right division and vain babblings are confused between perspectives. What then?
“Wrong doctrine leads to wrong living” (- Chuck Missler), with the additional support of declaring the opposition as being the biblically warned; vain babbling. Enters the experience of the bitter water curse.
* * *

Ok, back to our study:
“Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’s side? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him” Exodus 32:26.

Remember, Moses is Typing Jesus the Messiah that would come after. With this understanding we can see a dynamic meaning of Moses standing in the gate of the camp: the image of the good shepherd as the door in the sheepfold, contrasting any and all quasi-authorities that find a Nancy Peloci means of entry, claiming wise and benevolent leadership of the sheep. Likewise the gate of the camp is the traditional and recognized location where the ancient elders of many nations customarily conducted their official business; i.e. the door to the city (*2). By standing in that specific place, Moses was re-confirming (Exodus 32:1) his rightful authority as the man of God that nobody was going to argue with in his judgment even if they didn’t like what he had to say (*3).

From that place of authority Moses drew the line in the sand between life-style choices established by different gods; even between the Creator God and the god of their own democratic desires. The tribe of Levi stood with Moses and the LORD; while by not moving, the rest of the people stood with their own lusts as their god. This is the exampled power of familiarity; you don’t have to change to choose it.
It’s easy to suppose in the simple narrative that the sons of Levi were either innocent of the sins with the people (which they weren’t), or absolved of the punishment for the sin by their willingness to inflict the righteous judgment upon others (hypocrisy to save their own skin). This is a false notion. The act of moving to join Moses and the LORD describes a change of values.
It is curious to understand by scripture that the house of Levi, (among others), has long been a house of cruel justice (Genesis 49:5-7; 34:25-31). It’s hardly a surprise then that, of all tribes, the tribe of Levi joined with Moses to stand militantly against the wickedness and boldly do what needed to be done, whatever that turned out to be. This does not suggest that they themselves were not guilty with the rest; only that when confronted they abandoned justifying their wicked ways and agreed with God that they were wicked. This is the image of repentance; submission to God when confronted (II Samuel 12:13, [don’t miss the important context of the whole passage]).
By siding with God as an executive force, the Sons of Levi “washed their hands” of their personal guilt in the crimes against God, and stood with God who has clean hands, to Executively deal out the just judgment as He prescribes (Execute the Law) (II Samuel 12:5-6+13), even if to their own suffering because of their involvement in the sin (II Samuel 14-23).

In Exodus 32:27-29 we get a narrative that seems rather muddled…and it gets less so by continuing the reading: The sons of Levi, who have sided with the LORD in agreeing that the hedonism of themselves with Israel was an unacceptable sin to be judged, were sent by Moses through the camp as administers of God’s righteousness to slay among the people seemingly indiscriminately. Obviously not everyone was slain. In fact, the bodycount at the end was only about three thousand. Not a very great number compared to the million or so in the camp that were now called a nation (Exodus 12:37).
Why these specifically and not others? Much like a tornado’s apparent and dramatic indiscriminate destruction; We don’t know, other than the slain were apparently intimately close to the slayers (v.27) and must have therefore been excruciatingly difficult for them to slay. What we do know is that this was not an event of personal punishment for personal sins, as in; “Slay the most guilty among the people;” this was a symbolic token punishment of the whole, who were equally guilty but not so punished:

“For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day” Exodus 32:29.

The blessing was that God did not destroy them all. He redeemed them. This bloody event of “surrogate judgment” was a national event not a personal event. Those unfortunate enough to be slain were in effect redeeming the rest (Hebrews 9:22), even as the sons of Levi were performing the judgment in proxy for the whole nation who should have also stood with the LORD when confronted.
What we know by reading the remainder of the passage is that, while postponed by the not-quite-redemptive blood of the guilty-- as the insufficient animal sacrifices--, the delayed judgment of the guilt would eventually come home to roost of its own volition:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.
And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made” Exodus 32:33-35.

And while we now contemplate that the cursed water which brings bitterness, is how the LORD troubled the people in ways we might not readily grasp, it’s the curse of consequence that follows them all the days of their life, which we first saw in Adam’s consequences for sin (Genesis 3:16-17), and then in Cain’s similar life curse because of his guilt (Genesis 4:7). And even today we see in the changed life of an unwed mother. Not a remedy but not a punishment; simply an enduring consequence that changed the nature of the previous potential.
The very tangible example of this life-changing bitter curse is found in the next chapter seeing the tabernacle moved from the midst of the camp to outside the camp. God has a new distanced relationship with his people without casting them off. Apparently their redemption, while saving them, didn’t actually fix the problem that causes separation.
Much like the gold-laced drink of the previous chapter, this doesn’t seem like a very big deal; Who cares where the tabernacle is pitched? God is still with us. But the chapter provides a far greater trouble that the event represents if we just look for it:

“and I will send an angel before thee…for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way” Exodus 33:2-3.

