When a law, a covenant, or a contract has the prerequisites of positive law, it is instantiated.
Laws and covenants enforced by God are directly instantiated the instant He puts them into effect. They are instantiated as eternal law, and perhaps also natural law and/or divine law. But positive law demands human enforcers, by definition. When the prerequisites for positive law exist, i.e., when the prerequisites for enforcement exist, i.e., when there is a penalty, and when there are people willing and able to enforce, such positive law is instantiated.
When the Babel society was split into many nations, wherever any of the human obligations of the global covenant were implemented as positive law, there were local instantiations of a global mandate.
 A social compact is an integration of jural compact and ecclesiastical compact into a single nation, tribe, or ethnic group, thereby instantiating a government.
God's termination of the Babel project was accompanied by the creation of a multitude of societies and nations. Clearly many of these societies had no writing. We conclude that the definition of any given social compact does not necessarily require writing. We can even conclude that they don't necessarily even require articulation, since the components of the social compact can be passed as unarticulated customs from one generation to the next.
Social compacts have existed for practically as long as human beings have existed; even though, according to Biblical fact, they existed without a jural appendage prior to the law-enforcement epoch. Even after the mandate to include the jural appendage, most social compacts reflect little or no distinction between the compact's jural and ecclesiastical functions. This doesn't mean that the distinction doesn't exist. It means that there is confusion in the social compact's creation, maintenance, and implementation. Since a social compact is essentially the same thing as a government, it becomes clear that most governments inadequately distinguish jural and ecclesiastical functions. In fact, the twentieth century will probably go down in history as the century in which the spirit of megalomania took over governments in general. One government after another was assigned the task of gratifying all the myriad needs and desires of their respective populations, without any regard for the consent that is crucial to the ecclesiastical compact, and without any regard for avoiding governmental perpetration of bloodshed.
God's response to the Babel society's attempt at self-aggrandizement was to break that society's social compact into myriad social compacts with a vast constellation of various mixtures of jural and ecclesiastical functions –– that is, into myriad social compacts with confusion about their purpose and functions.
Penalties accompanying ordinary agreements in ordinary ecclesiastical societies only apply to people who agree to be party to such agreements. But this set of penalties –– retribution, restitution, or injunction against bloodshed –– applies to all people, regardless of whether they like it or not; regardless of whether or not they've agreed to abide by it; regardless of whether or not they acknowledge being party to the Noachian Covenant; regardless of the ecclesiastical society to which they may or may not belong; and regardless of what agreements they may have made, or may have refused to make. Agreements, gifts, and contracts are what define ecclesiastical compacts. Execution of justice against bloodshed is what defines a jural compact. They are two radically different types of compact. They have totally different starting places, and premises. If these facts are not acknowledged, the confusion will continue.
People are generally unable to distinguish jural and ecclesiastical functions. The inability to properly distinguish jural and ecclesiastical functions is merely a manifestation of the flawed perception that the human race inherited from the fall. But this is no excuse. It's merely a recognition of our predicament. Regardless, a single question should be asked incessantly about every government/social compact: Does the social compact enforce the Genesis 9:6 mandate without becoming a violator of it?
It's certainly not reasonable to expect any social compact to be perfect, any more than it's reasonable to expect any individual human being to be perfect. But if we don't aim at a high standard, we'll never reach one.
 A society's government is a reflection of the collective integrity of that society.
The way an individual functions within his or her self is a microcosm of the way a society functions.[note] Each part of the person fulfills its assigned function when the person is in good health. Likewise, each member of a society fulfills his or her contractual, compactual, and covenantal obligations when the society is functioning with integrity. When the society as a whole is operating with integrity, the government will do likewise. When it's not operating with integrity, the government will reflect that lack of integrity.
 Humanity is divided by families, languages, lands, and nations.
About each of Noach's three sons, Genesis 10 says that their descendants were divided by families, languages, lands, and nations (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31). These four modes of division appear in the human obligations of the global covenant like this:
(1) "Families" develop from marriages. Marriages are essentially contractual agreements in which people of the opposite sex each pledge to cover the other's disabilities with their abilities.
