The word “contact” is not found in the KJV. The word “touch” however is found numerous times.
Nāgaʿ, Hebrew Strong's #5060, is used 150 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as touch meaning lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figurative to arrive, acquire); come (nigh), draw near 92 times. It is mostly used in admonishments to not touch things, especially unclean things.
Genesis 3:2-3 - And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Exodus 19:12-13 - And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Leviticus 5:2-3 - Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
Note: There are 28 verses in Leviticus discussing the touching of unclean things.Leviticus 7:21 - Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Numbers 16:26 - And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
Deuteronomy 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Psalm 105:14-15 - He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
Haptomai, Greek Strong's #680, is used 36 times in the New Testament. It is translated as “touch” which Strong’s defines it as “properly to attach oneself to, i.e. to touch (in many implied relations.)” Here are some of the verses:Isaiah 52:11 - Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Note: We are to touch not (contact = yoke, fellowship, communion, concord, part, agreement) with the unclean thing (unbelievers, unrighteous, darkness, Belial, infidels, idols). If we cross reference these verses with Leviticus 5:2-3 and Leviticus 7:21, we can conclude that even if these unclean things are hidden from us we become unclean for the touching.Colossians 2:20-22 - Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856CONTACT, noun [Latin , to touch. See Touch.] A touching; touch; close union or juncture of bodies. Two bodies come in contact when they meet without any sensible intervening space; the parts that touch are called the points of contact
No entry for “contact” or “minimum contact.” But this definition is apropos to the discussion of minimum contacts:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979CONTAGIOUS DISORDERS, police, crim. law.
Diseases which are capable of being transmitted by mediate or immediate contact.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990Minimal Contacts
That doctrine of jurisdiction which provides that before a foreign corporation is subject to suit in a state such corporation’s activity within the state must meet basic activity requirements.
For nonresident to be subject to state’s personal jurisdiction, he must have certain minimum contacts with state such that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and this is the “minimum contacts principle.” Lichina v. Futura, Inc.,
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999Minimum Contacts
A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court’s personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
It exists when a defendant takes purposeful and affirmative action, the effect of which is to cause business activity, foreseeable by the defendant, in the forum state.
WEX Legal DictionaryMinimum Contacts
A nonresident defendant’s forum-state connections, such as business activity or actions foreseeably leading to business activity, that are substantial enough to bring the defendant within the forum-state court’s personal jurisdiction without offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
A nonresident defendant’s connections with the forum state (i.e., the state where the lawsuit is brought) that are sufficient for jurisdiction over that defendant to be proper. Lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). Examples of minimum contacts include conducting business within the state, incorporating in the state, and visiting the state.
In International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), the Supreme Court formally adopted the minimum contacts/fair play and substantial justice test for determining whether there was proper personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The state of Washington sued International Shoe Co., a foreign corporation, to recover taxes on commissions that were paid to the corporation’s Washington-based salesmen. International Shoe did not have an office in Washington, and all orders that were transmitted by its Washington salesmen were filled outside of Washington. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Washington court. The activities that were conducted on behalf of International Shoe were systematic, continuous, and resulted in interstate business where the company received the benefits and protections of Washington’s laws, including the right to sue in Washington courts. Because the company had these benefits and protections, there also arose from those same activities obligations. “Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
“As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State….The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” J. White, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court over the parties in the case. Before a court can exercise power over a party, the constitution requires that the party have certain minimum contacts with the forum in which the court sits. International Shoe v Washington, 326 US 310 (1945). Personal jurisdiction is generally waiveable, so if a party appears in a court without objecting to the court's lack of jurisdiction over it, that objection is forfeited.
From The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world compared
USC 28 § 1602, 1603.Minimum Contacts
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14
This is the minimum contact doctrine. The way is narrow and difficult.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the un clean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:17
Believers cannot join with the wicked and profane. There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolaters, a danger of being defiled. Therefore, the exhortation is to "come out from among them" and keep at a due distance, to "be ye separate" as one would avoid those with leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and to "not touch the unclean thing," lest we be defiled (by minimum contacts).
"...Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins." Revelation 18:4
Jesus went to the synagogues of His day, but He did not join them. The Pharisees sought to kill Jesus because He didn't preach the same thing they were preaching. The Pharisees and Jews joined Caesar (Luke 23:2, John 19:12,15, Acts 17:7), but Jesus remained separate from Caesar's world and the “glory and powers” thereof (Matthew 4:8-10, Luke 4:5-8).
Minimum Contacts: "A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state." International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.
Servants of the Christ are 'non-residents' to the 'forum state' (Caesar's world) known as 'The United States.' It is important to avoid these 'minimum contacts' with the 'state', for it will bring you under the 'court's personal jurisdiction'. If anyone has these 'minimum contacts' with that 'forum state', he will be looked upon as belonging to that state and be fully regulated thereby.
You see, we are not affected by the words in man's law, unless it can be shown that we are connected to them in some way. If it cannot be shown that we have these "contacts" with them, it cannot be proved that those words are binding upon us:
“No person is to be affected by the acts or words of others unless connected with them, personally or by those whom he represents or by whom he is represented.” State v. Beaudet, 54 Conn. 541 (1885).
Some examples of 'minimum contacts' are as follows: any government identification, drivers license, social security card; voter registration card; free delivery of mail to your home, business, or Post Office box; bank accounts and loans; credit cards; government or corporate employment; insurance policies; automobile registration; property registration; or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition (the unclean things), will contradict and nullify your Godly witness. The reason is, the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Godly name. You may profess to be a servant of Christ all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you are not a disciple looking to Christ for salvation, but a humanist looking to the State for safety and approval.
All of the minimum contacts mentioned above, and many others, are commercial in nature. That commercial nature is what brings you into their jurisdiction. It is 'presumed' by Caesar that you are within 'his' jurisdiction. But all presumptions are rebuttable, if you can evidence that you are not the 'person' they presume you are. A presumption cannot be rebutted if you have the political ties to the government, such as those listed above. The reason it cannot be rebutted concerns the maxim of law, "No man can serve two masters". In other words, Caesar says "if you look to us for your rights and privileges to do an act, we are your absolute master; you belong to us and you will do as we say." God gives us everything we need, we don't need benefits and privileges from man. If you apply for benefits and privileges from the government, you are a 'natural person' in their eyes, and will be treated as such:
"Those applying for benefits from civil government may be classed as 'natural persons.'" Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, Fla., 531 So. 2d. 946, 948.
This being the case, why would any bondman want to stay in commerce? The answer is, because they do not take God's Word seriously. Even when it is pointed out time and time again that Scripture opposes such practice, they will first look to find some way around the clear meaning of the Scripture, rather than repent of their error; for the current life of most 'Christians' is just far too comfortable, convenient, and makes the "good life" easy. This is the real reason why there is a reluctance on their part to repent.
And as long as they accept "benefits" from the government, they cannot free themselves from the yoke of allegiance (bondage) to the government:
"Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves." Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).
Findings and declaration of purpose
Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests of justice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.
For purposes of this chapter—
(a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).
(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 © and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.
(c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
(e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.