While we ignorantly focus on the beneficial angel of God that Goes before us as "a wonderful example of God's goodness" rather than see the sorrowful cause of why this was necessary, What might this Typology mean to us in today’s Christian age?
See the events that follow II Thessalonians 2:7 as we contemplate even the removal of that Exodus 33:2 angel while we continue to attempt to reach the Promised Kingdom in the name of God, but now, even without his divine aid. As it was with them; It’s still our job to do, but the bitter-water consequences of our public unpunished-but-not-absolved sins, makes it all but impossible and the effort almost too costly. This is the image of Israel today (*4)… and of America tomorrow.
* * *

So when did God visit their sins upon them? This is a bit of a rabbit-trail but quickly comes back to our point. It seems apparent that the jealousy curse of their sins was indirectly what kept them from reaching their goal and crossing the Jordan entering into the Promised Land at all, though their innocent (dare we say spiritually “bastard”) children did…and the familial curse followed still, apparently unvisited.
The first repeat of this specific wording is surprisingly not found until Jeremiah:

“Thus saith the LORD unto this people, Thus have they loved to wander, they have not refrained their feet, therefore the LORD doth not accept them; he will now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins.
Then said the LORD unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence” Jeremiah 14:10-12.

What we see in the much-delayed punishment of judgment-- by the not-quite-redeeming sacrifice of a few guilty as a token salvation from their own just destruction for the same sins, designed to re-instill fear in the remaining, and thereby elicit a change of heart-- is an offer of remedy that promotes any spark of mind and heart repentance that remains, before the long-delayed and once despised judgment actually falls at the tenth provocation catching them all by surprise (II Peter 3:4). This delayed punishment is God’s proactive longsuffering for a bigger purpose (I John 3:16, II Peter 3:9, Romans 2:4 in context), even if those unfortunate enough to be caught in it when it does come, cry; "Unfair!"
The LORD had so long patiently endured their struggle to reform through the Rehab Program of the Exodus education and instruction, that the people came to mistake his lack of punishment for powerless approval. They had lost their fear and the unfulfilled threats became powerless to invoke change.

The “Remedy” at the Exodus 32 event, without a “final solution” that would burn the whole house down, was to punish a few for the sake of the rest. This is not at all unjust, because EVERYBODY deserved what the few got (Romans 3:10-12). This is Mercy… with a greater purpose. Mercy is not the end but a means to an end beyond mercy. The end is voluntary righteousness by love, not by fear of consequences. Though fear of consequence is a means to that end if used through mercy.
* * *

Returning to our study; This whole concept is the description of the proper “remedy” that Mr. Gowdy asked about but doesn’t know or understand. What he effectively meant to ask by his unwillingness to enact the power of Impeachment, was: “How do we change the heart of the leadership to want to do what their job demands rather than force it to obey?” The answer that we have extracted from the ensample text is to create a changed/distanced relationship with the camp; then enact a portion of the just punishment for the purpose of re-instilling a healthy perspective-changing fear in those that remain, because, by the bitter-water curse that brings undesirable and permanent change from what has become despisebly normal, they know that they all deserve what the few got but the rest didn’t. This is a blanket that covers them all but destroys only a few. In fact, as few as is possible without eliminating the effect. This is not the spirit of vengeance or wrath but of bringing about the desired remedy that Mr. Gowdy claimed to seek.
Dramatically cutting the collective Executive Administrative funding by new "written in stone" legislation, may be a very sufficient dose of bitter water for the camp before the individual impeachment is enacted, but they go together.
* * *

Cleaning up anomalous details:
The many-faceted Executive Office is represented by the population in the Exodus 32 Typology as we have used it, even though the sons of Levi as a body of people represent that singular Office embodied by the President. But there is only one President, so how do you “slay” a few of the many in a single President, as a remedy in Type? The answer is found in the change of mentality that reveals it is not “all about ME.” The President is an Office, just like the many Christians are the singular bride of Christ. The impeachment and removal of one President does not kill the whole thing: Another steps into that place, not as a new bride but as a new attitude. A new administration of the same Office.

It frankly doesn’t matter to the Judgment that the Authoritative Congress is also guilty of many sins. It is their Office to impeach according to the law. They wash their dirty hands and do the righteous job of the Office, not of men. It also doesn’t matter that the Vice President, who steps into that vacant seat, is as corrupt as the Cabal. The threat has been rightly fulfilled and the fear has returned by the event that is no longer a threat but remains a threat with teeth, because each member clearly understands that the threat-which-has-teeth equally applies to them all if they refuse to change. They are all unclean and all deserving of the same punishment (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:23), but their own delayed termination and trial has granted them the chance to reform. History shows that most won’t. But impeachment has no limited bodycount. One-by-one the unreformed are unseated in each new violation, having proven themselves unreformable in the face of mercy (Romans 3:25 [specifically past sins]+ Romans 6:1=Hebrews 6:4-6).
By the slow and specific process, the Constitutional focus of reason for impeachment is re-established, and not seen as a motive of Tyranny and wanton destruction.

