Shamah-Elim Bible Studies

Site overview
Random posting
Newest articles
Prophetic words
Pending interpretation
Questions & Answers
Trains of thought
Latest postings
Audio snippets
Postings in other languages
Changes to articles
Copyright info
Contact info




ClustrMaps Map Image

Prophetic word for today
Georgia (Part 6)


This is a continuation of a prophetic word posted earlier ...


Click here to view the original text of the prophetic word sent to us on 17 May 2012.


Our comments


Georgia's spiritual reason for being

To better understand why God is pointing towards Georgia in this prophetic word, we have to look back at Georgia's founding. As detailed on Wikipedia, the colony of Georgia was conceived in the mind and heart of James Oglethorpe, a British soldier and Member of Parliament who was born in Godalming, Surrey in 1696. After fighting in the Austro-Turkish War of 1716-18 against the Turks, he became an MP in 1722 for Haslemere, a town in Surrey. In 1728, he chaired a Parliamentary committee that documented the abuses taking place in 3 debtors' prisons. More than simply report on the problem, Oglethorpe determined to do something concrete about it, and it became a burden in his heart to help what he considered the "worthy poor", initially focusing on those in debtors' prisons.


The fact that Oglethorpe wanted to focus on the "worthy poor", and not just the "poor" in general, reveals that his sense of compassion was not motivated by soulish pastoral emotionalism, which is prone to turning everyone into a helpless victim and never making them accountable for their actions. Oglethorpe understood that the debtors were not "innocent victims" but were, in great part, responsible for the position they were in by getting into debts that they were unable to cover. Even so, he understood that amongst those people were individuals who deserved a second opportunity to rebuild their lives and work towards prosperity.


Because of his committee's work in Parliament, many debtors were released from prison, but they were released with no means to support themselves, meaning that those who were "worthy" were not being given a viable opportunity to rebuild their lives. Oglethorpe saw this as part of a greater problem of unregulated urbanisation, which meant, in his mind, that it would be difficult to fashion an immediate solution within the current environment of London and England. Because of this, he conceived the idea of creating a colony in America, which he named Georgia, where these people could relocate and get a new start in a more "non-urban" environment.


The attitudes in Oglethorpe's heart are consistent with principles espoused by the Spirit of God in the "evil" Old Testament (yes, that part of the Bible that was inspired by God when He was still "cold" and "merciless", according to the matriarchal Church) ...


"1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. 2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD'S release. 3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release; 4 Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it" (Deuteronomy 15:1-4)


Notice how verse 2 makes a distinction between "neighbour" and "brother", meaning that, when the word "brother" is used throughout this passage, it cannot be simplistically generalised as being another word for "neighbour". In a sense, we can say that the word "neighbour" speaks of people within your general sphere of influence, i.e. people who come across your path. By contrast, the word "brother" speaks of a higher level of kinship, i.e. of people with whom you have a certain level of affinity and with whom you share common spiritual goals. Given that the words "neighbour" and "brother" are clearly in reference to fellow Israelites, we can say that "neighbour" in our current context would refer to fellow believers in a strict sense, and, in a wider sense, to people who are at least sympathetic to God's Truth and who have a general interest in "good" triumphing over "evil". In our current context, the word "brother" would refer (if you are a remnant believer) to fellow remnant, non-matriarchal believers in a strict sense, and, in a wider sense, to people who are at least sympathetic to God's remnant and to the "radical" and unpopular Truth that they espouse.


The passage above declares that we are to release our "neighbours" and "brothers" from their debt every 7 years, but we are not obligated to release "foreigners" (v3). Literally, the word "foreign" refers to a non-Israelite, but it is important not to make the Girgashite assumption that this is equivalent to "non-Jew" or "a person not descended from Jacob". Why? Because, to God, membership in a particular nation or group is not necessarily based on external, visible factors. For example, Abraham was clearly born in Babylon into a family that was well-established there, yet God never refers to him as a "Babylonian" because he did not have the heart of a "Babylonian". Rahab, the woman in Jericho who helped the 2 spies, is never spoken of as a "foreigner" or as a "Jericho-ite" because she chose to align herself with the people of Israel and their God, even if it meant aiding in the destruction of what others would ignorantly call "her own people". By the same token, Ruth, who is referred to as "Ruth the Moabitess" in a few verses, was clearly not a "Moabite" in the stronger sense of the word, despite having been born in Moab. Otherwise, God would not have allowed her to be the great-grandmother of king David (Ruth 4:17-22) (and a renowned member of the Messiah's earthly lineage), since Deuteronomy 23:3 declares that an Ammonite or Moabite was not to enter into the congregation of the Lord up to the 10th generation, which would imply that David (3 generations from Ruth) could not have entered the congregation of the Lord. Some would argue that this verse does not apply here because the father (in this case, Boaz), not Ruth, determined the nationality of the children. Those who would make such an argument, however, would have a hard time providing Scriptural evidence to support such a statement, since God never declared a law that proclaimed such a thing. And, even if we were willing to accept such a claim, we would still have to deal with certain passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, as is eloquently explained at Consider, for example, what the Lord said to the Israelites when they were on their way to the Promised Land:


"11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods." (Exodus 34:11-16)


