Based on the Biblical Model of Covenantal Nationhood and the Enduring Authority of the Sabbath
I. Introduction
This document presents a constitutional and policy framework for a modern nation entering into a covenantal relationship with the God of the Bible. It draws from the biblical structure of national covenants—particularly the Mosaic covenant and its renewals under faithful leaders—and integrates the enduring role of the Sabbath as the sign of covenantal fidelity. The framework is designed to restructure a nation’s political, legal, cultural, and economic order around the commandments and ordinances of God, as revealed in the Scriptures.
This framework does not propose the replication of Israel’s ceremonial or sacrificial system—fulfilled in Christ—but rather the national application of the enduring moral law, the sovereignty of God, and the divine ordering of time, including the seventh-day Sabbath. It assumes that the nation has freely and publicly covenanted with God and seeks to operate under His revealed will.
II. Constitutional Foundation
A. Preamble
The Constitution would begin with a preamble affirming God as Sovereign, His law as supreme, and the nation’s submission to His covenant:
We, the people of [Nation], acknowledging the Most High God as Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge of all the earth, do hereby enter into solemn covenant with Him, to walk in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and judgments as revealed in Holy Scripture, and to order our national life in righteousness, truth, and holiness, that we may be a people unto the LORD our God and that He may be our God and King forever.
B. Supremacy of Divine Law
The Constitution must enshrine the authority of God’s law over all human law:
- Hierarchy of Authority
- God’s Word is supreme over all legislative, executive, and judicial acts.
- All statutes and rulings must conform to biblical principles.
- Laws inconsistent with Scripture are null and void.
- Moral Law as Legal Standard
- The Ten Commandments serve as the legal and ethical foundation of society.
- Civil law will be structured to reflect moral realities (e.g., murder is not merely a crime against the state, but a violation of God’s image).
C. Form of Government
- Representative Covenant Government
- A constitutional form of governance that allows representative participation, but with clear legal boundaries shaped by divine precepts.
- Leaders are elected to serve under God, not above Him, and swear to uphold the covenantal constitution.
- Public Oaths and Consecration
- All public officials must swear their oaths “before God” and acknowledge His lordship.
- Ceremonies of inauguration include public reading of relevant Scriptures (Deut. 17:18–20).
- Intergenerational Continuity
- Provisions for covenant renewal every generation (e.g., every 40 or 50 years), recalling Joshua 24 and Nehemiah 9.
- Regular education in covenantal history and law.
III. Legal Framework and Policy Structures
A. Sabbath Legislation
- Seventh-Day Sabbath Recognition
- The Constitution must recognize the seventh day (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) as a holy day, sanctified and protected from common use.
- Government functions, courts, and public services (except for mercy and necessity) are suspended during this period.
- Work prohibitions apply to public and private sectors, echoing Exodus 20:10.
- Economic Rest
- Commercial activity is legally paused during the Sabbath.
- National policies must support weekly rest and restrict coercive labor scheduling, protecting vulnerable workers.
- Cultural Sanctification
- National media and cultural institutions promote the dignity and sanctity of the Sabbath.
- Sabbath-keeping is taught as a matter of public duty and covenant faithfulness.
B. Education Policy
- Scripture-Based Curriculum
- All public education must affirm God’s existence, His law, and His works in history.
- Students are instructed in biblical history, the Ten Commandments, the covenants, the prophets, the life of Christ, and Christian moral philosophy.
- Covenant Citizenship Education
- Civics instruction includes training in covenant responsibility, national repentance, and the moral structure of law.
- Schools observe the Sabbath and biblical festivals as holidays, teaching their spiritual and national significance.
C. Judicial Policy
- Law as Reflective of Divine Justice
- Courts apply biblical principles of evidence (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:15), restitution (Exodus 22), and equitable judgment.
- False witness, judicial bribery, and perversion of justice are treated as grave offenses.
- Sanctity of Life and Property
- Human life is protected as sacred from conception to natural death.