It is imperative therefore, that, for the not-quite-redemption of the rest of Government, the President be impeached for his adulterous crimes against the people, and thereby cause fear to fall on the rest, in the last-ditch effort to bring reform before the whole house falls under a just judgment for its unreformable sins exampled in the above Jeremiah 14:10-12.
Obviously this Exodus 32 remedy does not fix all the problems. It’s not intended to. It only stalls the hammer, allowing a period of reform to fix the problems if any reform is to be had.
And here we come to the point of the other parable mentioned in the previous Post:

“and he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it” Luke 13:8.

But that is for you to search out in anticipation of the next Post.
* * *

Now; Regarding the Judicial Corruption of Aaron: While it is very important to immediately deal with the corruptions of the Office of President, I am far less concerned with taking on the Judicial crimes until we get this ball rolling properly and with control. We certainly don’t want another Civil War, or a French Revolution by wrathful enthusiasm.
While I would recommend the impeachment of only two Supreme Justices at this time-- and those coincidentally being the two that this impeachable President seated-- I don’t believe it to be an immediate desperate need. My reasoning for my apparent unconcern is that if you fix the Office of President; you fix the Judicial automatically. Yes, it will take years to recover in this way, but the Judicial is there for just such a reason-- Good or bad. To destroy the stability, even for good reasons, destroys the stability period. Once we get the problem rooted out, we will want that stability to keep the good entrenched just as the evil is entrenched now. If left alone for the most part, the Judicial branch becomes a thermometer whereby to gauge the actual heart of the nation rather than the deceptive swings of elections that tend to excite or dash our hopes. The Judicial is there to show us our long-range direction of success or failure.
My other reasoning is this: The Judicial has no teeth. They have no Power. They only have words. Influence. Aaron certainly couldn’t make the people worship the golden calf. And while the text declares that Aaron made the people get naked (Exodus 32:25), it’s very much like the complex question we discussed above. They wanted to get naked, Aaron just legitimized the idea by officially sanctioning it, encouraging the people to fearlessly run with it to ends they would not otherwise have dared.
But WE have the power of will over bad influence, and by applying that "will," we change the spirit of influence itself even before we unseat it. Not so, the Power of Law or Force; Legislative or Executive. They have actual power to oppress.

Now, the question becomes; “How do we get even our conservative Trey Gowdy Legislatures to actually do their job?”
Contemplating this question will tell us where in the Rehab Program we actually are. But the plot-twisting answer is perhaps still nothing like what you are prepared to hear.
* * * * * * *

(*1) I ask this question because it is now so very common to see apparently well-meaning and earnest Christians busily doing the Lord’s commissioned work of “loving their neighbor,” yet they only seem to be interested in asking God to bless what they do rather than ask Him if what they do is what he wants them to do, i.e.; “Dear God, am I doing what you can bless?”
Here is what I know by experience: If you are not earnestly looking through His “Holy Constitution” (the Bible) for the answers to self-governance, then He is not going to provide the answer through your thoughts and ideas and feelings in a one-sided conversation that lasts less than five minutes. If you are so sure you have it all figured out in your head, then he will let you run with it… because he put you in the office to Do. What comes of what you have done-- good or bad-- is just a matter of cause and effect. It’s a lesson-- good or bad.
I have never seen a good outcome of a Christian running, earnestly doing from his un-coached, well-intended heart or mind, that fails to conform to the written instructions. This comes home very clearly as we now watch this quasi-President run in his presidency, dragging Congress along as a passenger rather than a guide, in the earnest effort to do what he feels is the right thing to do because he has been given the role to Do. Or, perhaps more accurate to the Revelation 17 prophecy; riding on Congress’ back with a bit in their mouth and a reign in his hand making them go where they had no intention of going.
And now we can see why kings and queens are said to reign, and why America was specifically designed without such bit-in-mouth “benevolent leadership.” America understood God’s design in liberating the feminine for limited self-management while remaining in a healthy relationship with the limited protecting and guiding masculine. More on this topic in upcoming Posts.

(*2) Therefore, giving some bonehead artist the Key to the City in a flamboyant presentation of admiration is in truth declaring; “You have the right to bypass all laws within our walls and do whatever you wish with impunity.” This is in effect the meaning of Diplomatic Immunity without the value of lawful comprehension. A very dangerous gift indeed.

(*3) This is no different than a congressman who is recognized by the bench before he speaks. He has been recognized as an authorized man in the gate to be heard with authority. In our Nation, his authority is in representing the People via proxy. When my Representative stands up before the House to speak, it’s ME standing there, because I voted for him to do so. “I” of course being a single cell in the body of the State in which I reside. Therefore in this way, I am not an individual as if “it’s all about ME,” but a member of a society in which I have a voice and an influence in choosing that universal Representation. This is the right perspective of the Bride of Christ, but I get ahead of myself; let’s discuss this in a later Post.

(*4) I believe this clinging curse of jealousy is the reason and need for the mysterious Ashes of the Red Heifer in the Water of Separation from sin (Numbers 19:1-10), but that opens a whole other study about the 7th day repeat sprinkling of verses 11-12 using the day-as-a-thousand-years cipher to get its meaning.
I anticipate exploring this at a later time.
*

What Is The Remedy?

Post 338

Since we are now more enlightened to the level of cancer already spread deep into all the primary regions of the United States’ body of governance, I ask you-- the god in Type of the United States of America; the sovereign people of this More Perfect Union of these fifty individual but united States;-- What is the remedy for a President that will not obey, let alone uphold, the very document that defines this nation’s DNA; the Constitution?
And while we are asking the question with Mr. Gowdy, let’s extend that question; What is the remedy for a Congress who refuses to do the same? How about for the Supreme Court who is enacting the third subversion in this Genetically Modified unholy trinity of corruption? How do we get them all to simultaneously do the job they swore an oath of allegiance to do but refuse to do?
While they seem to be incapable of working together to support and defend the Constitution, these three branches apparently have a natural propensity of contentiously uniting their individual rebellions to support the viral conquest by what appears to be Communism itself. What is the remedy?
As suggestively asked by Representative Gowdy-- apparently rhetorically, but in earnest;-- Is there an actual remedy of success that we can use other than to burn this nation down-- as recommended by; Saul Alinsky, The Communist Manifesto, The Islamic Mandate, and the plethora of US movies by their universal indoctrination of this specific propaganda into our subconscious minds on many simultaneous fronts regardless of age or gender? (*1).

It seems that we have come to the place where everyone wants to blame “the other guy” for failing to do, or for abusing, his duty in the effort to cover their own similar failures, but although more than eager to blame, they won’t actually punish that other guy by accountability, perhaps in fear that the accountability will return to them and punish them for their sins too. So again, as asked by Trey Gowdey-- a member of the Corrupt body of Congress-- I ask you; the We The People people: What is the Remedy at this point in the game? If you don’t know, how do you expect them to know; they were given their seats of offices from among you and by you!

Is it time to enact the U.S. Declaration-confirmed right of the people to “pull down the house of cards” (*2a)? Was that the intent of the Declaration’s inclusion of the republican concept? Is that what we want… to play into the destroying hands of the “Progressive Communists”? Has the Communist method shown a history of desirable outcomes…even after the collateral body-count of the innocent has been put out of sight-and-mind by a blanket of soil? Do we go ahead and “burn the system down” now?
Isn’t that a bit like committing suicide to avoid being murdered? Or killing the patient so that the cancer won’t?

The European Union faces just such a question in dealing with Greece, --but they have the added complexity of not being so holy united as the American form of government: (call it ‘joined by God’), but rather more like a fornicating relationship of two independents trying to live together in a “civil union:” (call it ‘joined by man’). This unholy relationship between the EU and Greece is even more like the Type of the Beast and the Whore we are still discussing, because this is the age that brings it about. It is quite a conundrum they find themselves in. I postulate that the reason is because this is "a woman’s world now," and the masculine EU has far too long not had the marital authority to hold feminine Greece accountable for her unrestrained spending habits with her magic credit card. Now that her card quit working she comes to the EU and bats her eyes requesting more. But the EU sees that there isn’t much more he can give without risking bankruptcy himself. She has got to change her ways if he is going to keep paying her bills. It is a law of nature that defies the redistribution of wealth concept.
So as Greece cries crocodile tears reminding him that “he loves her and needs her,” she implores; “Have some compassion, find your humanity!” in hopes that it will move him to yield his manly stand. She pulls the “Christian’s are supposed to forgive unconditionally” card, not understanding or caring that forgiveness is biblically contingent upon repentance. Setting aside the Law of God; the Law of Nature alone tells us that Greece must show a humble recognition of her crimes and a submissive willingness to be tightly governed to change her uncontrollable destructive ways or she will ruin him in the process of destroying herself. We might call this heightened level of governance; Rehab.
But clearly Greece has no such notion in mind and is indigent that such a suggestion would be made. So which of the two genders is actually destroying the house when a punishmentless remedy cannot be found but the punishment is not implemented?

“Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands” Proverbs 14:1.

It is hard not to see that throwing out the unrepentant whore would be the only right answer-- (A prostitute is a woman who does immoral deeds for money, while a whore is a woman who does her immoral deeds because she likes it. I intend Whore in this present use to describes one playing the part of the “wife” who works against her "not husband” by willingly taking up with other illicit “leaderships” for her pleasure, including her own willfulness justified by outside influence)--. The EU would survive such a decision to act decisively, though his world and that of the family would change. Man-up and deal with it while you can still survive it:

“Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings” Proverbs 31:3.

But since this is ‘a woman’s world now,’ even our masculine branches of authority have been trained to be emotional basket-cases led by the heart, and cannot bring themselves to do the right thing for fear of the consequences… or the public criticism of “heartless.” They have been convinced to think emotionally about such choices. The Bible words it like this:

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy path” Isaiah 3:12. (see also Jeremiah 50:37).

“The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women; they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken” Jeremiah 51:30.

Remember, I am describing the troubled relationship between the masculine Beast Empire and the Whorish City of the Revelation 17 prophecy; a two-thousand year old prophecy that is quickly becoming hardly more than a description of current events even before the specific event described comes to pass.
But in the description we can use both elements of past and future to apply reason in the exploration of the other, and in our case the present that is between them. The prophecy enables us to see our own outcome if we follow that course, so while we perhaps don’t know the outcome of ‘the other’ course, we should calculate the odds that it would be better than the outcome we do know by the prophecy. The course of what America used to be-- while being clearly Christian, and unsavory by today’s Pagan culture and mindframe-- was nonetheless a beneficially successful course indeed. Show me a better.
And with the looming masculine governance of the Islamic Beast now raging through the Earth re-establishing his Empire of subjugating masculine nations into feminine slave wives, I’m not seeing the redeeming virtue in the prophetic Babylonian mindframe of thinking and acting like emotional women as a good general defense strategy.

I am actually very curious to see how this immediate problem with Greece plays out, because, while I know by prophecy that some surviving portion of the ancient Empire of Greece plays a very large role in the last end-times events (Daniel 8:19-23 among others), we don’t yet know just how the specifics bring it to pass. Frankly, even though I stand fully against the whole Christless EU governance of nations like a mullah over a harem of silly women, the general concept has merit, so I recommend that the EU drop Greece for the whore that she is and deal with the consequences that come. It’s the manly thing to do in the effort to save the rest of the house by establishing the authority of right thinking. But unfulfilled prophecy tends to suggest that the EU will yield again, and his troubles will continue to compound a while longer. Because this is the age of women.

What might be a significant undesirable event if Greece is forced to leave the EU by her unrepentant destructive ways? She may find herself in desperation taking up with the “the other guy;” China, Russia, or Islam, who would be happy to pay her bills without condition to get her into bed, and such an event would be one very sound way of seeing the last-times prophecy regarding Greece come to pass.
Do I care that seeing her depart from the EU might bring this about? Not where it concerns doing the right thing. Greece must not be allowed to continue in her stubborn unrepentance without punishment; it would teach all the other ladies to exploit the same weakness in the governor and perhaps fulfill the prophecy from the other side of the argument which makes the reason other than ‘doing the right thing’ a mute point. Do you not think God understood the repercussions of throwing Lucifer out of heaven? Yet he did it anyway. Lucifer showed a deadly nature that was unredeemable.
And in throwing him out, all of his angels went with him, to ‘win his rebel kingdom’ as Saul Alinsky puts it in admiration. So be it; What is that to keeping the power of the kingdom of heaven sound? Do I cry for the poor plight of Lucifer in his pitiful fallen condition? Not in the least; he made his choice. But that does not mean I take pleasure in or rejoice in his destruction; it just simply has nothing more to do with the inner-workings of the kingdom in which I have chosen. The repercussions are for God to deal with, though I may indeed suffer as a result of them when two kingdoms collide in battle. That is not my problem because its not in my jurisdiction to control; I’m just supposed to do the right thing, and the right thing as a man is to obey the rules of good governance. That includes letting Greece go for her stubborn willfulness that wants others to pay for her unrepentant crimes. Frankly, this feminine confusion of Greece while the EU tries hard to keep her anyway, is sounding a whole lot like modern Christianity today as unrepentence changes the whole theme of redemption (Deuteronomy 5:11 + Hebrews 6:4-6).
While you don’t yet know it, Unrepentent Redemption is the theme of the Antichrist Kingdom as the servant becomes the Lord, subverting all that he has and is. This concept is the foundational dividing line to the whole Grand Tapestry which we are exploring.

So now back to Christian America’s similar problem. Our manly Congress has let this undisciplined nature in our governing branches escalate into obviously unrecoverable levels of unrepentence, because even our Congress has been playing the man-whore along with his President, both of them encouraged by the wicked spirit of the Presidents’ Supreme Court. It’s a case of political hedonism.

Perhaps throwing in the towel is the only answer.

But I am reminded of God’s violent reaction to the similar hedonism going on at the foot of the Mountain of God (Exodus 32:10), and how Moses appealed to God for a stay of execution based upon the value of the relationship already invested (Exodus 32:11-14). I am also reminded of Jesus’ great sacrifice to redeem mankind from our iniquities by allowing us the opportunity to confess and repent without consequence to us, and suddenly I think that there is in fact another way.
But to be frank, I don’t think passing a law that grants the Judiciary the authority to convict the President for violating Congresses’ law, is going to have even the slightest impact. How could it? It’s the Executive Office that has the power to enforce the law… that they already don’t enforce. It’s like passing a new law to allow the judge to convict the corrupt police of breaking the law, and then expecting the corrupt police to enforce the law by arresting themselves because the judge told them to.
Nice try Trey, but all you have succeeded in doing is to surrender yet more of your Congressional manly power to the feminine spirit of the President who is already drunk with empowerment. I’m thinking we need another angle, and while your speech was pretty, your suggested bill really smacks of more-of-the-same insanity. I’m getting the growing impression that you are just showboating along with the rest; you’re just targeting the “other” audience for applause.
I’m not clapping.

But to be fair to his empty efforts, I have shown, even superficially, that it seems things have gotten so far out of control that our governing entities no longer have it within their wherewithal to fix this complex problem without bringing down the whole house of cards. So Mr. Gowdy plays the only card left in his loosing hand and silently prays for a miracle. Where do miracles come from? God.
Remember: To our government; We the People are that god. If the call has been even quietly made, what do we do?

Do you know any marriages like what I have described? Is there yet a remedy rather than a solution? In today’s ready willingness to throw in the towel, the divorce rate seems to tell us there is not. And the rest, in the turmoil of self-willed bitterness, are hardly worthy of calling marriage.
But I believe there is yet a remedy. It’s just not a remedy that would please the unrepentant people of Greece. It’s a remedy that requires a change of heart from what got them into this problem in the first place. America too, needs a change of heart to fix its problems, the question is; Does she want to?
* * *

So how do you change the heart of a nation?
To answer foundational questions like this we need to go to the source. What do the Scriptures tell us on the topic regarding our particular problem?
We know, as exampled by our Congressional perversions, that the masculine element of the Christian nation is making its own very destructive choices as the Constitutionally “god-ordained” rulers by law, both encourage depravity and restrain the honorable in the effort to fix the turmoil in his family. And we know as exampled by Islam, that the masculine element of the Demonic Empire is likewise making its own very destructive choices as the subverted Biblical Law is applied by a twisted mind for the same goal of domestic tranquility from the opposite angle. So we really need to be careful to examine the details for accuracy rather than go with the current ‘general idea’ while making our evaluations of the right authority to follow.
In the name of The People through the perversions of their Constitutional authority, Congress says: “Oh this is not good!” while it acts out the unspoken desire to “Let the wild Pony Run!”
In the name of God through the Koranic perversion of the biblical Mosaic Law, Islam says: “Burn it all down for their sins!” while they perform all manner of the most lewd crimes imaginable.
There are details in the Constitution, and in the Scripture of that Law, that provide a completely different motive and spirit which we will explore in the effort to fixing this unfixable problem with remedy rather than a solution.
Let’s have a look:

After Moses held back the Exodus 32:9-10 warranted and righteous “burn it down” wrath of God’s anger that had every justifiable reason to fall like a hammer, how was the problem of hedonism in God’s people dealt with? We simply read the rest of the passage to find out:
But let’s first do a short recap of Exodus 32 to identify how they got to the answer:

v.1-- opens with Moses-- Typing Christ-- departed to be with God, leaving God’s people to rule themselves in his absence. In the very same verse 1 we see that the people, having no shepherd, were incapable of self-governance and immediately turned to hedonism through v.6.

v.7-- reveals to us that God knew full well what was going on, and sent Moses-- still Typed as Christ-- down to the people in what we might Type as the ‘first coming,’ (which makes Moses’ first departure up to God (on the mountain) represent the severed relationship ‘absence of the Creator’ after the Creation and fall of Adam and Eve and their ejection from the ‘EU’ Garden).
[We get this concept of comparisons by seeing Moses leading the people from Egypt as the ‘Creation’ of a new nation representing humanity as Adam and Eve. If these Typology validating details are confusing just skip them for now to continue on to the point].

It is humorously noteworthy that in this “Authoritative directing verse” God identifies the people as belonging to Moses--i.e. Christ--: “Go take care of your people, they are making a mess of themselves.”
And so we see Christ came for his people, distinctly different from God the Father, as if each had different methods of dealing with humanity’s iniquities and sins. Yet here it is clear that God the Father did the sending for his own purposes of redemption…that requires repentance…which is promoted by the fear of consequences…before the consequences come.

Now AFTER God reveals that he knows full well what is going on, and sends Moses down to respond to the situation; THEN, in v.9, God begins his whole; “I’m so mad I’m going to wipe them out and start over,” declarations: i.e. “burn the system down,” -- as allowed by Type in the U.S. Declaration and justified by the nature of The People being the god-like maker of the institution that they intend to burn down for its lack of usefulness.
But if God really intended to destroy his people he wouldn’t have arranged for Moses to go deal with it before he started his tirade of “I am going to end this whole thing right now!” Therefore we can easily conclude that God was making a threat to use his destroying power in the effort to illicit a change before the power was actually used. Thus: a threat.

Islam says: “See? God’s way is to destroy it all for its sins.” Congress says: “See? God’s way is to make concessions (*3).” What do the Scriptures tell us is God’s actual way? Let’s look for it.