(2) "Nations" (nations) are essentially aggregates of agreements, contracts, and other relationships. They are essentially the same as what we've been calling a social compact. The way we've defined it, based on evidence from Scripture, a social compact is composed of a jural compact and an ecclesiastical compact.
(3) "Lands" indicate that each social compact has a defined geographical jurisdiction. This geographical jurisdiction is a manifestation of the "rule over" mandate.
(4) Distinctions between "languages" exist largely by virtue of the fact that every language encompasses a unique set of biases. For example, in English, a person can say "I love my hot dog." and "I love God.", which is prone to confusing the meaning of "love". If the same sentences were translated into ancient Greek, "love" would be translated into two distinctly different words, tending to convey two distinctly different concepts. There would not be the same tendency to confuse the meaning of the word, "love", that there is in English. In English, love is a passion whose target can range from the carnal to the sublime. In Greek, these are two totally distinct concepts. So in Greek, the love of the sublime is not so prone to being confused with the love of the carnal. English has a clear bias away from differentiating the subtleties of love. Greek has a relative bias towards such differentiation. —— When Scripture says that Noach's descendants were divided according to "languages", it's telling us, in essence, that each "nation", each society, each social compact, had its own unique set of biases. The way that each nation implemented the global covenant was subject to that particular nation's biases. In keeping with such biases, each nation would in effect have its own unique set of abilities and disabilities, that is, it's own gifts and callings.
 Every nation has a unique set of abilities and disabilities, i.e., gifts, callings, biases.
When God gave different nations different languages, He simultaneously gave them different biases. He placed these societies in various parts of the earth, and in different environments, where each environment placed its own unique demands on the nation newly living in that land. These biases that derived from both linguistic differences and environmental pressures caused a unique knowledge base to develop within each nation, tribe, society, and ethnic group. Each of these knowledge bases had its own unique explanation for, comprehension of, and expression of, the social compact, and the jural and ecclesiastical functions therein.
God's creation of many languages, nations, and families, distributed into many lands, was an imposition of social disintegration. He caused this one nation, language, and family –– all located in a single geographical location (the "plain in the land of Shinar", Genesis 11:2) –– to disintegrate into many nations, languages, and families, all dispersed into many lands. In effect, He said, "OK, folks! I've already given each of you, as individuals, your own unique set of biases, that is, your own unique set of disabilities. Now I'm going to cause the nations and families that you live in to have their own unique set of biases and disabilities. Furthermore, I'm going to make it difficult for each nation to communicate with the others. I'm creating these communication barriers because I want each nation to develop its own unique approach to life, in isolation from the other nations. I'm doing this because I don't want future attempts at social integration to be as sloppy as this Tower of Babel routine has been. Count on it. All future attempts at social reintegration will encounter major obstacles, because I'm going to put those obstacles there. I am creating, and will continue to create, major obstacles to social integration –– to the integration of all of your nations into a single nation –– because when you become a single nation again, you must have Me, not some silly bunch of idols, at the core of your purposes.". So God created many unique knowledge bases and social compacts, and in effect, set forces in motion to ensure that the creation of a single knowledge base, and a single social compact, would be forced to acknowledge Him as God.
In keeping with God's demand that all individual knowledge bases, all national and societal knowledge bases, and every social compact, be sanctified, that is, delivered from idolatry, He in effect demands that our definition of what's true conform to the all-encompassing, inescapable fact of our perceptual disintegration.[note] In other words, in the Garden of Eden, we perceived all three fields of perception –– Spiritual, psychic, and physical –– as a single field of perception, seamlessly integrating these three fields. After the fall, our perception is inherently fragmented. Therefore, in our present condition, we are able to discover physical facts, even psychic truths, but if we fail to put such truths under the overarching umbrella of the Spirit, then such facts and truths are soaked in idolatry. It's easy for a person or a society to be proud of what it knows, to glory in its personal, national, or cultural distinctives. Such distinctives are the essential manifestation of biases. The other side of the bias coin is disabilities. Biases cover disabilities with pride. But if such biases and disabilities are submitted to God, and the knowledge appended thereto is assimilated into a Godly system of knowledge, then these biases and disabilities become God's gifts and callings to that person or society.[note]
 God intends for humanity's comprehension of His laws, the terms of His global covenant, to go through a progressive revelation.
We can think of revelation from God as knowledge about how to submit physical facts and psychic truths to the Spirit, so that such facts and truths are assimilated into a Godly system of knowledge. Given humanity's perceptual and social disintegration,[note] and the impediments that God has placed on perceptual and social integration, it should surprise no one that humanity's comprehension of the social compact, the jural compact, and the ecclesiastical compact, would undergo a gradual and progressive transformation. In other words, our understanding of these compacts has undergone –– and will continue to be impacted by –– what we'll call progressive revelation. This progression started with God effectually ordaining anarchy (Genesis 4:3-15 –– especially verse 15 –– and Genesis 4:23-24). Then God apparently scratched the anarchy plan, and replaced it with an apparent mandate to practice vigilantism (Genesis 9:6). —— So the basics of the progressive revelation that pertains to these compacts is recorded in Scripture, and are accessible to us through divine law. But many of the details are not. Our understanding of His laws in general, and of the global covenant, especially, undergo progressive revelation.
 Ecclesiastical societies are created in extravagant variety, while jural societies have singularity of purpose.
Because of the inherent nature and definition of the ecclesiastical compact, the creation by God of many nations resulted in ecclesiastical societies that exist in extravagant variety. Even so, because of the inherent nature and definition of the jural compact, jural societies world wide are mandated to have the same singularity of purpose.
 The human obligations of the global covenant form two classes upon which all nations are obligated to base themselves.
Using the jargon of the object-oriented computer programming paradigm, the human obligations of the global covenant inherently form two classes upon which every nation is obligated to base itself. The mandate to avoid perpetration of a delict, with its accompanying penalty, forms a base class upon which God requires every jural society to base itself. This derivative class, which is equivalent to the jural compact, is instantiated as soon as the obligation becomes enforceable.[note] Likewise, the five non-jural human obligations in the global covenant form a base class upon which God requires every ecclesiastical society to base itself. This derivative class, which is equivalent to the ecclesiastical compact, is instantiated as soon as these five obligations become enforceable.
 Jural compacts need due process mechanisms in order to avoid deterioration into perpetration of delicts.
The mandate to execute justice in Genesis 9:6 obviously specifies no particular method by which we should execute justice. If there are no systems set up, that is, if there are no judges, no police, no due process, etc., then the means by which we execute justice against anyone who perpetrates a delict is totally open to our investigation and ingenuity. The most obvious result of such a lack of definition of means, is a default into vigilantism. So if we are lacking in any other means by which to carry out the bloodshed mandate, then we all default into being vigilantes. A vigilante is someone who works in concert with other like-minded people to maintain order in an imperfectly organized community.
Anyone familiar with American history knows the dangers of vigilance committees. Without systems by which all sides of an issue can be aired, and through which impartial judgment can be rendered, with regard to an infraction against a community's mores, innocent people often suffer retribution for crimes they did not commit. This was often the case in the American West before "law and order" was established. It was also often the case in the South after the Civil War. Vigilantism easily degrades into revenge, or worse, rather than the execution of justice. So the bloodshed mandate tells us to do something, execute justice, but it doesn't tell us about all the ramifications involved in attempting to do so.
When people unite for the sake of forming a jural society, they may be stepping beyond the expedient nature of vigilantism into an organized approach to obeying the bloodshed mandate. Their formation of a jural society may be ad hoc, like the formation of a posse commitatus. Or it may entail the formation of a more permanent institution. Regardless of whether the jural society is ad hoc or institutional, the criterion for judging whether a jural society is operating within sound guidelines or not is whether it executes the bloodshed mandate without becoming a violator of it. In many respects, the mega-state's institutionalized perpetration of delicts is much more pernicious than a vigilance committee's. Even so, vigilantism is so error-prone, and disputes and trespasses are so common in human society, that some kind of more formal compact is essential to the reliable administration of justice. It's reasonable and probable, based on the Scriptural evidence, that within a few generations after the deluge, vigilantism started to develop into a more organized approach to administering justice, and organizing society, at least in some of these new nations.
When any government, i.e., any social compact, is formed, it has an inherent propensity to set its highest priority to be the survival of the state. It thereby becomes a servant of itself, rather than a servant of the people. Under such circumstances, the first thing that people do when they get in power is to attempt to perpetuate their power. This perpetuation of power becomes their priority. In a truly judicious government, the first priority remains the service of the people. In order to enforce the bloodshed mandate without becoming a violator thereof, the enforcer must necessarily assume the posture of a servant, that is, someone who is performing a service. In contrast to this spirit of service, warlords are the kinds of kings that Yeshua was talking about when He said "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them" (Luke 22:25). In other words, the "kings of the Gentiles" institutionalize governmental perpetration of delicts for their own self-aggrandizement.
 The obligations that pertain to delicts mark the difference between anarchy and order.
This mandate to execute justice against bloodshed is what officially marks the end of the anarchy era and the beginning of the law-enforcement epoch. This is the defining attribute of the entire law-enforcement epoch.
 God prefers people to conform to eternal law through conscience, rather than through fear of retribution.
God prefers people to conform to eternal law via conformity to personal conscience, rather than through fear of retribution. That's because doing it through conscience implicitly entails that they are conforming in their mind and soul (in the psychic field of perception), but if they conform through fear of retribution, chances are good that they are not conforming in their mind and soul, and are therefore not really conforming to eternal law. The fact that this is true indicates that force and coercion should be minimized. Force should exist sufficiently enough to fulfill enforcement obligations. Beyond that, it should be non-existent.
 The purposes of a jural society can be expressed succinctly as the protection of property rights through deterrence.
 Every person's status is determined by disabilities.
The legal definition of status is essentially "one's legal relationship to the rest of society". The theological definition of status that we use in the investigation is "one's legal relationship with God and His covenant and people". Regardless of whether we're talking about status or status, one's legal relationship is most easily ascertainable by looking at one's disabilities, rather than at one's abilities. This is because of the nature of human existence.
In the investigation, we determined that rights derive from the fact that every human being is created in the image of God. Such rights are unalienable, except for people guilty of bloodshed –– in which case even rights are disabled, commensurate with the bloodshed. Such rights are intimately related to one's status. In the investigation, we also determined that people are not God, and people therefore do not have all the abilities that God has. Relative to God, people are disabled. Some disabilities are natural, and they cannot be overcome. For example, all people are disabled from being omniscient and omnipotent. It's not reasonable for anyone to expect to ever receive these abilities, because only God has them. Some disabilities are conventional. They might be overcome by changing conventions. They might not. —— The reason it's easier to determine a person's status or status through disabilities than through abilities is because it's easier to see someone's disabilities relative to a perfect standard, i.e., in comparison with Meshiach, than it is to account for all of a person's abilities. There's no way we can know all of a person's abilities. We cannot even know all the abilities of a grain of sand. We don't know everything that goes on within a grain of sand to make a grain of sand behave the way it does. We can talk about crystals, molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles. But we'll never know everything about these things. But we know with substantial certainty that grains of sand are disabled from laying eggs, flying, and speaking English. It's easier for us to know a grain of sand by what it cannot do, than by what it can do. The same is true for human beings.
 Other than the Edenic Covenant, the Biblical Covenants which prove to be blood Covenants are controls for all other Biblical passages in the chronological approach.
It's imperative to recognize that of these three global Covenants (Edenic, Adamic, and Noachian), two are blood Covenants. This fact –– combined with later Scriptural evidence that emphasizes the importance of blood[note] –– leads us to conclude that in the chronological approach to Scripture, distinguishing blood Covenants from other Covenants and contracts is essential. So we not only distinguish Covenants from contracts, but we also have a distinction of b'rit / diatheke / Covenant into blood Covenant and non-blood Covenant. Having this knowledge helps to distinguish passages that are controls for the rest of Scripture from passages that do not have the same controlling legal authority. If we do a sneak preview of the rest of Scripture, we see that there are only three more blood Covenants in the Bible; even though the word b'rit appears over 280 times in the Tanakh. Because the passages that describe these blood Covenants are so absolutely central to everything that happens in Scripture, we conclude that these blood Covenants have a controlling status over all other passages. Diatheke / b'rit / Covenant passages that are not blood Covenant passages have a subordinate controlling status, i.e., a status with less legal authority than blood Covenant passages, but more legal authority than non-Covenant passages. The Edenic Covenant is the sole exception to this rule. This is because the Edenic Covenant has the legal status of a constitution, while these blood Covenants have the legal status of sets of amendments to the constitution.
 Regarding the spheres:
>> jural sphere: The decisions made in the jural sphere are restricted to being about perpetrating and penalizing bloodshed, i.e., perpetration and penalization of gross and subtle delicts.
>> ecclesiastical sphere: The decisions made in the ecclesiastical sphere are restricted to being about contractual relationships.
>> moral sphere: The moral sphere encompasses all decision-making, jural, ecclesiastical, and otherwise.
 These are the investigation's final definitions of "covenant".
(1) The eternal covenant is the unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and all of His creation, especially including mankind, where this agreement stipulates the conditions of their relationships.
(2) A Biblical Covenant is a covenant between God, people, and sometimes other parts of creation, as recorded in Scripture.[note]
(3) A divine covenant is the single covenant that exists between God and a given group of people, at any given point in the Biblical chronology. It is that part of Scripture that pertains to that group.
(4) A covenant in American jurisprudence is an agreement pertaining to realty.
(5) A contract between people that holds God as a party is sometimes called a "covenant". Examples: (i)a "marriage covenant"; (ii)the covenant between David and Jonathan in 1Samuel 18-23 (which is also a Biblical Covenant). Because we rarely use this meaning in the investigation, we don't mark this type of covenant with special typography.
(6) A covenant in ordinary American English can have a number of different meanings, the primary one of which is the same as contract.
 In accordance with a reasoned view of Genesis 9:6, there are two kinds of bloodshed / delicts: gross and subtle.
The clear and obvious punishment for shed blood referenced in Genesis 9:6 is retribution. Because the obvious bloodshed and the obvious penalty for obvious bloodshed are so obvious, we call bloodshed that demands retribution (or something close to it) a gross delict. We call all other forms of bloodshed subtle delicts. Punishment for subtle delicts includes restitution and injunction. We define delict as being synonymous with bloodshed.
 Even though involuntary servitude became common after the disintegration of the Babel society, it has never been lawful except as punishment for bloodshed, ever since the instigation of the Noachian Covenant.
Even though it may not be clearly and obviously stated in Scripture, after the disintegration of humanity into a multiplicity of nations, there were at least two rationales for enslaving people.
(1) "We don't know whether foreigners are real human beings or not, so we don't know whether we should treat them like animals or like people."
(2) "Foreigners are inherently inimical, and are standing threats of bloodshed against us. We are therefore justified in forcing them into involuntary servitude, just as though they were guilty, a priori, of bloodshed."
A period of involuntary servitude is a lawful punishment for people genuinely guilty of bloodshed. But it's ridiculous to believe, without concrete evidence, that all (or any) foreigners are a priori guilty of bloodshed. Likewise, it's foolishness to believe that human beings are animals, regardless of how much a given culture may practice animism, and insist on acting like animals. —— It's taken the human race from the disintegration of the Babel society until recent centuries to start seriously debunking these two assumptions. According to the global covenant, only penalization of bloodshed justifies imposition of involuntary servitude. To this day, the issue that defines the limitations of civil government is this: To what extent is government lawful in its taxes, takings, incarcerations, capital punishments, forced labor, involuntary servitude –– in short, in violating property rights of ordinary people. The answer to this question eluded the Genesis 11-12 generations. As long as out-of-control mega-government is the norm, the answer is elusive to us in the 21st century.