The passage above speaks out against taking foreign daughters as wives, explicitly referring to the evil nations that they were about to drive out of Canaan: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (notice that the Girgashites are not explicitly mentioned; an explanation of this falls beyond the scope of this posting). Even so, Scripture declares that Salmon, from the tribe of Judah, took Rahab, the former prostitute from Jericho, for his wife, with both entering into the lineage of David and Yeshua Himself. Instead of condemning Salmon for taking Rahab as his wife, the Spirit of God actually goes out of His way to point it out when listing Yeshua's genealogy (Matthew 1:5), meaning that, instead of being a point of "contamination" in the Messiah's lineage, God sees Rahab's presence in it with great approval. Since Rahab was technically a Canaanite, a woman from the land that the Israelites were to conquer and not mingle with (as declared in Exodus 34), a literal, Girgashite understanding of what a "foreigner" is would force us to conclude that God broke His own law by allowing Rahab into the Messiah's lineage. Hence, it is clear that God does not think of "nationalities" or "race" in the same way that natural man does. To Him, a "foreign" woman who surrendered to the God of Israel, recognising Him as God and the people of Israel as His chosen people, stopped being a "foreigner" in His eyes and became an "Israelite". This is why Ruth, who swore allegiance to the God of Israel (Ruth 1:16) was no longer a "Moabite" in God's eyes, even if she was a "Moabite" in the literal sense of the word. This is also why Rahab, a Canaanite woman from Jericho, was no longer a "Canaanite" in His eyes, becoming an "Israelite" when she sincerely confessed the God of Israel as the One True God (Joshua 2:11). This is also why the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), who was clearly black, is never spoken of as a "Gentile" and was allowed to freely worship with the rest of the Jewish people. Having recognised the God of Israel as the One True God, the eunuch was, for all intents and purposes, a "Jew" in God's eyes and was to be treated as such. Otherwise, he would have been treated as the first "Gentile" (i.e. non-Jew) convert to Christianity instead of Cornelius (Acts 10), who was clearly a Mediterranean white and much closer in physical appearance to the "average Jew" than the Ethiopian eunuch would ever be!


From all of the above, we can clearly conclude that the non-obligation to release foreigners from their debt (in Deuteronomy 15:3) cannot be taken to refer to literal Israelites. Instead, it refers to those who have chosen not to submit to the God of Israel despite living amongst the Israelites. This basic conclusion illustrates two truths. First, it illustrates the type of selective generosity and forgiveness that God calls His people to practise (whether they be "Israelites" or "Christian"). God did not call His people to forgive the debt of others in an indiscriminate way. Instead, His people are called to distinguish between those who are willing to commit themselves to Truth and those who are not, and we are to make an effort to enable those who are truly seeking righteousness despite past failings. Second, the above conclusion illustrates that, when reading passages related to releasing others, we cannot interpret God's commandments in terms of literal nationality, ethnicity, or race. With this in mind, let us now consider the following passage which, just as Deuteronomy 15:1-4, relates to James Oglethorpe and the colony of Georgia:


"1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." (Exodus 21:1-6)


Notice that this passage is clearly speaking of slaves (as shown by the phrase "buy an Hebrew servant" in verse 2). Notice also that the Israelites were obligated to free their slaves in the 7th year, meaning that the condition of slavery was not meant to permanent, even if there were clear "buying rights" involved. Notice also that the passage specifically speaks of "Hebrew" slaves, which, as we already saw, cannot be taken to refer to literal nationality or ethnicity, especially when we project these commandments into the realm of the New Covenant (or Testament). Therefore, we can safely conclude that, when God enslaved black people and dragged them with chains to America, He never meant their slavery to be permanent. He was punishing peoples who where unwilling to submit to His apostolic nature and were determined to operate solely in their prophetic and evangelistic endowments. Being unwilling to submit to the Japheth spirit of law and order, God, out of deep love for them, punished them and dragged them to America to pay the spiritual debt that they were unwilling to pay. In doing so, He freed them from the suffocating influence of the evil spirits that rule the African continent even to this day, giving them an opportunity to finally develop in the atmosphere of Japhethite law and order that they had so defiantly disdained. However, just as the Israelites' slavery punishment in Egypt was meant to last for a limited time, so was the slavery of blacks in America. As blacks were absorbed into the American atmosphere, they began a sincere process of conversion to Christianity (as we shall see later). Considering that most slave owners in the colonies were Christians, the slaves that they owned slowly turned into their fellow brothers and sisters in the faith. As this happened, Americans in the South, especially those who were devout Christians, had the responsibility (especially as people living in New-Covenant times) to discern that the spiritual clauses of Exodus 21 were about to kick in and that the "7th year" of liberation was fast approaching. Even though Exodus 21 speaks of 7 literal years, it should be evident to anyone with a spiritual awareness of the New Covenant that the "7 years" are figurative and refer to a "Sabbath" (i.e. a "7th") time of "required respite". In the case of black America, the period of collective enslavement was meant to last way more than 7 years, but this writer is now fully convinced that the year of Jubilee, i.e. the God-commanded period of liberation and restitution, for black America started the day that the colony of Georgia was conceived in the heart of James Oglethorpe. This is why Oglethorpe saw Georgia as a place where "worthy" people with undeniably genuine debts were to be given a second chance at a new life, and it is also why he conceived it as a place with no slavery, which he banned from the colony's outset (unbeknownst to most people, slavery was illegal in Georgia for the first 27 years of its existence, until 1749).


This writer is certain that, if confronted with Scripture, Christian slave owners in the 1700s and 1800s would have initially resorted to the trite "Old-Testament" argument, claiming that, as "New-Testament" believers, they were free from the bondage of the Law. Such reasoning, however, fails catastrophically for two very simple reasons. First, it is tainted with ironic hypocrisy by using the freedom of the New Covenant to justify the permanent slavery of others. Second, it ignores Yeshua's words in Matthew 5 and 6 that emphasise that the Law was not nullified but was instead raised to a higher level of accountability, meaning that we are now obligated to discern the Spirit of the Law and to abide by it at a level that is so much more "demanding" that it cannot be fulfilled through natural effort.


