Ideas have consequences. The decline of American society is a result of the 'intimate relationship between theological liberalism on the one hand and political, social, and economic liberalism on the other.'(Singer) Reform of society is dependent upon reform of 'The Church Effeminate.' (Robbins) The church must repent and must do restitution to God and to mankind for its theft of Christ's Crown and Covenant.Theft is the besetting sin of mankind. The First Table of The Decalogue deals with man's theft from God, and the Second Table deals with man's theft from his neighbor.
Notice that generally this listing treats only the Second Table of the Decalogue. Nothing is said of the First Table which treats the sins of the theft from God of the just glory, honor, and praise due Him. Violations of the First Table are, of course, the foremost sins of the individual, the Church, the State, and of the corporate bodies in education, manufacturing, business, retailing, and all other spheres of society.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)
The Eighth Commandment 'Thou shalt not steal.' Exod 20:15.
As the holiness of God sets him against uncleanness, in the command 'Thou shalt not commit adultery;' so the justice of God sets him against rapine and robbery, in the command, 'Thou shalt not steal.' The thing forbidden in this commandment, is meddling with another man's property. The civil lawyers define furtum [furtiveness], stealth or theft to be 'the laying hands unjustly on that which is another's;' the invading another's right.
I. The causes of theft.
[1] The internal causes are,
(1) Unbelief. A man has a high distrust of God's providence. 'Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?' Psa 78:19. Can God spread a table for me? says the unbeliever. No, he cannot. Therefore he is resolved he will spread a table for himself, but it shall be at other men's cost, and both first and second course shall be served in with stolen goods.
(2) Covetousness. The Greek word for covetousness signifies 'an immoderate desire of getting;' which is the root of theft. A man covets more than his own, and this itch of covetousness makes him scratch what he can from another. Achan's covetous humour made him steal the wedge of gold, a wedge which cleaved asunder his soul from God. Joshua 7:21.
[2] The external cause of theft is Satan's solicitation. Judas was a thief. John 12:6. How came he to be a thief? 'Satan entered into him'. John 13:27. The devil is the great master-thief, he robbed us of our coat of innocence, and he persuades men to take up his trade; he tells men how bravely they shall live by thieving, and how they may catch an estate. As Eve listened to the serpent's voice, so do they. As birds of prey, they live upon spoil and plunder. -- Thomas Watson on the Eighth CommandmentThe magistracy is ordained by God
With regard to the function of magistrates, the Lord has not only declared that he approves and is pleased with it, but, moreover has strongly recommended it to us by the very honourable titles which he has conferred upon it. To mention a few. When those who bear the office of magistrate are called gods, let no one suppose that there is little weight in that appellation. It is thereby intimated that they have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act. This is not a quibble of mine, but is the interpretation of Christ. "If Scriptures" says He, "called them gods to whom the word of God came." What is this but that the business was committed to them by Gods to serve him in their office, and (as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they were appointing over each of the cities of Judah) to exercise judgement, not for man, but for God? To the same effect Wisdom affirms, by the mouth of Solomon, "By me kings reigns and princes decree Justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth," (Prov. 8: 15, 16.) For it is just as if it had been said, that it is not owing to human perverseness that supreme power on earth is lodged in kings and other governors, but by Divine Providence, and the holy decree of Him to whom it has seemed good so to govern the affairs of men, since he is present, and also presides in enacting laws and exercising judicial equity. This Paul also plainly teaches when he enumerates offices of rule among the gifts of God, which, distributed variously, according to the measure of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of Christ for the edification of the Church, (Rom. 12: 8.) In that place, however, he is properly speaking of the senate of grave men who were appointed in the primitive Church to take charge of public discipline. This office, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he calls "kuberneseis", governments, (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Still, as we see that civil power has the same end in view, there can be no doubt that he is recommending every kind of just government.
He speaks much more clearly when he comes to a proper discussion of the subject. For he says that "there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God;" that rulers are the ministers of God, "not a terror to good works, but to the evil," (Rom. 13: 1, 3.) To this we may add the examples of saints, some of whom held the offices of kings, as David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others of governors, as Joseph and Daniel; others of civil magistrates among a free people, as Moses, Joshua and the Judges. Their functions were expressly approved by the Lord. Wherefore no man can doubt that civil authority is in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful, but the most sacred and by far the most honourable, of all stations in mortal life. [Emphasis added. Current events ((September 11)) evidence that "all stations in mortal life" includes the Evangelist and the Gospel Minister.] -- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Beveridge translation) IV:20:4I come in the might of the Lord Jehovah,
I mention Thy righteousness -- Thine only. (Psalm 71:16, YLTHB)
"The only testimony that the Psalmist was going to bear for the rest of his life would be a testimony to the righteousness of the Lord Jehovah. Here was enough work for a lifetime, and here was the one who was at home in the work.
Bear your testimony to the righteousness of God in providence. Stand to it that the Lord never does wrong. He is never mistaken. Whatever He ordains is, and must be, unquestionably right: "Yes, Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments." (Rev. 16:7, YLTHB) Next, bear witness to His righteousness in salvation. Declare that He does not save without an atonement; that He does not put away sin without being strictly just; that He does not spare the guilty, but has laid on Christ that which was due to the sins of His chosen ones, that He might be "just and the Justifier of one who believes." Go on to tell everybody that the righteousness which saves you is the righteousness of God, not your own righteousness. There is no such thing as human righteousness. The two words make up a contradiction. Any righteousness that you could gain by your own works would be as filthy rags, and filthy rags are not righteousness. We have no personal merit, but we are justified by imputed righteousness. Make mention of the righteousness of Christ which covers you entirely.