- Theft, fraud, and unjust seizure of property are criminalized and restitution-based, not merely punitive.
D. Moral and Family Policy
- Sanctity of Marriage and Gender Order
- Marriage is defined biblically: one man and one woman for life.
- Gender is treated as a biological and covenantal reality.
- Policies promote family stability, fidelity, and moral education of children.
- Sexual Ethics and Public Morality
- Public decency laws reflect God’s standards of modesty and purity.
- Pornography, public indecency, and sexual exploitation are prohibited and prosecuted.
E. Economic and Labor Policy
- Just Weights and Measures
- Transparent, honest market regulations rooted in Leviticus 19:35–36.
- Interest/usury policies reflect biblical caution against debt traps (Exodus 22:25).
- Sabbath Year and Jubilee Principles
- Land stewardship and long-term debt policies reflect principles of rest, release, and family inheritance (Leviticus 25).
- Agrarian protections and caps on generational debt accumulation.
- Workplace Justice
- Fair wages, prompt payment (Deut. 24:14–15), and protections against labor exploitation.
- Sabbath observance enforced in labor contracts.
F. Foreign Policy and International Law
- Peace and Non-Aggression
- The nation avoids aggressive war, acting only in self-defense or to fulfill covenantal responsibilities.
- Foreign alliances are evaluated through the lens of moral obligation and national sanctity.
- Witness to the Nations
- The nation invites other peoples to observe the ways of the LORD through example, not compulsion.
- Foreign policy respects the sovereignty of other nations while upholding God’s moral law.
IV. Civic Life and Religious Institutions
A. Public Worship and Festivals
- National recognition of biblical holy days (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) as opportunities for worship, national reflection, and covenant renewal.
- Weekly Sabbath observance structured into national rhythm: worship, rest, family gatherings, and community teaching.
- No state church, but formal recognition that religious institutions must uphold covenantal teaching and moral integrity.
B. Religious Freedom and Limits
- Freedom of conscience respected in personal belief.
- However, public expression, education, and legal advocacy contrary to covenantal norms (e.g., promoting idolatry, child sacrifice, or moral subversion) are restricted to preserve national holiness.
V. Mechanisms of Covenant Renewal and Accountability
A. Annual National Day of Repentance
- A legally mandated national day of reflection and repentance patterned after Yom Kippur principles.
- Confession of national sins, rededication to the covenant, and open call for renewal.
B. Periodic Jubilee Evaluations
- Every fifty years, a formal review of the nation’s adherence to the covenant: laws, culture, economics, and spiritual state.
- Trigger for systemic course correction.
C. Prophetic Office and Public Rebuke
- Institutional support for prophetic voices (as per Nathan, Elijah, Amos), empowered to critique national leadership when it strays from covenant.
VI. Conclusion
A national covenant with God is no mere symbolic gesture—it is a comprehensive restructuring of all national life to reflect divine holiness, justice, and truth. It calls for allegiance not only in private worship but in public law, policy, and culture. At the heart of this framework lies the Sabbath: the immutable sign of God’s authority over time and society. A nation that honors this covenant can expect blessing; one that breaks it courts destruction.
As in Deuteronomy 30:19:
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
Appendices and Implementation Documents Available Upon Request
- Covenant Education Act
- National Sabbath Protection Bill
- Covenant Court Charter
- Model Oath for Public Officials
- Jubilee Economic Reform Act
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Your use of representative government here does fit within the biblical parameters (Deut 16:18ff; e.g., Jepthah in Judges 10:17-11:11; note also the methodology used by David in becoming king over Judah, and then Israel). However, it is fundamentally contrary to “God’s form of government” as taught by Herbert Armstrong. During his life it was said to be his most important “restoration.” Also, your provisions for war and self-defense run contrary to his doctrine in this regard. We have already discussed that. I am glad to see that you have departed from that teaching, at least in theory. I would note, though, the probation on “aggressive” action might be more restrictive than the biblical model (Deut 20 distinctly speaks of foreign wars). And prohibitions on “aggressive” actions have long been used to hamstring the defense of national interests. Just a caveat. Genesis 9:5-6 is the core biblical Noachide command behind civil government. It applies to all humanity at all times. I do hope that you will examine the issue of civic duty, recognize that our current governmental system, while imperfect (just as every church has ever been), is legitimate authority (Romans 13) and the current mechanism for all people – “true Christian” or otherwise – to fulfill that command (Jesus is not yet the civil King here [John 18:36], and Christians are not taken out of a system [John 17:15]).