Though brothers, still enslaved (even by Whitefield)

Given that Christian slave owners in the American South had no excuse in the eyes of God to ignore His words in Deuteronomy 15, the few who would have been truthful enough to acknowledge such passages would have more than likely resorted to reducing them to as literal an interpretation as possible, claiming that "foreigners" were excluded from being released. Yet, as we already saw in ample detail, the word "foreigner" refers to someone who cannot be called your "brother" because he refuses to submit to the same God that you submit to. It is true that most, if not all, of the slaves from Africa were non-Christians, with a significant number of them imbued in occult rituals and witchcraft (as proved by their importing of voodoo to the Americas). Hence, it would have been technically acceptable to claim them as "foreigners" who did not submit to the God of the Bible and who therefore had no right to claim the opportunity to be liberated. However, as the colony of Georgia was conceived in the heart of James Oglethorpe, God raised a man by the name of George Whitefield in order to obliterate the "they-are-not-brothers" excuse.


As indicated on Wikipedia, George Whitefield was an Englishman born in 1716 in Gloucester, 17 years ahead of Georgia's birth. In 1738, the 6th year of Georgia's existence, he travelled from England to Savannah, Georgia as a parish priest. This trip to Georgia stemmed from the earlier visit to Georgia by John Wesley at Oglethorpe's request (Wesley and Whitefield were friends and co-residents at Oxford). Whilst in America, Whitefield became very popular, often drawing large crowds, becoming an integral force behind the Great Awakening of 1740. In his revivals, Whitefield included slaves, often going out of his way to preach and minister to them. His efforts towards black slaves were very fruitful, leading to a massive and sincere conversion to Christianity. This is why many historians see the movement spawned by Whitefield as the genesis of black-American Christianity. In other words, it was through Whitefield, who was brought to America because of Georgia, that the slaves owned by Christian whites turned from "foreigners" to "fellow Israelites" in the faith. God was therefore setting the stage for the liberation of black Americans, especially as independence from Britain drew near. The very people whom God had handed over to whites (for a season) were now to be set free by them.


Sadly enough, America remained defiant to God's decree, and even Whitefield himself was too stupid to understand what God was saying with the loudness of 7 thunders. When Whitefield visited America for the first time by arriving in Georgia in 1738, he became convinced that the area needed an orphan house, and he returned to England to raise funds for it. He was eventually able to establish his orphanage, but, by 1747, his orphanage, the Bethesda Orphanage, had run into financial difficulties, and he quickly concluded that the ban on slavery in Georgia was to blame, apparently because the lack of slavery was "hurting" the Georgia economy and thereby limiting the orphanage's ability to raise funds! As a result, he began to actively promote the institution of slavery in Georgia between 1748 and 1750, which contributed to slavery being legalised in Georgia in 1751. This means that the very man who was most responsible for turning black American slaves into "brothers" and "non-foreigners" -- and, hence, into people with a God-ordained right to eventual freedom -- became one of the most important spiritual forces responsible for entrenching slavery deeper into the American fabric. Since Whitefield became more concerned with his soulish, matriarchal orphanage project than with God's will, he literally sold his black brothers and sisters down the river and gave away the eternal reward that would have come with being the main spiritual reason for the prompt termination of slavery in America. This is an example of how corrosive and loathsome the matriarchal spirit of soulish works is on even the so-called "great men of God".


It is somehow ironic that Whitefield was, throughout his ministry, not shy about attacking the established Church, rejecting the undue reverence of ecclesiastical authority and declaring that "the whole world is now my parish". Because of this attitude, his 13 ocean crossings and 7 visits to America were spiritually instrumental in fostering the American Revolution by promoting the power of the people to question unrighteous authority. Unfortunately, Whitefield's "pestilent" red-horse attitude propelled him into the wilderness of black-horse independence but no further. This is because, as time wore on, his evangelistic ministry became about him and what he could do for God rather than about enabling those whom he helped save to do great things for God. In other words, the healthy dose of narcissism that is characteristic of a true evangelist turned into a soulish self-centredness that made it more important to keep his orphanage alive than to see the liberation of the very people he had helped lead to the Lord. Being one of the first bona-fide celebrities in the American colonies, he had the power to radically transform public opinion on slavery throughout the land, yet he was unwilling to "limit" his sphere of influence by alienating people and closing doors to his ministry (much like the modern-day evangelist-turned-coward Billy Graham). This is why, despite all of his great works, eternal shame shall be on George Whitefield, for, instead of growing into the fullness of Christ's nature, he degraded into one of the self-serving ministers that God had empowered him to condemn. Because of his selfish attitude, Whitefield allowed slavery to continue for over 100 more years, shackling the lives of millions of men and women and triggering the eventual death of hundreds of thousands of men during the American Civil War. The fact that he spoke out for the humane treatment of slaves is as meaningless as the mountains of humanitarian work that modern-day matriarchals offer to God so as to compensate for their lack of spiritual fruit, like fruitless fig trees full of leaves. He may have died a wealthy owner of 4000 acres of land and 50 slaves in Georgia, but, in eternity, his "acreage" shall be miniscule and his dominion over others will be as negligible as that of a literal slave. Just as he refused to offer his 50 black slaves the 50th year of Jubilee, there shall be no Jubilee from God for him for all of eternity, says the Lord God of Israel Whom his heart rejected.


As a final note related to Whitefield, it is worth considering that James Oglethorpe arrived in America -- in South Carolina, near present-day Savannah, Georgia -- to establish the Georgia colony in late 1732 on a ship called "Anne". The name "Anne" is derived from the Hebrew name Hannah meaning "grace". Hence, Oglethorpe's arrival in America signified the arrival of a special kind of liberating grace from God for America. Six years later, in 1738, Whitefield arrived in Savannah, Georgia, which correlates with the 6 years that slaves could be kept before being freed on the 7th year. Fittingly enough, as we have shared before, the number "38" in 1738 speaks of wilderness stagnation, which is where Whitefield eventually ended up. Both Whitefield and America chose to stay stuck in the 6th year without going into the 7th year, for they disdained the price that God was demanding them to pay on that year. That spirit of stagnation remains within America to this day. The fields were white, ripe for the harvest, yet Whitefield chose to stay on the sidelines because he saw no benefit in surrendering his entire ministry in green-horse sacrifice to enable a higher, eternal purpose for God and His people. God blesses James Oglethorpe with an eternal blessing, for he heard the voice of God and acted, laying all the right foundations and leaving America with no excuse not to follow through. By contrast, the Lord God is destroying the earthly legacy and soulish worship that Whitefield has received from the matriarchal Church, which measures ministerial success by earthly and simplistic parameters.