Declare the righteousness of God as to a future state. Declare that whatever Scripture speaks of the ungodly is true, and that God is righteous in it. Never mind the cavils and the inventions of this present age. God's character can never be harmed by these dreamers. Stand by your God, and you may rest assured that time will never change the essential truth that He is a holy and a righteous God, and that He will justify His ways to men." -- C.H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening II, A Second Year of Daily Devotions by C.H. Spurgeon, November 8, Evening
Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear. Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable. The reason is that individual ownership of the goods of this world, though according to the natural law, yields to the stronger and more sacred right conferred by natural law upon every man to avail himself of such things as are necessary for his own preservation. (Joseph F. Delany, "Theft," in The Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, 564f., 1913 edition.)"Such a perspective gives man's life priority over God's law. (453)
Since charity is the end of the Law, we must seek the definition of theft from thence. This, then, is the rule of charity, that everyone's rights should be safely preserved, and that none should do to another what he would not have done to himself. It follows, therefore, that not only are those thieves who secretly steal the property of others, but those also who seek for gain from the loss of others, accumulate wealth by unlawful practices, and are more devoted to their private advantage than to equity. Thus, rapine is comprehended under the head of theft, since there is no difference between a man's robbing his neighbour by fraud or force. (Calvin, Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses in the Form of a Harmony, III)"The basic charity is thus to live in faithfulness to the law with respect to our neighbors and enemies, respecting their God-given immunities under the law. To minister to their distress by gifts is also an important aspect of the law, but in neither case can man separate or oppose charity and law. (456)
Moreover, let us communicate to the necessities, and according to our ability alleviate the poverty, of those whom we perceive to be pressed by any embarrassment of their circumstances. Lastly, let every man examine what obligations his duty lays him under to others, and let him faithfully discharge the duties which he owes them. For this reason the people should honour their governors, patiently submit to their authority, obey their laws and mandates, and resist nothing, to which they can submit themselves consistently with the Divine will. On the other hand, let governors take care of their people, preserve the public peace, protect the good, punish the wicked, and administer all things in such a manner, as becomes those who must render an account of their office to God the supreme Judge. Let the ministers of churches faithfully devote themselves to the ministry of the word, and let them never adulterate the doctrine of salvation, but deliver it pure and uncontaminated to the people of God. Let them teach, not only by their doctrine, but by the example of their lives; in a word, let them preside as good shepherds over the sheep. Let the people, on their part, receive them as the messengers and apostles of God, render to them that honour to which the supreme Master has exalted them, and furnish them with the necessaries of life. Let parents undertake the support, government, and instruction of their children, as committed by God to their care; nor let them exasperate their minds and alienate their affections from them by cruelty, but cherish and embrace them with lenity and indulgence becoming their character. And that obedience is due to them from their children has been before observed. Let juniors revere old age, since the Lord has designed that age to be honourable. Let old men, by their prudence and superior experience, guide the imbecility of youth; not teasing them with sharp and clamorous invectives, but tempering severity with mildness and affability. (Calvin, Institutes, II, Chapter VIII)"Calvin further listed duties of workers and masters, and every class of men. For men to withhold work, duty, honor, or due service is to steal. 'In this manner, I say, let every man consider what duties he owes to his neighbours, according to the relations he sustains; and those duties let him discharge.' The law speaks with reference to all men:
Moreover, our attention should always be directed to the Legislator; to remind us that this law is ordained for our hearts as much as for our hands, in order that men may study both to protect the property and to promote the interests of others. (Calvin, Institutes, II, Chapter VIII)"The laws against theft thus protect not only God's order but all who are honest and law-abiding, and they protect even the dishonest from lawless punishment. (456, 457)
If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution."The restitution in all such cases depends on the nature of the act; if fruit trees or vines are damaged, then future production is damaged, and the liability is in proportion thereto. Criminal law no longer has more than survivals of the principle of restitution; civil suit must now be filed by an offended party to recover damages, and then without regard to the Biblical principle. (460, 461)
If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution (Ex. 22:5,6).
Since, therefore, men are naturally led away by their evil passions, to disturb society, Isaiah here promises the correction of this evil; for, as the gospel is the doctrine of reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18), which removes the enmity between us and God, so it brings men into peace and harmony with each other. The meaning amounts to this, that Christ's people will be meek, and, laying aside fierceness, will be devoted to the pursuit of peace. This has been improperly limited by some commentators to the time when Christ was born; because at that time, after the battle of Actium, the temple of Janus was closed, as appears from the histories. I readily admit that the universal peace which existed throughout the Roman empire, at the birth of Christ, was a token of that eternal peace which we enjoy in Christ. But the Prophet's meaning was different. He meant that Christ makes such a reconciliation between God and men, that a comfortable state of peace exists among themselves, by putting an end to destructive wars. For if Christ be taken away, not only are we estranged from God, but we incessantly carry on open war with him, which is justly thrown back on our own heads; and the consequence is, that everything in the world is in disorder. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah)"There will be thus a reign of peace on earth, to the measure that God's word reigns among men, although the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy, Calvin held, 'in its full extent, must not be looked for on earth'." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah) (462, 463)
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox nor his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother."Here again we have case law, giving a minimal case in order to illustrate a general principle. We cannot rob a man of his property by our neglect; we must act as good neighbors even to our enemies and to strangers. Lost or strayed animals, property, or clothing must be protected and held in ward with every public effort at immediate restoration. (464)
And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee, until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost things of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself.
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.
Our Rabbis taught, on account of four things is the sun in eclipse: On Account of an Ab Beth din (the vice-president of the Sanhedrin) who died and was not mourned fittingly; on account of a betrothed maiden who cried out aloud in the city and there was none to save her; on account of sodomy, and on account of two brothers whose blood was shed at the same time. And on account of four things are the luminaries (the moon and the stars) in eclipse: On account of those who perpetrate forgeries, on account of those who give false witness; on account of those who rear small cattle in the land of Israel (Animals that cannot be prevented from ravaging the fields of others); and on account of those who cut down good trees. (Sukkah 29a; in Seder Mo'ed, The Baylonian Talmud, III, 130 f.)"It is significant that this offense is rated as worse than giving false witness; the false witness misrepresents the truth; the non-interfering bystander becomes an accomplice to the crime by his refusal to render aid. Asaph said of those who were indifferent to the need to render aid,
When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him; and has been partaker with adulterers (Ps. 50:18)."Quite properly, the marginal references cite Romans 1:32 and I Timothy 5:22. In the latter passage, those who consent to the hasty ordination of novices in the faith, or by their silence give consent, are 'partakers of other men's sins.' It is not unreasonable to assume that the penalty for the inactive bystander was like that of the false witness. The penalty of the crime applied to the false witness (Deut. 19:18,19); the inactive bystander is also a kind of witness, and one who consents to the crime by his failure to act. The inactive bystander is thus an accomplice, an accessory to the crime, and liable to the penalty for the crime. (464, 465)
Grace cannot come into the place of justice till justice has been fully recognized. Human sympathy, human forbearance, under the false title of grace, do not stand in contrast to this justice. (Franz Dedlitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon) (465)
It is not a crime in any state -- as it is under common law and quite generally in Europe -- for a citizen to fail to disclose commission of a felony to police on his own initiative. But by act of Congress such 'misprision of a felony' is a crime in the United States if it is a federal felony that goes unreported. A layman's view of this is that if you saw a store robbery and went your quiet way you'd be on the right side of the law if not your conscience. But if you saw a mail robbery and didn't call the cops you would have committed a federal felony."The civil legal situation may be an equivocal one; the Biblical legal requirement is not. Misprision, i.e., the concealment of a crime, is a serious offense. The inactive bystander is a party to the crime. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) was firmly based on Biblical law. (466, 467)
What has brought all of this to the fore again is, of course, the resurgence of crime and mob violence in America; the downgrading of the police to the point where fewer people even want to be police; and the shocking apathy of many people toward 'becoming involved' in crimes. . . .