Being the manly man, God the ruler, the Law Maker; God needed to declare the Law of punishment, as well as the intent to applying the Law, to instill the fear of the frightening penalty for breach, BEFORE sending the alternate escape plan that would then be accepted eagerly to avoid the sure-coming penalty. Otherwise the people would not, nor could not, respect God and his laws that had no fear of being actually applied. Much like the acting President cannot respect Congress today: He simply has no fear of its power that he knows by experience it will not use.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” Proverbs 9:10.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments…” Psalm 111:10.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” Proverbs 1:7.

“And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment” I Kings 3:28.

Apparently missed by Mr. Gowdy: If God, or the king, or Congress in this case, does not DO judgment, then he CANNOT be respected. This is where we are today on so many levels it’s actually scary.
In Type of the Moses narrative, we can understand that Jesus came to “do his Moses best” to resolve the problem and keep God from destroying the earth in his wrath, because, make no mistake, God could make Jesus an entirely new earth with new people to call his own (Matthew 3:9). God is just mad enough to do it! It’s only God’s intended “Jesus appeal” for a stay of execution that holds it off:

…“Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down” Luke 13:6.

So Moses, Typing Jesus, --at God’s own “hidden” design-- appeals to God for His own name’s sake-- not for the sake of humanity-- and says; “let me deal with this problem, I think we can work this out to a better remedy than extermination.”…

“And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tablets of the testimony were in his hand…” Exodus 32:15.

Ok, so here we are, asking ourselves the same question that Moses must have asked himself; “What do we do now?” It’s ours to do.

-- Now as a bit of a side-note to help us apply this narrative as an accurate Typology for our own situation. Lest you think that this event was the first giving of the law ‘before Christ came’, we back-track to chapter 20 where God gave Moses and the people the easily corruptible verbal law sometime back. So when Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets of the law “written in stone” it was an incorruptible clarification of what their sin had already corrupted… to the very edge of their own utter destruction. This “written in stone” coming down of Moses was the Type of God coming down “in the flesh” to clarify what had already been given but corrupted: Redemption.
So now we are Typing this ensample for our own edification, looking for the spirit of the events that we read. In this way we can easily see that Jesus came to earth, via his birth, with the established law in his hand to deal with a wayward people that God was about to destroy, but had sent his Son to resolve the fruitless-problem in his people if it could be done. The means of how this remedy is enacted is hidden in the above parable, which we will get to. Feel free to pause her, go back to the parable as I have copied it above, and figure it out for yourself. It will greatly enhance your wider wisdom more than if I just give it to you narrowly.

Congress, in dealing with the President, has the power of money (coercion) and the established Law (fear) in his hands as tools to resolve the unconstitutional waywardness of his spouse.
The EU, in dealing with Greece, also has the established power of Money and law in his hands; only the established capitalization of the means is reversed.
In either case the Authority has every right to cast them out with finality due to breach, but the threat of the power to do so only works when the threatened believes it will be used. Once the feared power of the threat is challenged and fails to act, the bluff is called and the fear is instantly gone, and with it, any remedy that the fear was to bring. The only avenue remaining is the actual sudden enactment of the power of punishment that has no purpose of remedy. It is Capitol Punishment; the means of eliminating the problem for the sake of the body. In this way we see that the threat of destruction was the last tool of redemption before sudden destruction that needs no warning falls. Enacting the actual power is not redeeming; it is resolving.
But God’s threat of utter destruction was not hollow; the alternate offer sent after the threat has not abrogated the actual destruction threatened; it just postponed it if the alternate is not accepted:

“… and if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down”

Yet oddly enough, like the EU, and like Congress, God seemed to miss the needful fulfillment of the punishment when the threat was called a bluff… on numerous occasions, in their wilderness adventure through rehab. And the result was that the people lost their fear of God (II Peter 3:9-10).
NOW we have a real remedy-less mess in trying to threaten them further, very much described in Greece’s disdainful response to her creditors who keep telling her; “Not another dime!” yet they continue to cave at the last minute because she refuses to change, but promises that she is trying.

NOW we pick up at v.v.17-20 of chapter 32 of Exodus:
Moses comes into camp and gets an eyeful of what is actually going on (compare with Genesis 18:20-21).
And boy was he mad at what he sees!
Humble Moses was so angry at what he saw taking place among his people that he broke the tablets that were in his hands. In Type, by our childhood image of gentle Jesus, we fail to recognize Jesus being angry with his people in the narrative of the Gospels. This is because he contained himself very admirably in the effort to reach his people’s heart in this "last-ditch effort" to save them, yet John the Baptist suggested a warning of urgent repentance needed to prepare the way of the Lord, which should have told us there was wrath afoot in the kingdom nearby:

"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" Matthew 3:1.

If we contemplate it, we know that Jesus came and effectively destroyed the law by providing another violent way, but just breaking the written tablets does not repeal the law that was already given verbally before it was written in stone:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (by his own death to pay our debt of breaking the law)” Matthew 5:17.