{As a parenthesis, it is no spiritual coincidence that the term "brother" has been permanently associated in American culture with being black. For example, if someone in America declares, "There were a lot of brothers at the party", most people will immediately understand that he is saying that many black people attended the party, even if the person speaking is white. This permanent reference to blacks as "brothers" was injected by God into black and American culture as a perennial testimony to the brotherhood that American whites were called to see in blacks, a brotherhood that a significant portion of America refused to recognise for decades on end due to the price that such recognition would imply.}


The spiritual chain gang

As we saw earlier, Exodus 21 is a chapter with very clear spiritual instructions regarding slavery:


"1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." (Exodus 21:1-6)


Notice that, in the midst of speaking about the liberation of slaves, the Lord says something that may seem somewhat harsh, especially to the pastoral, matriarchal soul: If the slave marries a woman and has children during his slavery period, he cannot take them with him when he is freed on the 7th year. Why would God declare such a law? As a way to underline the spiritual purposes behind valid slavery. When decreed by the Lord, slavery is to be a temporary period of "debt payment" and internal reformation that will undo what prompted the person to go into slavery in the first place. By getting married during that time, the slave would be spiritually undermining that process, since it would in effect divide his energy and attention between paying his spiritual debt (to God and man) and providing for someone else's soul (in order to satisfy a personal soul need of his own). God, in His promotion of free will, does not ban such marriages outright, but makes it very clear that there will be consequences if such marriages are carried out. By having to leave behind his wife and children, the former slave's soul would be forced to suffer the pain that he had tried to avoid by getting married in the first place, meaning that his marriage would have only served to delay and prolong a suffering that was intended to be "short and quick".


As indicated in Exodus 21:1-6 above, the freed slave had the choice of bypassing the soul pain of separation from his wife and children, but it was at a price. If he wanted to avoid being separated from them, he would have to become the master's permanent slave. By making such a decision, however, the slave would be proving that he valued his soul attachments beyond his (spiritual) freedom and was therefore converting himself into a permanently dependent human being. In a sense, this correlates with the modern-day situations where believers are being called by God to separate themselves from a certain pastor or congregation but who choose to stay because they "love" their pastor (i.e. their temporary "master") and their church friends (i.e. their "family") more than they do God and the calling that He has for them. Such believers would rather be an Old-Covenant slave with soul company than a New-Covenant, free spirit being who is alone. As I was typing these words, the Lord drew my attention to a song called "Chain Gang", and I suddenly understood that that is the spiritual name for such people. These believers would rather be chained to other believers, working like slaves out in the Old-Covenant, Girgashite sun than be New-Covenant free men and women by themselves.


It is worth pointing out that the word "judges" in Exodus 21:6 above was actually translated from the Hebrew word elohim, which, as many of you may know, is a plural word used to refer to God Himself. Therefore, the original text can actually be translated as saying "his master shall bring him unto the gods" or "unto God". Why would God say this? In a sense, to put the slave before the very nature that he was abdicating: the nature of God Himself. By choosing soul attachments over his spiritual freedom and calling, the slave was declaring that he was more comfortable staying under the thumb of men than in operating in the freedom of a spirit being who grows unto the full nature of God Himself.


This writer is certain that, to some, a slave's decision to stay in bondage is actually a romantic manifestation of love and sacrifice that values one's family over one's own freedom. However, the Lord's understanding of "love" and "sacrifice" are different from man's. Otherwise, wouldn't the slave's sacrifice actually make him more worthy of freedom in God's eyes than the "selfish" slave who would be willing to leave his family behind? Yet, instead of merely forcing the slave to work for 7 more years to pay for the freedom of his family, God sentences him to permanent slavery, and a permanent slavery so palpable that the man was to be pierced in his ear as a physical sign to all of what he had decided to become for the rest of his life: a man whose ear was bound to the commands of another man and not to the commands of God Himself. God does not look too kindly on those who are willing to sacrifice their eternal calling for the sake of temporary, soul relationships, for, to Him, it is like selling your inheritance for a cup of very delicious lentil soup.


If it was spiritually wrong to choose your family over your freedom, what was the slave to do? For one, he was supposed to have focused on paying off his literal (and spiritual) debt to God and man than to try to use soul relationships as a way to assuage the pain of the process. Also, he was not supposed to expect his master to freely provide partial financing for his household, which is what would naturally happen if he took a wife for himself, since the master would be obligated to provide "room and board" for the new wife and any children born out of the marriage. That aside, if his family was so important to him, the truest act of love under those circumstances would be to work hard as a free man and make every effort to buy his family out of slavery. And, if a quick repurchase of his family was impossible, he could simply pray and wait for the 6+ years to expire for each of them so that he could then be reunited with them as a family of free men and women. By taking the easy, risk-free option of pledging permanent slavery to his master, he was actually guaranteeing that his family would be one of permanent slaves, a permanent chain gang. This writer then asks the matriarchal soul, "Where is the love in that?" Freedom incurs responsibility and risk of failure. The refusal to understand this is, ironically, what causes people to enter into debt and become slaves in the first place. And by evidencing, even after your period of slavery, that you still refuse to understand this reality, you are proving that you deserve to become a slave forever.


Loss of dominion

You may have noticed that, even though Deuteronomy 15:1-4 and Exodus 21:1-6 vary in certain details, both passages are actually spiritually parallel. Whereas Deuteronomy 15 speaks of debtors being freed on the 7th year, Exodus 21 speaks of Hebrew slaves being freed on the 7th year. Interestingly, the following verse reveals that both passages are talking about the same group of people:


"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender" (Proverbs 22:7)


The word "servant" above was translated from the Hebrew word ebed which can be translated as "slave" and is the same word used in Exodus 21:2 and Exodus 21:5 to refer to a "Hebrew servant" that must be set free on the 7th year. It is worth noting that the word "lender" in the verse above was translated from two Hebrew words, iysh meaning "male" and lavah meaning "borrow" or "lend". Hence, the original text actually says "the male who lends". This means that the original text is silently stating the difference between those who operate under the "male" spirit and the "female" soul. Those who operate in the "female" soul enslave themselves and cannot enjoy the freedom of those who operate in the "male" spirit, and, as such, "inoculate" themselves from the ability to exercise spiritual dominion, which is why the Lord declares in the verse above that the spiritually rich "rule over" the spiritually poor. Naturally, the dominion of the rich over the poor also has a natural connotation, but, when you apply the verse above in the natural, the dominion that it implies is also natural and cannot override the spiritual dominion that those who are spiritually rich can exercise, "poor" as they may be in the natural.


This contrast between exercising "male" dominion and enslaving oneself is also evident in Deuteronomy 15 itself:


"For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee" (Deuteronomy 15:6)


All of this certifies that those who would choose permanent slavery in order to stay with their family, as per Exodus 21:1-6, are not showing "sacrificial love" but are instead depriving themselves and the people they supposedly love from the opportunity to exercise dominion and fulfil their calling, as per Genesis 1:26.


Overdue "male" reparations

After commanding a release of slaves on the 7th year, the Lord declares the following in Deuteronomy 15:


"12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)

[Notice that the Spirit of God goes out of His way to specifically mention women in verse 12, meaning that, even if a freed slave was forced to separate himself from his wife, he had the hope of reuniting with her in freedom (for both) by waiting long enough]


As shown by the passage above, a slave owner was not only expected to let the slave free on the 7th year, he was also expected to provide him "liberally" out of his flock, his floor, and his wine press. This means that the American South was not only supposed to liberate black slaves but was expected to provide them abundantly as they started their new life of freedom. By commanding this liberal provision, the Lord was also emphasising to the former slave owner that the man or woman he was releasing was not to be seen as an inferior human being who simply "got lucky" and won the "freedom lottery". Instead, he was to see his former slave as a fellow brother or sister who deserved to be blessed and enabled as he or she started a new life after paying off his debt to God and man.


The phrase "furnish him liberally" in Deuteronomy 15:14 was mistranslated from the Hebrew verb anaq, which literally means "to adorn with a neck ornament". Therefore, it has a "garnishing" or "adorning" connotation that, as we have seen before, is feminine in nature and is spiritually related to the "female" pastoral endowment. Interestingly enough, the 3 types of provision required by the Lord in Deuteronomy 15:14 correlate with the 3 "male" ministerial endowments:

  • Flock

    The word "flock" was translated from the Hebrew word tson, which is used for the first time in Genesis 4 (in verses 2 and 4) to refer to Abel as a "keeper of sheep" who sacrificed to God out of his flock, which contrasted with Cain, who "sacrificed" out of the fruit of the ground. Therefore, we can say that tson clearly refers to prophetic blood sacrifice that gives out of one's own life rather than just sacrificing out of external excess.

  • Floor

    The word "floor" was under-translated from the Hebrew word goren, which literally means "threshing floor" and is translated from a word meaning "to smooth". As we have studied before, threshing is spiritually related to the Jebusite spirit in a negative sense, meaning that, when taken in a positive sense, it refers to the apostolic endowment, since Jebusites are "apostles gone bad". Since apostles are judgement makers, and judgements "process" people and things, it makes sense that the word goren is related to "smoothing", since the act of smoothing something involves putting it through a process until all the "rough edges" have been removed and the object achieves the desired form.

  • Winepress

    The word "winepress" was translated from the Hebrew word yeqeb, which appears for the last time in Zechariah 14:10 in reference to the "king's winepresses" and in the context of the establishment of God's dominion on Earth. Hence, it clearly refers to the evangelistic endowment of conquest and kingship. This is no coincidence, for, as we have seen before, wine is spiritually related to joy, conquest, and the evangelistic endowment.


Notice, therefore, that the 3 provisions listed by the Lord in Deuteronomy 15:14 refer to the 3 "male" endowments of prophet, apostle, and evangelist. Hence, we can conclude from all of the above that the slave owner was called to act as a "pastorally serving, weaker female", towards the freed slave, providing him (or her) with "male" endowments so that he (or she) may begin to operate in "male" strength and may be able to emerge from his slavery condition of relative "inferiority" and "weakness".


Considering all of the above, it is very clear that America failed miserably when it finally "deigned" to heed God's commandment and free the slaves. Instead of acting in "female weakness" and equipping the freed slaves with "male empowerment", the American South hunkered down and went out of its way to humiliate the former slaves and keep them in a position of permanent inferiority. Not only did the American South fail to provide spiritual "male empowerment", it also failed to provide the former slaves with natural provision, leaving them to fend for themselves. As described on Wikipedia, General Sherman (one of the few righteous Americans of the Civil War period) issued "Special Field Orders No. 15" in 1865, a decree that granted each freed family 40 acres of tillable land in the sea islands around Charleston, South Carolina. The Union Army also distributed unused mules to freed settlers. In total, 400,000 acres in Georgia and South Carolina were granted to 40,000 freed slaves. Unfortunately, all of this was reversed by the man that the (much-praised but) spiritually idiotic Abraham Lincoln chose as his successor, the bastard Andrew Johnson. Hence, James Oglethorpe's Georgia was once again denied the opportunity to lead the way in America's fulfilment of Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21. It is ironic that America invested way more effort into reconstructing the bastard South than in fulfilling its obligation to God and to the freed slaves. That is why the American South and its plethora of bubble boys continue under God's judgement to this day. This is why, to this day, there remains a palpable air of spiritual emptiness in the American South; and, no matter how much the South may try or claim to be right with God, it shall remain in its current state until it publicly admits its sin and cries out to Almighty God for forgiveness. It is too late for the American South to provide "reparations" to blacks, for black America lost its calling in June-July 2016 when it idiotically sold all of its Tirhakah promises just to have a self-serving African demagogue (barry who's-he obastard) play golf at their expense for a few years. Black America, as a people, no longer deserve any mercy or attention from God or His remnant people, for they cursed themselves into irrelevance. Even so, the American South's debt to God remains, and, just as God would not let black slaves go until they paid their debt to Him, He shall keep the American South in spiritual debt and slavery until it wakes up from its self-induced coma and pays its long-overdue debt to God.


Fellow believer, if you happen to be an American southerner, the word of judgement declared above does not apply to you if your heart treasures God above the South. As declared in Ezekiel 18, the Lord God does not automatically hold you accountable for the sins of your fathers. He only holds you accountable if you embrace the sins of your fathers and make them your own. Hence, if you stand with the Lord and hold the South to account, demanding that it pay its spiritual debt, you will be acting to enable the South's true redemption in the latter days. Said another way, a southerner who loves the South in the Spirit (and not the soul) will be showing his true love by embracing God's judgement against the South, a judgement that continues to loom over the South because its population, throughout the decades, has refused to publicly confess their collective shame in defying God on the honouring of the "7th year". Instead of confessing its shame, they continue to honour the Confederate Flag, declaring it a part of their "history" and of "who they are", as if to say,

"We don't regret what happened. We may have been wrong, but we had no way of knowing; and, if we could do it again, we would because we had very justifiable reasons for preserving slavery beyond God's allotted time. We had to stand up for our Constitutional rights, and we will gladly defy God and stand up for our rights again if we have to. Our precious Constitution overrides the Laws of God. Yes, we continued to defy God by denying our black brothers their freedom even into the 1960s, but that is over now, so everybody should just get over it and move on, including God!!"


The loss of Philadelphia

Later in Deuteronomy 15, the Lord declares the following:


"It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest." (Deuteronomy 15:18)


Notice how the Lord does not see it as a "favour" to Him to let the slave go after 6 years and to provide for his brand new start in freedom. This is because the slave owner must realise that, as a slave, his fellow man has been "worth a double-hired servant". The word "double" was translated from the Hebrew word mishneh, which, interestingly enough, is used in its first 3 appearances in the context of Joseph and his rise from being a 13-year slave to being the ruler over all of Egypt:


"42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; 43 And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Genesis 41:42-43)

[The word "second" in verse 43 was translated from mishneh. Notice also how Pharaoh went out of his way to "adorn" and empower the former slave so that no one who saw him would think of him as a slave anymore.]


"11 And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds: 12 And take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight:" (Genesis 43:11-12)

[The word "double" in verse 12 was translated from mishneh.

Notice how Jacob instructs his sons, who sold Joseph into slavery, to take to Joseph double the money that Joseph had given to them, as if to say, "you have a double debt with Joseph for you have benefited from his slavery, and you must now compensate him twofold, for he is a brother again and has been redeemed by the Lord".]


"And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph" (Genesis 43:15)

[The word "double" was again translated from mishneh]


As you may know, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers because they resented him for dreaming that he would some day see them bow before him. Hence, when Joseph was finally redeemed out of slavery (by interpreting Pharaoh's dream), it marked the rise of a dreamer. As we have shared before, one of the 7 Spirits of God is the Spirit of Philadelphia, the Spirit of Dreams and Visions. Therefore, the fact that mishneh is featured by the Spirit of God in the context of Joseph's liberation means that the acknowledgement of the slave's "double work" is linked to the release of the Spirit of Philadelphia. This is why Jacob prophetically instructed Joseph's brothers to take "double money" to Joseph, for this acknowledgement was essential in the children of Israel receiving an impartation of the Spirit of Philadelphia, an impartation of the Spirit of Dreams and Visions that would prove essential when their time came to be free from Egypt some 400 years later.


Thus, when the American South refused to provide for black Americans after they were freed, choosing instead to surreptitiously oppress them and extort from them for 100 extra years, it effectively pulverised the manifestation of the Spirit of Philadelphia throughout the Southern landscape. As we have shared before, the Perizzite spirit, the poor villager spirit, is the distortion of the Spirit-of-Philadelphia endowment. Hence, it makes sense that the American South remains, to this day, a land littered with relatively poor, isolated villages and towns, places where people do not dare to hope or dream of better and greater things.


The Independence-freeloading South

Even though the American South has been the main recipient of this "draining" of the Spirit of Philadelphia, America as a whole has also suffered significantly from this "draining" due to its passive complicity in the South's defiance of God's commands. In the city of Philadelphia in 1776, the Founding Fathers had a chance to take steps towards liberating slaves and fulfilling God's command, but they chose to ignore Him "for the sake of the country". Once and again, American conservatives who worship at the altar of the Founding Fathers are quick to point out that they had no choice but to act that way, for it would have been "impossible" to unite all 13 colonies for independence unless the issue of slavery was left "as is". This pragmatist argument, however, has 2 glaring problems. First, it surrenders to the assumption that the Southern states would have rather stayed under the dominion of the British than give up their beloved slavery. If that assumption is correct, the question that follows is: Would it be worthwhile to unite with people that prefer to be under someone's yoke than surrender their yoke on others? One could argue that the Southern states may have tried to have their cake and eat it too by holding on to slavery and trying to forge their own independent "Slave States of America", but such an argument is inherently weak, since the War of Independence proved to be a long and difficult conflict of endurance by principle, and people who are comfortable sitting in their plantation houses whilst "lesser men" do their work are clearly people without the mettle required to win such a war. The character and economic qualities required to win the Revolutionary War always emanated from the North. This is why, as explained on Wikipedia, the British focused on the South starting around 1778, 2 years after the Declaration of Independence, in their efforts to regain control of the colonies. After being defeated in Saratoga in October 1777, the British gave up on recapturing New York or the northern colonies, choosing instead to launch an attack against Georgia and South Carolina, which they successfully took back in May 1780. It eventually took significant help from the French for the American army, led by Northerner Nathanael Greene, to finally overtake Cornwallis and the British and recapture the South in the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 (as described on Wikipedia).


Before Northerner Nathanael Greene was appointed to lead the American army's effort in the South, the American Congress had tried Robert Howe, a Southerner from North Carolina. As indicated on Wikipedia, Robert Howe, a slave owner, failed miserably. He lost Oglethorpe's Savannah, Georgia to the British in a shameful way, with his army of southern soldiers fleeing in panic like cowards when outflanked by the British (as mentioned on Wikipedia). After Howe, Congress tried Benjamin Lincoln (no relation to Abe). Though a Northerner from New England, his efforts were hampered by the Southern spirit that was around him. As indicated on Wikipedia, Lincoln suffered a (respectable) defeat at the hands of Henry Clinton in Charleston, South Carolina. In an effort to regroup after that defeat and acquire enough Southern troops to mount a new attack, he pleaded with the South Carolina legislature to arm 1,000 slaves. However, when the South Carolina legislature was forced to choose between arming (i.e. empowering) slaves and losing to the British, it did not hesitate to choose the latter. As a result, they began negotiations with British commanders to allow the British troops to freely pass through South Carolina (i.e. they would rather see the British running free than American slaves). Hence, it is no spiritual coincidence that South Carolina was the defiant state that kick-started the Civil War. This illustrates the type of morally-stunted people with whom the lukewarm Northerners were attempting to compromise in order to preserve "unity" with them.


Considering that the South was finally free from the British when the Continental Army in the South was finally led by a northerner that was not forced to depend on Southerners, we can safely say that the South owes its independence to the North. Thus, any argument that the American nation would have never been born had the Founding Fathers not compromised on slavery is utter nonsense, and it is a shame before the God of Israel when southern evangelical Christians (who should know better, having the Holy Spirit within them) have the gall to justify the actions of their ancestors or to rationalise the compromising attitude of the false gods that they worship (i.e. the Founding Fathers and the American nation).


Not even a peep of official protest

Having said the above, the question then becomes, "What were the Founding Fathers supposed to do in Philadelphia?" Even if an outright ban of slavery would have been impossible, especially because of the wishy-washy nature of many of the people who assembled to approve the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, those who were aware of how slavery violated God's specific command to America and who had an influential voice should have at least shouted,

"OK. If we, as a nation, are still too stupid to abide by God's decrees, we will go along with this charade of an independence, but we will not sign anything unless specific clauses are added that will prevent the spread of slavery to any new territories and that will delineate a roadmap to debate/remove slavery from the states where it currently exists. And, even if such clauses are out of the question, there should at least be something in the documents we are drafting that declares to God and to all of posterity that we condemn (i.e. curse) the fact that we are founding a nation whilst blatantly disobeying God and waving our Southern fist in His Face."


Unfortunately, not even a "protest clause" was ever added to either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Everyone, both the defiant southerner and the compromising northerner, pretended as if the collective challenge against God had not happened. It is as if Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 had been blotted from the Bibles that Americans since the arrival of James Oglethorpe were so faithfully carrying to their church services day after day, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. This is how the South piggy-backed its way to Independence without paying the required price.


Hannibal Hamlin, the real emancipator

Any word on America's dismissal of Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 would be incomplete without a reference to Hannibal Hamlin, the man who served as Vice President during Lincoln's only full term, between 1861 and 1865. As indicated on Wikipedia, Hamlin was a northerner from Maine who began his political career as a Democrat but eventually became a Republican (when the Republican Party was formed in 1856) due to his non-compromising opposition to slavery. As a Democrat Senator for Maine, he supported the Wilmot Proviso in 1848, which would have banned slavery from the territories rescued from mexico in the mexican-American War. He also opposed the cowardly Compromise Measures of 1850 and the disastrous Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. In other words, he was a clear voice of opposition to the continuation of slavery, the type of voice that was so loudly missing when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were being drafted.


Some may want to argue that Hamlin's presence as Lincoln's running mate proves Lincoln's staunch commitment to end slavery. However, the historical evidence reveals a very different reality. Lincoln embraced Hamlin's nomination as his running mate, not because he was a staunch promoter of enforcing God's long-ignored decree, but because Hamlin was a former Democrat. To his dying day, Lincoln always chose America over God (cursed are the patriots who idolise their country), and he would have happily prolonged slavery another 100 years if it would have prevented the Southern states getting upset with him and leaving the Union. Dear believer, if you doubt this, you can read the bone-chilling words penned by Abe himself in a letter to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862, quoted on Wikipedia. These revealing words cannot be attributed to a one-off slip of the tongue. Instead, they were the manifestation of a deliberate stance that Lincoln had held throughout his political career and that he voiced again and again to multiple people. It was this blasphemous reverence of the American nation by Lincoln that caused him to grudgingly "embrace" Hannibal Hamlin as his running mate. By running with a former Democrat, he wanted to show the Democrats and the South how willing he was to "work together" with them. In other words, he wanted to convince them that he was a "uniter", in the Canaanite sense of the word.