If the law does not require you to call the cops when the store is robbed or someone is brutally beaten; if you are liable to false arrest charges even when acting most reasonably on your own; if you may not be protected against injury or liability when obeying an officer, then you are privileged to take a position -- even against your own feelings -- that society itself isn't really serious about controlling crime. Society in this case is the legislatures and the courts.
Why isn't 'misprision of a felony' a state offense as it is a federal offense? Legislatures can restore the common law principle that made it so. (Dorothy Brant Warnick, "The Police Powers of Private Citizens," in The American Legion Magazine, June, 1967, p. 17.)
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weights, or in measure."The word judgment here refers to all that follows; mete-yard was a measure of length or surface, i.e., yard, cubit, foot, and the like; weight had reference to the talent, shekel, and other weights of money; measure refers to measures of capacity, the homer, ephah, hin, etc.; balances means scales and weights, ephah, and hin cites again the forms of measurement already listed. (George Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical on the Book of Leviticus)
Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin shall ye have; I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
Therefore shall ye 'observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Raba said: Why did the Divine Law mention the exodus from Egypt in connection with interest, fringes and weights? The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, 'It is I who distinguished in Egypt between the first-born and one who is not a first-born; even so, it is I who will exact vengeance from him who ascribes his money to a Gentile and lends it to an Israelite on interest, or who steeps his weights in salt, or who (attaches to his garment threads dyed with) vegetable blue and maintains that it is (real) blue.' (Baba Mezi's 61b: in Seder Nezekin, I, 366 f.)"The point here is that the first-born or elect of God are those who abide by His law. Those who have outwardly enjoyed the privileges of the covenant and a covenant culture but who deny its laws are the subject of especial vengeance from the Covenant God. (468, 469)
It will be seen that the Lawgiver uses here exactly the same phrase with regard to meting out right measure which he used in connection with the administration of justice in verse 15. He, therefore, who declares that a false measure is a legal measure is, according to this law, as much a corrupt judge, and defrauds the people by false judgment, as he who in the court of justice willfully passes a wrong sentence. Owing to the fact that men who would otherwise disdain the idea of imposition often discard their scruples in the matter of weights and measures, the Bible frequently brands these dealings as wicked, and an abomination to the Lord, whilst it designates the right measure as coming from God himself (Deut. xxv. 13, 15; Ezek. xlv. 10,12; Hosea xii. 8; Amos viii. 5; Micah vi. 10, 1.1.; Prov. xi. 1, xvi. 11, xx. 10, 23). According to the authorities, during the second Temple, he who gives false weight or measure, like the corrupt judge, is guilty of the following five things. He (1) defiles the land; (2) profanes the name of God; (3) causes the Shekinah to. depart; (4) makes Israel perish by the sword, and (5) to go into captivity. Hence they declared that 'the sin of illegal weights and measures is greater than that of incest, and is equivalent to the sin of denying that God redeemed Israel out of Egypt.' They appointed public overseers to inspect the weights and measures all over the country; they prohibited weights to be made of iron, lead, or other metal liable to become lighter by wear or rust, and ordered them to be made of polished rock, of glass, &c., and enacted the severest punishment for fraud. (C.D. Ginsburg, "Levitcus," in Ellicott, I, 429) (469)
Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10)."In Ezekiel 45:9-12, God specified the exact ratio of the shekel to its lesser and greater weights as well as dealing with balances and measures of capacity. The lack of justice here God through Ezekiel termed "violence and spoil" as well as 'exactions.' (470, 471)
Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good (Prov. 20:23).
A just weight and just measure should be preserved in the community, so that a poor person and one's neighbor are not cheated. This also has general validity for all exchanges of all contracts, that the seller give just and equable wares for the money of the buyer. Here greed knows unbelievable injustices and tricks in changing, cheapening, imitating, and adulterating merchandise; therefore it is no small part of the concern of government to have an eye here to the common good. (Luther, Deuteronomy)"Luther is clearly right. The commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' plainly forbids 'changing, cheapening, imitating, and adulterating merchandise,' and such fraud or theft is 'no small part of the concern of government.' But the culminating point is too often neglected, the promise of life for obedience to this law, as well as the fifth commandment. Conversely, life is denied to those who violate this law; a land given to theft faces judgment and death. In other words, God shortens the life of the nation that condones short-changing and defrauding, by fraudulent money, scales, and other measures. (471, 472)
Now, if the laws of buying and selling are corrupted, human society is in a manner dissolved; so that he who cheats by false weights and measures, differs little from him who utters false coin; and consequently one, who, whether as a buyer or seller, has falsified the standard measures of wine, or corn, or anything else, is accounted criminal. (Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, III, 120)"The reformers, like the earlier church fathers, were not silent with respect to this law. (472)
The question here is not as to usury, as some have falsely thought, as if He commanded us to lend gratuitously, and without any hope of gain; but, since in lending, private advantage is most generally sought, and therefore we neglect the poor, and only lend our money to the rich, from whom we expect some compensation, Christ reminds us that, if we seek to acquire the favour of the rich, we afford in this way no proof of our charity or mercy; and hence He proposes another sort of liberality, which is plainly gratuitous, in giving assistance to the poor, not only because our loan is a perilous one, but because they cannot make a return in kind. (Calvin, Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, III)"The point Calvin then made boldly, breaking with the entire tradition stemming from Aristotle which held all interest to be an evil, was that interest is not in itself evil. Calvin had no liking for interest, or for money-lending. He was conscious of the weight of prejudice against it, and he stated that he would prefer a world without it, 'but I do not dare to pronounce upon so important a point more than God's words convey.' (Calvin, Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, III)
I have, then, admonished men that the fact itself is simply to be considered, that all unjust gains are ever displeasing to God, whatever colour we endeavor to give it. But if we would form an equitable judgment, reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception. . . . If the debtor have protracted the time by false pretenses to the loss and inconvenience of his creditor, will it be consistent that he should reap advantage (Calvin, Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, III), (474, 475)
The Israelites not being commercial people, money was not often loaned for the purpose of business, but rather to aid the struggling poor. This last is the only kind of interest forbidden in the law, and the avoiding of this is sometimes given among the characteristics of the godly man (Ps. 15:5; Jer. 15:10; compo Provo 28:8)."There is no ground for calling our Lord's statements 'a new law of love and forbearance,' when it is no more than a summation of the law of the Old Testament. (478)
The practice of mortgaging lands, sometimes at exorbitant interest, grew up among the Jews during the captivity, in direct violation of the law (Lev. 25:36; Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17); and Nehemiah exacted an oath to insure its discontinuance (Neh. 5:3-13). Jesus denounced all extortion, and promulgated a new law of love and forbearance (Luke 6:30,35). The taking of usury in the sense of a reasonable rate of interest for the use of money employed in trade is different, and is nowhere forbidden; and is referred to in the New Testament as a perfectly understood and allowable practice (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23). (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 1129)
If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth anyone of these things, and that doeth not any of these duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbor's wife, hath wronged the poor and needy, hath taken by robbery, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath given forth upon interest, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him."Ezekiel had in mind here the coming fall of Jerusalem, but he still cited God's basic judgment on all who fail to restore a pawn. (480, 481)
It is today regarded as certain that the prohibition of stealing referred originally to the kidnapping of a free person (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). (Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, A Commentary, p. 59)There is more than a little merit to this conclusion. Commandments six through ten are concerned with man's relationship to man; they are personal. The eighth commandment can thus be expanded to read. 'Thou shalt not steal another man's freedom by forcibly enslaving his person or his property.' The purpose of man's existence is that man should exercise dominion over the earth in terms of God's calling. This duty involves the restoration of a broken order by means of restitution. To kidnap a man and enslave him is to rob him of his freedom. A believer is not to be a slave (I Cor. 7:23; Gal. 5:1). Some men are slaves by nature; slavery was voluntary, and a dissatisfied slave could leave, and he could not be compelled to return, and other men were forbidden to deliver him to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16). This implied some liberty on the part of slaves, and a duty of just treatment by their masters. Ben Sirach confirms this, speaking of both the duty of the master to correct and discipline his slaves, and also to be just towards them, and to avoid defrauding them of their liberty (Ecclesiasticus 42:1,5; 7:21; 33:24-28). This is also confirmed by St. Paul: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven" (Col. 4:1). (484, 485)
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death (Ex. 21:16).
If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you (Deut. 24:7). (485)
Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain (Ps. 127:1). (488)
. . . for that everyone's property may be secure, it is necessary that the land-marks set up for the division of fields should remain untouched, as if they were sacred. He who fraudulently removes a landmark is already convicted by this very act, because he disturbs the lawful owner in his quiet possession of the land; whilst he who advances further the boundaries of his own land to his neighbour's loss, doubles the crime by the deceptive concealment of his theft. Whence also we gather that not only are those thieves, who actually carry away their neighbour's property, who take his money out of his chest, or who pillage his cellars and granaries, but also those who unjustly possess themselves of his land. (Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, III, 121.)"Calvin's point is a valid one: the deceit of the act makes it a double crime. It is both theft and false witness. Because the law is a unit, the violation of one law is a violation of the whole law. As St. James summarized it, 'For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all' (James 2:10). Thus, this crime involves violation of the eighth and ninth commandments, and also the tenth, coveting our neighbor's land. Crimes against the land can also involve the fourth commandment, the sabbath law, and the sixth, 'Thou shalt not kill.' (488)
Here oppression by fraud and oppression by violence,are forbidden. It is probably in allusion to this passage that John the Baptist warned the soldiers who came to him: "And he said to them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely: and be content with your wage" (Luke iii. 14)."According to Clarkson, the law requires 'integrity in daily transactions' and honesty:
"From the declaration in the next clause, which forbids the retention of the wages over night, it is evident that the day labourer is here spoken of, as he is dependent upon his wages for the support of himself and his family; the Law protects him by enjoining that the earnings of the hireling should be promptly paid. This benign care {or the labourer, and the denunciation against any attempt to defraud him, are again and again repeated in the Scriptures (Deut. xxiv. 14,15; Jer. xxii. 13; Mal. iii. 5; James v. 4). Hence the humane interpretation which obtained of this law during the second Temple: "He who treats a hireling with harshness sins as grievously as if he hath taken away life, and transgresses five precepts. (C.D. Ginsburg, "Leviticus," in Ellicott, I, 423)
'Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely' (v. 11). 'Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him' (ver. 13; see vers. 35, 36). Nothing could be more explicit than this, nothing more comprehensive in suggestion. No member of the Hebrew commonwealth could (1) deliberately appropriate what he knew was not his own, or (2) rob his neighbour in the act of trading, or (3) deal falsely or unrighteously in any transaction or in any relation, without consciously breaking the Law and coming under the displeasure of Jehovah. The words of the Law are clear and strong, going straight to the understanding and to the conscience. Every man amongst them must have known, as everyone amongst us knows well, that dishonesty is sin in the sight of God. (W. Clarkson, in Spence and Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Leviticus p. 300)"Calvin stated that the force of this law is to prohibit 'all unjust oppression,' any seizure of the goods of another.3 Frederic Gardiner stated that Leviticus 19:13 'deals with faults of power, the conversion of might into right.' The particulars mentioned are oppression (comp. xxv. 17-43), robbing, and undue retention of wages. The last is spoken of more at length (Deut. xxiv. 14, 15. Compo James v. 4). (Frederic Gardiner, "Leviticus," in John Peter Lange, Exodus-Leviticus, p. 150) (496)
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate;"Again, in Proverbs 28:24, reference is made to the oppression of parents by children who twist the law or the courts to their advantage: 'Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer.' The guilt is compounded by the technical legitimacy which enables the thief to say, 'It is no transgression.' The judgment of God upon the pious extortioners is death: 'This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us' (Isa. 17:14). The extortioners and oppressors create a social order which will ultimately destroy them also; '. . . he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool' (Jer. 17:11). (498)
For the LORD will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.
It is difficult to compare Biblical sins with statutory crimes since in the former all are based on moral and spiritual values whereas in the latter only that is a crime which fits into the structure of the statute sought to be enforced. (J.W. Ehrlich, The Holy Bible and The Law, p. 92"Precisely. Biblical law is the word of God; it therefore represents an ultimate order which is written into the texture of all creation and into the heart of man. Hence, a jury system is valid in terms of Biblical law, since the decision is in terms of a fundamental law which all men know, whether they acknowledge it or not. Civil statutes represent only the will of the state, not an objective and absolute moral order. Statutory law creates lawlessness, because society is then no longer governed by in absolute standard of justice but rather by the fiat will of the state. Like fiat money, fiat law lacks substance, and it quickly destroys itself, and all who rely on it. It is a form of fraud, and a major form. (498, 499)
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD, thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,"This fact of God's eminent domain is celebrated in Scripture as the ground for the confidence of His people (Ps. 24:1; 50:12; I Cor. 10:26, 28, etc.). The eminent domain of the state was not recognized in Israel, as the incident of Naboth's vineyard makes clear (I Kings 20), (499) although it is prophesied as one of the consequences of apostasy from God the King (I Sam. 8:14). It is specifically forbidden in Ezekiel 46:18. (499, 500)
To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning (Lev. 19:13)."The first two of these laws forbids fraud and oppression with respect to workmen. Prompt payment of wages is required. The rabbinic interpretation of this law during the second Temple era stated: 'He who treats a hireling with harshness sins as grievously as if he hath taken away life, and transgresses five precepts.' (C.D. Ginsburg, in Ellicott, I, 423.) This law thus clearly requires, first, that all who are employers, all who are in a superior position, use that power with kindliness, thoughtfulness, and mercy. Offenses against labor are made criminal offenses. Instead of administrative law, criminal law governs labor relations. Failure to pay due wages is fraud or theft, and to be prosecuted as such. (504, 505)
Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee (Deut. 24:14,15).
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts (Mal. 3:5)."The same note reappears in the New Testament:
Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth (James 5:4)."The reference in these texts is to failure to pay, short-changing on wages, or delay in payment of wages. Delay in payment then and now was and is a means of fraud. Thus, one small company which rendered material and services to a major corporation, rejoicing in its biggest single contract, over a million dollars, was not paid for almost a year. The interest on borrowed money to pay due obligations almost wiped out the small company; the larger company had used this strategy of failure to pay with several companies all at one time in order to accumulate capital without interest; they had rightly reckoned that, long before charges entered against them ever came to trial, they would repay and end the case against them without further ado. (505)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."This is an extremely important law, and its understanding is of central importance. On its economic side, a correlation is asserted between the work done and the pay received. Because work is a debt contracted by an employer, the extent of that debt depends on the nature and extent of the services. An ox gets his feed and his care; a laborer is worthy of his hire; the nature of the services determines the extent of the debt. Thus, a ditch-digger does not command the pay of an engineer; the debt contracted for his services is an obviously lower one in virtually any market-place or society. There can be no equality of pay because there is no equality of debt. There can be no "fair price" for a particular kind of service, because the value of the service varies in the nature of the debt it contracts in terms of the need for the service. (506)
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward (I Tim. 5:17,18).
To say that one believes in the right to strike is comparable to saying that one endorses monopoly power to exclude business competitors; it is saying, in effect, that government-like control is preferable to voluntary exchange between buyers and sellers, each of whom is free to accept or reject the other's best offer. In other I words, to sanction a right to strike is to declare that might makes! right-which is to reject the only foundation upon which civilization can stand."Interference by the state into economics has led to the rise of monopolies, monopolies in business and in labor. The areas of monopoly are , exclusively the areas of statist interference. (507, 508)
Lying deep at the root of the strike is the persistent notion that an employee has a right to continue an engagement once he has begun it, as if the engagement were his own piece of property. A job is but an exchange affair, having existence only during the life of the exchange. It ceases to exist the moment either party quits or the contract ends. The right to a job that has been quit is no more valid than the right to a job that has never been held. (Leonard E. Read, The Coming Aristocracy)
Discrimination in employment because of color, creed, race or national origin conflicts with the Biblical principle of equality of all human beings before God and the law of love toward all men."All men are not equal before God; the facts of heaven and hell, election and reprobation, make clear that they are not equal. Moreover, an employer has a property right to prefer whom he will in terms of 'color, creed, race or national origin.' A Japanese Christian church in Los Angeles has the right to call a Christian Japanese pastor. A Swedish or a Negro employer has a right to hire whom he will, in terms of what is most congenial to his purposes. (509, 510)
Creational resources may not be exploited for personal gain or the enrichment of a group or a community, but must be developed for use in the service of all mankind."This is simply socialism, theft made into a principle of operation. Not a word in all Scripture gives any ground for such a statement. (510)
If we were living in a theocracy, with the Divine constitution, the tithe would cover everything, but at present we are living under man-made governments and man-made governments collect their own taxes. But the tithe still belongs to God. 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's' (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:11; Luke 20:25; Rom. 13:1-8). The extra tax exacted by governments of our day is the penalty we pay for not accepting God's rule over us nationally. Israel was told of this very thing when she demanded a king, to become like other nations, that he would misappropriate the tithe (I Sam. 8:11-18). (Curtis Clair Ewing, The Law of Tithying in Scripture) (511)
Let him use those tenths and first-fruits, which are given according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in on account of the poor, to the orphans, the widows, the afflicted, and strangers in distress, as having that God for the examiner of his accounts who has committed the disposition to him. Distribute to all those in want with righteousness, and yourselves use the things which belong to the Lord, but do not abuse them. . . . (The Apostolic Constitutions, II, sec. iv; Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XVII, p. 55) (512)"The Apostolic Constitutions made the bishop and clergy the dispensers of the tithes. (The Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, sec. iv; p. 243) With this, we cannot entirely agree. However, the important fact is the functions covered by the tithe and gifts in a time of oppression and persecution, and the fact that the tithe was seen as a basic, continuing law. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, xviii; Ante-Nicene Library, V, pp. 431-436) (512)
Whoever will not give the tithe appropriates property that does not belong to him. If the poor die of hunger, he is guilty of their murder and will have to answer before God's judgment seat as a murderer; he has taken that which God has set aside for the poor and kept it for himself. (Lukas Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church) (512)
Our ancestors had more than they needed because they gave God tithes and paid their taxes to the Emperor. However, since we do not wish to share the tithes with God, everything will soon be taken from us. The tax collector takes everything which Christ does not receive. (Lukas Vischer, p. 21) (512)"With Charlemagne the tithes were made mandatory for all citizens. The Council of Seville, A.D. 590, had passed a canon ruling that, 'If anyone does not tithe everything, let the curse which God inflicted upon Cain for not rightly tithing be heaped upon him.' (Ewing, p. 6) The state, however, had not yet recognized the social centrality of the tithe. The existence of the tithe made possible the development of religious orders and foundations which undertook to provide hospitals and medical care, education, welfare, patronage to religious art and music, and a variety of other services. (512)
It must be borne in mind that all this time the prisons were primarily places of detention, not of punishment. The bulk of those committed to their safe keeping were accused persons awaiting trial in due process of law, or debtors; and of these again by far the most numerous class were the impecunious and the unfortunate, whom a mistaken system locked up and deprived of all means of paying their liabilities. Now and again an offender was sentenced to be imprisoned in default of payment of fine, or to pass the intervals between certain periods of disgraceful exposure on the pillory. Imprisonment has as yet no regular place in the code of penalties, and the jail was only the temporary lodging of culprits duly tried and sentenced according to law. The punishment most in favour in these ruthless times was death. (Major Arthur Griffiths, "Prison Discipline," in The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1892) (515, 516)
Should state and federal authorities attempt to negotiate with the Cosa Nostra, just as our State Department negotiates with hostile foreign powers? Such diplomacy might well serve the interest of noncriminals, suggests Dr. Donald R. Cressey, professor of sociology at UC Santa Barbara."Such appeasement already existed illegally, even as the professor wrote. Thus, according to reliable federal and other sources, it was held that 'La Cosa Nostra spends $2 billion annually to corrupt public officials all the way up from the county sheriffs and courthouse right on into the Supreme Court.' (Victor Riesel, "Web of Mafia Control," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Sunday, Dec. 21, 1969, p. B-7) (521)
'A little cold-blooded appeasement is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when our side is losing,' he writes. He states that some form of negotiation (or accommodation or communication) by state and federal officials-such as is carried on by local officials, often in a haphazard and corrupt fashion-might lessen the danger that organized criminals will achieve a monopoly on democratic processes in the United States. (News From the Academy," in the Kingsburg, California, Recorder, Thursday, Dec. 18, 1969, p. 8)
Q. 73. Which is the eighth commandment?"Answer 75 had in mind the love of pleasure, drunkenness, gluttony, laziness, and theft and cited Proverbs 21:17; 22:20; 28:19, and Ephesians 4:28, Alexander Whyte saw this commandment as covering 'all matters connected with the earning, saving, spending, inheriting and bequeathing of money and property.' (Alexander Whyte, A Commentary on the Shorter Catechism) Whyte added,
A. The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.
Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.
Q. 75. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A. The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth or may unjustly hinder our own or our neighbour's wealth or outward estate.
All a man's possessions, go back to the beginning of them, go down to the bottom of them, will always be found to represent so much self-denial, labour, industry. Obscure as may be the origin, history, and growth of this or that particular estate, yet it must in its beginning have been due to some man's obedience to the Creator's law of labour and reward. 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.' This is the original charter of the right of property. (Whyte, p. 145f)"Whyte further added, 'Akin to the habit of industry is the sister habit of frugality and forethought.' (Whyte, p. 146) (522)
The pride is most terrible and insidious because it flouts the plainest of facts, by asserting the virtual diety of self: 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth' (vs. 17). Yet Israel must remember that the wealth is by God's power, not her own, and it is given in accord with his covenanted promises, not in payment for what the nation deserves (vs. 18). This is one of the strongest and most powerful passages in the Bible on this characteristic and distressing problem of human life. Wealth here is not by natural right; it is God's gift. Yet man must beware of the terrible and self-destructive temptation to deify himself which comes with it.' (G. Ernest Wright, "Deuteronomy," Interpreter's Bible, II, 389)"True wealth, godly wealth is a product of covenant blessings on work, thrift, and foresight; it is inseparably connected with the law. The commandments are given 'that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land' (Deut. 8:1). (523, 524)
Benjamin Franklin, in his Memoirs, mentions a merchant named Denham, who failed in his business at Bristol, compounded with his creditors, and went to America. In a few years he accumulated a plentiful fortune, returned to England in the same ship with Franklin, called his creditors together to an entertainment, and paid the full remainder of his debts, with interest up to the time of settlement. (John Whitecross, The Shorter Catechism Illustrated from Christian Biography and History)"Personal restitution is godly, but much more is required. Man must restore the earth, must make it truly and fully God's kingdom, the domain in which His law-word is taught, obeyed, and honored. Man must gain wealth and use it to the glory of God, but, to gain lawful wealth, man must know and obey the law. Godly wealth is to be acquired, held, and used in good conscience; it is a happy result of the covenant of God. (525)
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,"Although such offenses are called 'violence,' Noth points out that in the Hebrew 'the context scarcely suggests a forcible robbery or a regular theft, but rather some deceptive way of appropriating someone else's property.' (Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary) (527)
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimating, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hat done in trespassing therein (Lev. 6:1-7).
It will be seen that the trespass against God is, strictly speaking, a violation of the rights of a neighbour's property. As fraud and plunder are most subversive of social life, a crime of this sort is described as an insult to God, who is the founder and sovereign ruler of his people. (C.D. Ginsburg, "Leviticus," in Ellicott, I, 356)"The law permits no one to forget that the slightest offense is also an offense against God; by requiring in these cases a restitution to God, as well as a restoration of the damaged or misappropriated property, the total jurisdiction of God is asserted as well as the fact that the slightest breach of order is a breach of God's order. At every point, God's order must be restored. (527, 528)
I don't want to do eight years, no -- but if I have to I have to, and that's all there is to it. If you're a criminal, what's the alternative to the risk of going to prison? Coal-miners don't spend their time worrying about the risk they might get killed by a fall at the coal-face either. Prison's an occupational risk, that's all-and one I'm quite prepared to take. I'll willingly gamble away a third of my life in prison, so long as I can live the way I want for the other two-thirds. After all, it's my life, and that's how I feel about it. The alternative -the prospect of vegetating the rest of my life away in a steady job, catching the 8:13 to work in the morning, and the 5:50 back again at night, all for ten or fifteen quid a week-now that really does terrify me, far more than the thought of a few years in the nick. (Tony Parker and Robert Allerton, The Courage of His Convictions)"This criminal's position was a logical amoral conclusion. The profit in theft far outweighed the penalty for him. Modern humanistic law does tend to make crime profitable while at the same time lessening its significance in terms of the moral law. Saxon law dealt brutally with criminals. According to Sir William Blackstone,
Our ancient Saxon laws nominally punished theft with death, if above the value of twelve pence; but the criminal was permitted to redeem his life by a pecuniary ransom; as, among their ancestors the Germans, by a stated number of cattle: But in the ninth year of Henry the First, this power of redemption was taken away, and all persons guilty of larceny above the value of twelve pence were directed to be hanged; which law continues in force to this day. (Cited in J.W. Ehrlich, The Holy Bible and The Law)"Capital punishment for larceny continued in English law into the reign of George IV, at which time the law was altered. In such a perspective, the law seeks to repress crime by imposing heavy and disproportionate penalties. This is contrary to the Biblical law where restoration is primary, not repression. Both capital punishment and restitution in Biblical law are in terms of justice, not repression; the professional criminal or murderer is executed in order to eliminate iniquity and restore order, and restitution is made for other crimes to reestablish that godly and working social order which is necessary to God's creation mandate. Neither hanging a thief, nor imposing a disproportionate ransom or fine on him, constitutes justice. (528, 529)
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
And my wrath shall wax hot and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless (Ex. 22:21-24).
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God (Lev. 19:33,34). (530)
The juxtaposition of laws against oppression with three crimes of the deepest dye seems intended to indicate that oppression is among the sins which are most hateful in God's sight. The lawgiver, however, does not say that it is to be punished capitally, nor, indeed, does he affix to it any legal penalty. Instead of so doing, he declares that God Himself will punish it 'with the sword' (verse 24). Three classes of persons particularly liable to be oppressed are selected for mention -- (1) strangers, i.e., foreigners; (2) widows; and (3) orphans. (George Rawlinson, "Exodus," in Ellicott)"Such oppression is serious, because it indicates that, to all practical intent no law exists. True law gives a common protection to all those who are law-abiding; where the weak are unable to get such protection, no law exists. If the law discriminates against the weak because they are weak, and the strong because they are strong, then it ceases to be law and is an instrument of oppression. True law discriminates against those who are wrong-doers by seeking to enforce restitution and/or death against them, and is in favor of the law-abiding, in that it protects them in their lives and properties, and compels restitution for offenses against them. If the lives and properties of foreigners, widows, and orphans are not protected by the civil order, then that order has become lawless. (532)
For the LORD your God is God of gods, and LORD of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:"Of this last sentence, Rashi's comment was appropriate: 'The blemish which is upon thyself thou shalt not notice in thy neighbour.' (Cited by C.H. Waller, in "Deuteronomy," Elliott, II, 36) (533)
He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous (Ex. 23:8)."Calvin's comment on these laws is very much to the point:
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour (Lev. 19:15).
Thou shalt not wrest judgment: thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee (Deut. 16:19,20).
This kind of theft is the worst of all, when judges are corrupted either by bribes, or by affection, and thus ruin the fortunes which they ought to protect: for, since their tribunal is as it were a sacred asylum, to which those who are unjustly oppressed may fly, nothing can be more unseemly than that they should there fall amongst robbers. Judges are appointed to repress all wrongs and offenses; if therefore they shew favour to the wicked, they are harbourers of thieves; than which there is no more deadly pest. And besides, since their authority excludes every other remedy, they are themselves like robbers with arms in their hands. The greater, therefore, their power of injury is, and the greater the damage committed by their unjust sentences, the more diligently are they to be beware of iniquity; and thus it was necessary to keep them in the path of duty by special instructions, lest they should conceal and encourage thievery by their patronage. Now, as avarice is the root of all evils, when it thus lays hold of the mind of judges, no integrity can continue to exist. (Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, III, 136f)"The judge must not favor either the rich or the poor. In Exodus 23:3, 6, the judge is forbidden to 'countenance a poor man in his cause,' or to 'wrest the judgment of the poor in his cause.' Luther, in his comment on Deuteronomy 16:18-20, observed:
Moreover, He lays down this rule to these judges and officers: they are to judge justly, that is, according to the Law of god and not according to their own understanding. Then He forbids corrupt feelings; they are not to leave the Law behind and be led and motivated by the consideration of persons and bribes. These two things tend to distort and misdirect all justice, and therefore he here adds this aphorism: 'Bribes blind the eyes of the wise and subvert the cause of the righteous' (v. 19). Partiality towards persons includes such things as these: fear of persons great, mighty, or wealthy; love of relatives; regard for friends; contempt for the lowly; sympathy toward those stricken by calamity; and fear of peril to one's own life, reputation, and property. 'Bribes,' however, include gain, advantage, ambition, and the insatiable and boundless gulf of greed. Therefore in Ex. 18:21 Jethro advises Moses to choose men who are without greed, that is, birds that are as rare as a black swan. (Luther, Deuteronomy, p. 163) (534, 535)
Everything stands or falls on this simple question: does a government have more authority than its citizens? If so, it must have got that authority from some greater source than the citizens. The only greater sources are God or Satan. Satan is never considered by Calvinists to be the source of governments; (governments are manifestations of the "common grace" of God!). Therefore Hitler had a 'peculiar inherent authority' directly from God! Now we can realize how De Standaard came to follow the course it did during World War II. (Frederick Nymeyer, Progressive Calvinism, I, 331 f.) (538)
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. -- James Madison, "The father of our Constitution" (541)
Thus, what is clearly condemned by the tenth commandment is every attempt to gain by fraud, coercion, or deceit that which belongs to our neighbor. On this principle, alienation of affection suits were once a part of the law of the land. Their abuse by a lawless age led to their abolition, but the principle is sound. A person who works systematically to alienate the affections of a husband or wife in order to gain him or her for himself, sometimes together with his monetary assets, is guilty of violating this law.
This law thus forbids the expropriation by fraud or deceit of that which belongs to our neighbor. The tenth commandment therefore does sum up commandments six through nine and gives them an additional perspective. The other commandments deal with obviously illegal acts, i.e., clear-cut violations of law. The tenth commandment can be broken within these laws. To cite a Biblical example. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, a clearly illegal act. His subsequent acts were technically within the law: Uriah was put in the forefront of the battle and orders were so issued as to insure Uriah's death in battle. It was not technically murder, but it was clearly a conspiracy to kill, with David and Joab both guilty of murder.
Thus, a variety of laws in Western civilization are based on this principle of the fraudulent use of the law to defraud or to harm. Many of these laws legislate against the conspiracy aspect of fraud. They legislate against the covetous seizure of our neighbor's possessions by evil although sometimes legal means. The law against dishonest gain is thus a very important one, and the tenth commandment, instead of being a vague appendage to the law, is basic to it.
This law against dishonest gain is directed by God, not merely to the individual, but to the state and all institutions. The state can be and! often is as guilty as art any individuals, and the state is often used as the legal means whereby others are defrauded of their possessions. The law against evil covetousness is thus an especially needed one in the 20th century. -- Rousas John Rushdoony in Institutes of Biblical Law
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's (Ex. 20:17)."The meaning of this law depends on the meaning of covet. The rest of the law deals with the actions of men; does the law in this case deal with man's emotions instead, or have we misunderstood the meaning of covet? Noth has pointed out that covet in fact does mean much more than the emotion of coveting.
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, nor his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's (Deut.5:21). (632)
The commandment in v. 17 is formulated with a verb which is rendered 'covet.' But it describes not merely the emotion of coveting but also includes the attempt to attach something to one self illegally. The commandment therefore deals with all possible undertakings which involve gaining power over the goods and possessions of a 'neighbour,' whether through theft or through all kinds of dishonest machinations. The first object to be named is the neighbour's house. The term 'house' can in a narrow and special sense describe the dwelling-place, primarily the built house but also in every case the tent-'house' of the nomad; it can, however, also be used in a more or less wide or transferred sense to mean, for instance, the family, or to sum up everything which is included in the house. (Martin Noth, Exodus)"Thus, when Exodus begins by forbidding coveting a neighbor's house, by house it means, as it then goes on to specify, the wife, the servants, animals, and all other possessions of our neighbor. First, the general term house is used, and then specific aspects of the 'house' are described. In Deuteronomy, the citations are apparently all of specifics, including the 'house.' (632, 633)
If in the last commandment the translation of the verb as 'covet' were correct, it would be the only case in which the decalogue deals not with an action, but with an inner impulse, hence with a sin of intention. But the corresponding Hebrew word (hamad) has two meanings, both to covet and to take. It includes, outward malpractices, meaning seizing for oneself (Josh. 7:21; Micah 2:2, etc.). (Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy, A commentary) (633)"When Jesus cited the tenth commandment in Mark 10:19, He clearly cited it in terms of a sin of action, and the Greek text uses the word aposteresis, to defraud of a thing, and it is translated in the King James Version as 'defraud.' (633)
This law is comprehensive and recapitulatory, as it were, of rest concerning our neighbour, prescribing universal justice toward him (whence St. Mark, it seems, meaneth to render it in one word, by . . . deprive not, or bereave not your neighbour of any thing Mark x. 19) and this not only in outward deed and dealing, but in inward thought and desire, the spring whence they do issue forth. . . . (Isaac Barrow, Works)
Thou shalt not covet, ver. 17 . . . lo tachemod -- the word. . . chamad, signifies an earnest and strong desire after a matter, which all the affections are concentrated and fixed, whether thing be good or bad. This is what we commonly term covetousness, which word is taken both in a good and bad sense. So when Scripture says, that covetousness is idolatry: yet it also says, covet earnestly the best things; so we find that this disposition is sinful or holy, according to the object on which it is fixed. In this command, the covetousness which is placed on forbidden objects, is that which is prohibited and condemned. To covet in this sense, is intensely to long after, in order to enjoy as property, the person, or thing, coveted. He breaks this command, who by any means endeavours to deprive a man of his house, or farm, by some underhand and clandestine bargain with the original landlord; what is called in some countries, taking a man's house and farm over his head. He breaks it also, who lusts after his neighbour's wife, and endeavours to ingratiate himself into her affections, by striving to lessen her husband in her esteem: -- and he breaks it, who endeavours to possess himself of the servants, cattle &c. of another, in any clandestine or unjustifiable way. This is a most excellent moral precept, the observance of which will prevent all public crimes: for he who feels the force of the law which prohibits the inordinate desire of any thing that is the property of another, can never make a breach in the peace of society by an act of wrong to any of even its feeblest members. (Adam Clarke, Discourse on Various Subjects, II, 36f.) (633, 634)
Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! (KJV)."Covetousness is here equated with gain; it is evil covetousness or gain which is condemned. Honest gain and godly covetousness are clearly not condemned. (634)
Woe to him who acquires an evil gain for his house, in order to set his seat on high, to be out of the reach of calamity! (BV).
Mark but my fall, and that that ruined me."Such a philosophy meant that ambition had no Christian legitimacy, and that desire for better things was always a sin. As a result, the only legitimate ambition and desire was that which renounced Christianity for humanism. Pietism led Christianity, both before and after the Reformation, into false paths of feeling as against a wholeness of life. (635, 636)
Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition:
By that sin fell the angels; how can man, then,
The image of his Maker, hope to win by it?
Love thyself last: cherish those hearts that hate thee. (Act III, sec. II).
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law, to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (636)
'A curse on the man who will not give effect to the words of this law!' And all the people shall answer, 'So be it.' (636)
Reluctant to sell the house they had lived in 35 years, a couple in an Eastern state signed a contract for $2,500 to have it renovated. Unfortunately, three weeks later, their contractor died of a heart attack, and the work was never begun."In the first case, the couple had signed a contract with a waiver of defense, unaware of its meaning. In the second case, according to Miss Carper, the widow had signed with a company having a contingency liability, which 'in effect makes the policy holder a part owner of the company and responsible for its debts.' (Carper) Miss Carper cites many other similar examples of contracts which defraud the unwary. (637)
Soon afterward, the couple received notice from a finance company demanding monthly payments to fulfill the contract of $2,500. The couple wrote explaining the situation, made no payments, and thought no more about it. Two months later the sheriff served papers notifying them that the finance company had foreclosed on the house and would put it up for auction-unless they produced the cash to cover the contract, plus legal fees. They sought help in every direction, but could not raise the money. Thus, incredibly -- to pay for a job never done -- their house was auctioned off. Worth perhaps $30,000, it was sold to an officer of the finance company for $20,000.
In another state, a 56-year-old widow bought automobile insurance from a company recommended by her insurance agent. Her policy was canceled a year later with no explanation. Then, nearly three years later, she received a letter from a lawyer ordering her to pay the state $291.49 because she was liable for claims against this now-defunct company that had once insured her car. Out of her meager earnings, she was forced to pay a little every month until the entire amount was paid off.
How are such things possible? The explanation is: 'fine print.' It appears on installment contracts, insurance policies, credit cards on almost any legal document you sign. And as many have discovered, its potentiality for disaster cannot be underestimated. (Jean Carper, "Before You Sign -- Read the Fine Print," in Family Weekly, supplement to the Santa Ana, California, Register, April 12, 1970, p. 13.) (637)
Two people could have walked down any U. S. street in 1930 -- One with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U. S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal. (W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign) (644)"Such laws further lawlessness, in that they violate the fundamental principle of Biblical law, that all judgments and all legislation rest on the righteousness of God rather than the will of man and the policies of state. (644)
As long as he lived in Antwerp, he kept house with a servant girl. He would have married her but for the fact that, having a marked distaste for the truth, she was in the habit of lying, a thing he greatly disliked. He made an agreement or contract with her to the effect that he would procure a stick and cut a notch in it for every lie she told, for which purpose he deliberately chose a fairly long one. Should the stick become covered in notches in the course of time the marriage would be off and there would be no further question of it. And indeed this came to pass after a short time. (F. Grossmann, Breugel, The Paintings)"The sinner, instead of changing, seeks to remake the world in his own image. The result is coercion, covetousness. The covetous man strikes out at the honesty or happiness of others. Jesus characterized this attitude in these words: 'Is thine eye evil, because I am good?' (Matt. 20:15). Moffatt renders it, 'Have you a grudge because I am generous?' (648)
Here in Congress, legislation has been introduced in both House and Senate to allow the killing of unborn children throughout the United States, and to remove the Federal personal income tax for all children after the second. Testimony before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce revealed a bill is pending in the Florida State Legislature which would legalize the killing of old people ("euthanasia"), and that a bill in the Hawaii State Legislature would compel the sterilization of all women after they have their second child. Such legislation heralds the coming of a new Nazism to our land. (John G. Schmitz, "Government Against Life," Weekly News Report, Aug. 19, 1970)"In the words of St. Paul, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). Professing themselves to be lovers of life and mankind, they revealed themselves as haters and murderers of men. (649, 650)
SOURCE: Quoted material and footnotes are from Rousas John Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books), pp. 450-650. Used by permission.
The thing to be done? Apparently, pickup where David Steele (1803-1887) left off with the Reformed Presbytery (America).
See also: Selection of covenant heads for positions of leadership, Corporate faithfullness and sanctification
Web Layout - Lettermen Associates
Updated - January 26, 2009 [Lettermen Associates]