LikeLike
I THOUGHT I HAD THAT FORMATTING NAILED! Your use of representative government here does fit within the biblical parameters (Deut 16:18ff; e.g., Jepthah in Judges 10:17-11:11; note also the methodology used by David in becoming king over Judah, and then Israel). However, it is fundamentally contrary to “God’s form of government” as taught by Herbert Armstrong. During his life it was said to be his most important “restoration.”
Also, your provisions for war and self-defense run contrary to his doctrine in this regard. We have already discussed that. I am glad to see that you have departed from that teaching, at least in theory. I would note, though, the probation on “aggressive” action might be more restrictive than the biblical model (Deut 20 distinctly speaks of foreign wars). And prohibitions on “aggressive” actions have long been used to hamstring the defense of national interests. Just a caveat.
Genesis 9:5-6 is the core biblical Noachide command behind civil government. It applies to all humanity at all times. I do hope that you will examine the issue of civic duty, recognize that our current governmental system, while imperfect (just as every church has ever been), is legitimate authority (Romans 13) and the current mechanism for all people – “true Christian” or otherwise – to fulfill that command (Jesus is not yet the civil King here [John 18:36], and Christians are not taken out of a system [John 17:15]).
LikeLike
A few questions:
“Swear”?
To the degree religion is enforced, who makes those decisions as to the Overton Window of acceptable religious practice? For instance, SDA and SDB adherents be allowed to continue their religious practice?
Would there be a guaranteed Right to Arms (at least per the principle of Ex 22:2-3a)?
Would there be a conscientious objection protection, in stark contrast to the divine directive in Duet 20?
Would January 16 be a national holiday? And would frank discussions of religious leaders past and present be allowed?
Will acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Savior be mandated? If not, will “freedom of conscience” protect those who reject the story?
LikeLike
I believe I submitted this on the wrong article before. My apologies. So I will try it here, with some revisions.
“Swear”?
To the degree religion is enforced, who makes those decisions as to the Overton Window of acceptable religious expression and practice? For instance, SDA and SDB adherents be allowed to continue their religious practice? What distinction, if any, would be made between public and private action?
Would there be a guaranteed Right to Arms (per the principle of Ex 22:2-3a)?
Would there be a conscientious objection protection, in stark contrast to the divine directive in Deut 20?
5. Would frank discussions of religious leaders past and present be allowed?
6. Would acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Savior be mandated? If not, would “freedom of conscience” protect those who reject the Gospel story from repercussions under color of law?
—-
Now as for yours truly, I would love a discussion like this about my ideas. For instance, here are my answers to those questions if I were to shape how our nation was to be:
It would ensure the use of the term “affirm” for a whole slew of reasons.
2. No religious dogma beyond the existence of the benevolent Creator and Judge (and thus the call to be benevolent) would be enshrined in law. Nothing beyond that can be sufficiently confirmed Without direct communication from the Divine. (And no, Bones was wrong in Star Trek V — you do it indeed ask the Almighty for his ID.) I would have as much religious freedom as possible – save for a certain faith which is at war with Western civilization – for societal simplicity, plus simply for the reason of not wanting to tick off the Big Guy by accidentally persecuting people who happen to get it right.
The Right to Arms would be protected at at least a baseline level (carry piece, and combat arm). I view no rights as absolute, but rather evaluate them on the basis of their intended function. Hence, “freedom of the press” would find itself heavily regulated to head off fake news. Also, national loyalty would be enforced.