Now we can see that upon coming into the world, Jesus saw the decayed condition and immediately determined that clarification of the law was not going to fix this problem at this point in time (age), because in truth, the law would require the death of everyone for their existing guilt (Romans 3:10) and bring about the extermination that God’s wrath was want to do. So he cast the tablets down in the design of a better remedy (Hebrews 7:19) to provide a way for the people to have hope of escaping their own deserved destruction. The crime has already been committed, the judgment already determined: “What is to be done now but suffer the deserved consequences?” This hopeless condemned mentality that does not deny the guilt, is not conducive to producing an effort to change, i.e. repent. Moses, and Jesus, came down to make a change; a change that would produce fruit and alter the destructive intent of the vineyard owner.
Let’s go back now to the text to see how this remedy towards motivating a change played out, in the effort to apply it to our own present desperate needs:

I leave you here with only six stars to contemplate this on your own, while knowing that there is a seventh-star Post still coming to complete the thought.
* * * * * *

(*1) “Burn The System Down!”; a very consistent push by the now recognizable spirit of the Destroyer in numerous patterns and promoters:

Rules for Radicals:
Sometimes you have to burn the system down in order to rebuild it - (a concept from Rules For Radicals p.xiii) “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold Power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away” (Rules for Radicals, opening paragraph). A book and ideology honoring, and mirroring the nature of the god of Deceit and Destruction:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom --Lucifer.” Signed: --SAUL ALINSKY. - Rules for Radicals, dedication page.

Mr. Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. “In 1969, while a political science major at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton chose to write her senior thesis on Alinsky’s work, with Alinsky himself contributing his own time to help her.” - Citation: Cockburn, Alexander; St. Clair, Jeffrey (April 13, 2015). “The Making of Hillary Clinton”. CounterPunch. Retrieved by Wikipedia.org April 12, 2015.

Clearly there is strong evidence that the Highest leaders of our Government are now significantly influenced by those who’s heroes are openly Satan himself. Yet this is not alarming to anyone but “an alarmist”. Am I wasting my breath? No:

“When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered they soul” Ezekiel 3:18-19.

The Communist Manifesto:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles. …a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Communist Manifesto, opening paragraph)… “What the bourgeoisie therefore produce, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (the last paragraph of the same opening chapter). “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. …The Communists’…ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions” - The last page of The Communist Manifesto, 1948 by International Publishers Co, Inc., 2014 printing, bold type added.

The Foundational Islamic Doctrine:
While many “moderate” Muslims like to explain that true Islam does not condone such violence, the very founder and demi-god-like prophet Mohamed-- that Muslims are supposed to venerate, imitate, and obey-- conducted his life and motives in just such a way and wrote their Holy Doctrines to require it. As I understand it; their books teach that their Messiah cannot come until they have covered the earth in blood via a Holy War.

“Growing up as a Palestinian, I was never once taught that Jihad was anything other than one of Islam’s most foundational tenants. Jihad was always taught as a war against the entire non-Muslim world. Islam, Allah, and Jihad are inseparable” - Walid Shoebat, God’s War On Terror, p.105.

“Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He (Allah) will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place” - Qur’an Sura 9:39.

“And he orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere” - Qur’an Sura 8:39., etc., etc., etc.

Movie Mentality:
While it may seem morally acceptable to use Zombies as the imaginary justification to kill thousands without hesitation or remorse, the psychology that comes with it is as godlessly Islamic as can be imagined. You don’t think that Islamists see any non-Islamist as “zombies”? Were Jews seen as human in the Holocaust, or just the walking dead that had not yet been put down? How do you suppose people come to these justifications?
It comes by Godless indoctrination that puts a flavor of righteous, and even moral responsibility over the heinous deed of lust and thrill. Gang-rape a virgin and then try her in court as a whore that violated the religion so sexually virtuous that it dresses its women is bed-sheets to hide them from the insatiable lust of the holy men of the religion? What can be said that is not redundant to the evidence of insanity in the name of righteousness?
This is a growing worldview on many fronts that promotes taking the extreme law into your own psyco hands, such as we saw in the series 24 among countless others: “Hey, we’re only killing bad guys here.” Watch for it; it’s in nearly every guy flick today. The ends justify the means; law just gets in the way of doing what needs to be done. And we feel righteous for doing it.
That’s the masculine side.
For a feminine account, please review Post 271 “The Violence of Peace” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-violence-of-peace.html).

(*2)(a) “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…(very important elements I left out to streamline the point)… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” - The U.S. Declaration of Independence.

…“Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies in questioning the fundamental principle of republican government which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness;

(*2)(b) yet it is not to be inferred from this principle that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.
Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such and act.”… - The Federalist Papers No. 78, bold type added.

(*3) Concession: 1. Act of conceding or yielding.2. The admitting of a point claimed in argument.3. A thing yielded; an acknowledgment.4. A grant by a government of land, or property for some specified purpose. - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1948.
*