After Hamlin and Lincoln won the election in 1860, Lincoln immediately gave Hamlin the cold shoulder, rarely communicating with him or involving him in his major decisions during his term. For his re-election campaign of 1864, Lincoln happily embraced a better "symbol of unity" than the oft-stubborn Hamlin, a Southerner by the name of Andrew Johnson, a man who not only was a former Democrat but was still a Democrat and who saw his precious South with very kind eyes. As the prophet of God declared to this writer not too long ago, Hamlin was the spiritual strength behind Lincoln's spineless weakness. It was because of Hamlin's presence in the background that Lincoln was able to win the Civil War and (grudgingly) ban slavery (and only because he finally realised that any victory over the South would be tenuous if the pesky issue of slavery was still on the table). Lincoln dropped Hamlin like a hot potato after his use for him as a "token of unity" was over at the end of the 1860 election. Therefore, God dropped Lincoln like a hot potato when His use for him was over at the end of the Civil War, removing His protection from him and allowing John Wilkes Booth to judge him to death.


By contrast to Lincoln's dishonourable discharge, God showed His favour towards Hamlin by prolonging his life just as much as Lincoln's was cut short. After being dumped by Lincoln and the Republican Party in 1864, he was able to win re-election to the U.S. Senate in 1869, serving two 6-year terms and leaving in 1881. He then served a brief 15-month stint as U.S. Ambassador to Spain between 30 June 1881 and 17 October 1882. He then enjoyed 3182 days (37 x 86 days, over 8 years) of retirement, dying peacefully on 4 July 1891. He ended up surviving 6 of his successors as Vice President; and, for exactly 21 months, between 4 June 1887 and 4 March 1889, he was the only living Vice President, former or current, and he was the only living former Vice President at the time of his death! The fact that the Lord took him home on America's Independence Day was a testimony that it was he, not Lincoln, who had enabled the independence of black Americans, and it was he, not Lincoln, who enabled at least a partial submission of America to God's decree, the submission that had greatly invalidated the first Independence Day in God's eyes. The fact that he outlasted all the Vice Presidents of his time is a testimony that he, not the bastard Andrew Johnson, deserved to have been Vice President at the time of Lincoln's death. Had the spiritually idiotic Abraham Lincoln not chosen to cast Hannibal in the dust bin, Hamlin would have become the 17th President of the United States, and both the restoration of black America and the subjugation of the God-defying South would have been enabled to a much larger extent. The history of America would have then been changed in a permanent and transcendental way. Unfortunately, instead of the manifestation of greatness (which is what the number "17" represents), the 17th President of the United States was a worthless southerner who became the first president to be impeached and who derailed America's path for the next 100 years! It is not a coincidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (a weak and ineffectual end to this pathetic derailment) was signed by another vice-president named Johnson who became president after an assassination by a southerner. The fact that the Act was signed on 2 July, as opposed to 4 July, certifies that it was a belated and half-hearted "fulfilment" of the Independence that God has been demanding from America since 1776.


The not-so-venerable Levi Morton

Ironically, the sitting Vice President at the time of Hamlin's death was another worthless piece of soul rubbish in God's eyes, a man by the name of Levi Morton, the son of a reverend who "served" with President Benjamin Harrison. As explained on Wikipedia, Harrison tried to pass the Lodge Bill, a law to enforce the voting right of blacks in the South, which was being violently and blatantly sabotaged by the blasphemous South. The bill, however, died in the Senate because son-of-Belial Morton did little as Senate President to support the bill against the Democrats' filibuster. As explained on Wikipedia, Morton and other Northern Republicans sold blacks out (again) to gain Southern support of the McKinley Tariff; other Republicans sold blacks out to the South for its support of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. In other words, Morton, the son of a reverend and an active church member, chose to embrace a long-term damage for America and to join the South in raising its fist at God's Face so as to pass a short-term fiasco, a worthless and destructive tariff that raised the duty on imports to around 50%.


McKinley, the "genius" behind this useless tariff, went on to be another useless President himself. During the 1896 election, he gave signs to blacks that he would fight for them in the South, but, like a good Irish Gad traitor, he betrayed blacks whilst in office, doing little to confront the lynching and excesses in the South (as indicated on Wikipedia). It was during McKinley's term that America fought and won the Spanish-American War, but not before the inept Secretary of War that he had handpicked was replaced. This writer believes that the spiritual currency required for winning that war stemmed from Hamlin's time as Ambassador to Spain. Otherwise, the pathetic McKinley might have been the first American President to preside over a lost war. Just as God had allowed Lincoln to win a war despite himself, He allowed McKinley to do the same, but both were made to pay the same price (after having benefited from Hamlin's work). God allowed McKinley to be deservedly judged to death by an anarchist, a second-generation American of Polish descent (i.e. a non-import) named Leon Czolgosz.


Fittingly, Czolgosz turned to anarchism after he lost his job in the Panic of 1893 which (as indicated on Wikipedia) was caused by both McKinley's Tariff and the Sherman Silver Purchase Acts of 1890 (the very acts that Morton, McKinley, and the Republicans had sold blacks out for). Said another way, Leon Czolgosz was the direct product of what McKinley and Morton had sown! Czolgosz judged McKinley on 6 September 1901. 6 full days after being shot, McKinley seemed to be recovering from his wounds. But, just as McKinley and America were about to celebrate escaping God's judgement, the gangrene that had developed within him took hold on the 7th day, leading to McKinley's death early the next day. Just as America had denied blacks their freedom on the "7th year", God denied McKinley his life on the 7th day, and the internal failings that were invisible to the natural eye took hold and finished God's sentence against him. The same has happened and continues to happen to America, to this day. America's invisible gangrene is from its refusal to go uncompromisingly green.


For over 150 years, Lincoln has taken the credit for ending slavery (at least on the surface). He has taken the credit as the emancipator of blacks, but, in God's eyes, he was little more than an appeaser who grudgingly yielded to God's will when he had no other choice. The true emancipator of blacks, the man who could have done so much more if he had been allowed, was Hannibal Hamlin, and, in the latter days, the transcendental relevance of his life on America will be revealed. By the same token, the destructiveness of praised men such as McKinley will be exposed, and the treacherous undermining of men such as Levi Morton will be revealed, all for their eternal, never-ending shame.


There is more to say regarding this word, but we will do so in a future posting, God willing...