(See here for my “Daily Fudd” blog series regarding minimalist approaches to RKBA. Ideas expressed in it or not necessarily my preferences. My own preference is for a much more robust approach to the right, but I am a political realist, and know things can shift: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html?m=1 )
I would probably have provision for alternative service simply as a practical matter. I would not, however, exempt any youth from mandatory firearms training — gun safety, self-defense law, and shooting proficiency. However, because I have a soft touch, the shooting proficiency would be done with Bullseye targets rather than silhouettes.
Yes. Speech restrictions would focus on ensuring national loyalty.
No. See answer to question 2.
See? It’s very easy to answer these questions. I honestly hope to hear your intentions.
LikeLike
I’ll give six rather short answers to your queries:
Affirm is better but even now some courts view it with suspicion.
A wide latitude of religious thinking and belief would be tolerated, nearly universal, but public behavior would be very much subject to laws and regulations requiring respect of people and property.
Yes, though no one would be forced to be armed there would be room for local communities as well as the nation at large to require training in arms safety and self defense.
There would be of a sort, at least informally, but no one would be free from serving the nation in whatever capacity they could.
Frank discussion would be permissible but libel and slander would be heavily prosecuted civilly and criminally for speech about all people living and dead.
Belief in Christ would not be compelled but no speech or action hostile to Christians would be permitted.
LikeLike
Thank you for replying.
Deviation from Armstrong teaching, and possibly Matthew 5. I never have really understood why anybody would want to “swear.” It’s even in the Constitution that people may employ the term.
Still curious who makes that decision. Whatever entity that makes that judgment would effectively be an official church.
Deviation from Armstrong teaching, and properly so.
Possible technical deviation from Deut 20, depending on from which angle you look at it. But fundamentally a deviation from Armstrong teaching by virtue of having any military aspect, as we have discussed before. (He even condemned ancient Israel for fighting.)
Perhaps you should consider CGI, or even ICG. I went to the latter (no CGI in travel range for me ? at the time) specifically because of Issues 3 and 4, and the general matter of political involvement. I’m sure there are other options as well.
“Allegedly, in my opinion.” Tack that onto virtually any shot, and it’s not libel or slander.
“[N]o… speech hostile to Christians.” So Christians will be the ones protected by “hate speech” laws. This would facilitate the practice common among many of simply staying silent when asked about inconvenient facts of their faith tradition. I was around back in the day. We were specifically “encouraged” not to read or reply to “outside literature.” Ambassador College even censored mail considered “hostile” to the church’s administration. (Ironically, you are one of the few who actually will defend their faith. Full credit to you.) That said, such a policy does fit with having an official religion.
————
Truly, I thank you for your answers to those questions. Issues 3 and 4 really are matters where you stand in fundamental violation of your church’s fundamental beliefs, and openly promoting them as you do here can give false impressions to outsiders (“prospective members”) about your church faith. I was subjected to this in my early days of receiving WCG literature. I take the blame for not digging further before being drawn into its spiritual influence. Nonetheless, church literature of the time sometimes did give a false or at least blurry impression on those matters.
The same is frankly true today. A PCG defender even admitted to me in a Rumble video comment that they do not tell the public that their members do not vote, even as their outreach material skimmed the edge of being partisan. One PCG guy even expressly said on TruthSocial to support President Trump in the last campaign (at least he got one thing right!). How much of it was to mislead people into thinking PCG members took part in politics, and how much of it was to help fulfill a prediction (prophecy?) in that church of President Trump returning to power — that I do not know. Fortunately, people today have the Inter-webs, and they can easily and conveniently investigate the Armstrong tradition, and any particular denomination or fellowship thereof, before becoming too deeply involved in it.
I would respectfully suggest you examine this matter, and consider something of the change I suggested above. They are important issues, both in terms of your own practice and the impression you give to others.
Thank you again for responding.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike