Theft: Commentary and Cases of Conscience. A Listing Excerpted From The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rousas John Rushdoony, 1973 edition

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 Commandment

The 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:20:4

I 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

THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT

1. "But the urge to dominion does not disappear simply because the church does not speak of it. Instead, it reappears as an ugly and sinful struggle for power in the church; rightful dominion being neglected or denied, sinful dominion begins then to emerge. The life of the church becomes then an ugly struggle over meaningless trifles in which the sole purpose is sinful power and dominion. All too often this sinful urge to dominion is masked with hypocritical meekness. (450)

2. "It is very necessary therefore to recognize that the urge to dominion is God-given and is basic to the nature of man. An aspect of this dominion is property. (450)

3. "The Scripture, however, places property in the hands of the family, not the state. It gives property to man as an aspect of his dominion, as a part of his godly subduing of the earth. (451)

4. "If the doctrine of dominion in and under God [Christ's Crown and Covenant] is weakened, then all the law is weakened also. (451)

5. "The eighth commandment, one of the two shortest, declares simply, 'Thou shalt not steal' (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19). Theft or stealing is taking another man's property by coercion, fraud, or without his uncoerced consent. Cheating, harming property, or destroying its value is also theft. It is not necessary for the robbed to know of the theft for it to be a sin. Thus, to ride a train or bus without paying one's fare is theft, even though the transportation company is unaware of the act. (452)

6. "Theft can be accomplished in a number of ways. First, in simple theft the thief robs the victim directly. Second, in complex, but still direct theft, the thief robs the victim as part of a group of thieves. In such a case, a man may not be directly involved in the act of theft, but he is a party to it all the same as a knowing party in the corporate group of thieves. Third, theft can be accomplished by indirect and legal means, i.e., by passing a law which steals from the rich, the poor, or the middle-classes, for the benefit of a particular group. The state then becomes the agency whereby theft is accomplished, and a psedo-moral cover is given by legal enactment. (452)

7. "Theft is not only the expropriation, legally or illegally, of another man's property against his will or by fraud, but also the destruction of property, or the value of property, by any willful act or by accident. Thus, to destroy a man's house by arson is theft, but it is also theft if the house is burned down by carelessness. To damage a man's automobile is to rob him of its value; in this area, restitution has been made more or less mandatory by the insurance laws of various states. Because inflation weakens or destroys the values of paper currencies, inflation too is very definitely a form of theft. (452, 453)

8. "Fraud too is clearly theft. A man may willingly purchase an item under the impression that it is what it is represented to be, but fraud on the part of the seller makes it clearly theft. To sell a man watered milk is theft; pure food and drug laws, however much abused today, are still valid laws in terms of Scripture. However, a corrupt people begets a corrupt state, which then cannot enforce even the best of laws without corruption. (453)

9. "Necessity does not justify theft; necessity cannot give man any priority over God's law. However, some Roman Catholic thinkers, following the Greek natural law tradition, have given moral countenance to theft in times of necessity:

   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)

10. "It is said that, under the influence of Phariseeism and the interpretations of lawyers, 'it was not considered a crime to steal from a Sarrlaritan or another thief.' (J. Poucher, "Crimes and Punishments," in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, I, 522.) In this concept of the law, the 'rights' of 'covenant' man were deemed to be greater than those of lesser man. In either case, whether with respect to Delany or the Pharisees, the error is in giving man priority over God's law. Such a position in effect nullifies the law. (453)

11. "Thus far, our definition of theft is incomplete. It must be added that theft is one form of violation of God's fundamental order. Theft is therefore more than an offense against another person; it is an offense against God. God requires us to respect the life, marriage, and property of our neighbor and enemy, not because our neighbor or enemy is not possibly evil, and not because our own needs are not great, but because His law-order takes priority over the conditions of man. Neither the nature of our neighbor's character, which may be evil, nor our own need, which may be great, can justify theft. The sovereignty of God requires the priority of His law-word. (453, 454)

12. "Park recognizes that this commandment 'is the protection which the diligent and prudent have against the idle and careless.' All the same, he adds, 'Thinking men strive toward an application of this commandment which will ensure that the products of industry will be fairly divided, that the rules may ensure that each man shall have his fair share of the good things of this life.' (J. Edgar Park, "Exodus," in Interpreter's Bible, I, 987.) Park, as one of these 'thinking men' does not define every man's 'fair share.' It is that which each man earns? Or is it a 'fair share' in terms of the non-Biblical principle of equality? A new principle of justice has replaced God: it is 'thinking men!' (454)

13. "Thus, Scripture gives no ground for violating God's law-order: men are required to work within it for their own welfare and prosperity. To defy or despise God's order is to incur God's judgment; it also brings a sorry return on man's act. (454)

14. "God's order clearly includes private property. It also clearly approves of godly wealth. The Hebrew words translated as wealth have also the meanings of strength, resources, goods, and prosperity. According to Proverbs 13:11, 'Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.' The warning of Scripture is against the proud who forget God in their wealth, not against the fact of wealth (Deut. 8:17, 18). God blesses His saints with prosperity and wealth, as witness Job, Abraham, David, Solomon, and others. One of the possible blessings on obedience to the law is wealth (Ps. 112:3). It is arrogant and ungodly wealth which is condemned (James 5:1-6). . . . Wealth is an aspect of God's blessing of His faithful ones: 'The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it' (Prov. 10:22). The godly pursuit of property and wealth is thus fully legitimate. (455)

15. "As we have seen in Proverbs 13:11, the means for gaining wealth is labor. This is again emphasized in the New Testament, St. Paul declaring, 'Let him that stole, steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth' (Eph. 4:28). The Berkeley Version renders this as follows: 'The thief must steal no more, but rather toil to earn a living with his own hands, so he may have something to give the person in need.' Very clearly, work and stealing are opposed to one another as differing approaches to property. Equally clearly, an obligation of all who work is not only self-support but also charity to those in need. (455)

16. "Theft as a short-cut to the possession of property seeks not only to by-pass work as the means to wealth but also to deny the validity of God's law-order. In terms of Scripture, wealth can be acquired by labor, inheritance, or gift. A thieving order will oppose all three means of acquisition. A thieving order will concern itself with charity at the price of God's law. (455)

17. "It is easy for those who advocate changes damaging to private property to document the evils and the sins of great corporations, wealthy men, and of social orders in which these predominate, but it is at least equally easy to document the sins of the poor as of the wealthy, to cite the evils of a worker as of a capitalist, and to call attention to the depravity of the reformers. Because a man is evil, rich or poor makes no difference to God's law: he must still be dealt with under the law. When our neighbor is a thief, we acquire no right to rob him of anything he may have. The corrective to theft is not theft. Yet we are told that 'The direction of justice, then, emerges wherever adjustments and changes take place in favor of the relatively powerless by a change in the distribution or dispersion of the social power of property, a change in the distribution of the control of property.' (Bruce Morgan, Christians, the Church, and Property) This is humanism again: it is the exaltation of man's need above God's law. And man as a sinner is hardly to be trusted when it comes to defining his 'needs:' too often, man defines his covetousness as his need. How often has sinful man admitted to his need for judgment? There is no law where every man is his own law-maker and court. (455, 456)

18. "The relationship of work to charity has been cited. True charity and love towards one's neighbor is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:8-10). In terms of this Calvin wrote of the eighth commandment,

    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)

19. "Calvin further defined charity as against theft in these words:

    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)

20. "Why then do men attack this law and the doctrine of property which the law affirms? A century ago, in his general survey of the law, Wines noted, 'There are two principal sources of political, as of personal power, knowledge and property.' (E.C. Wines, Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews) This is the heart of the matter: property is a form of power, and wherever power is claimed for the state, there private property will be under attack. (457)

21. "The attack on private property can take two basic forms. First, by or denying God's law, powerful individuals can despise the property rights' of weaker individuals. The Social Darwinism which prevailed in the United States and elsewhere after 1860 led to 'robber barons' who used their power to trample law underfoot. These men justified their lawlessness by appealing to evolution and 'the struggle for survival.' The Social Darwinists held that 'the cultural and the biological progress of advanced peoples is assured so long as ""the law of competition"" is allowed to operate freely and, in respect to the human species, to assume the form of a ""struggle for existence"" which only ""the strongest"" survive.' (Joseph J. Spengler, "Evolution in American Economics, 1800-1946," in Stow Persons, editor, Evolutionary Thought in America) The Social Darwinists had no real interest in private property; their concern was to use the theory of evolution as a guide for society. It became a tool for justifying massive theft. (457, 458)

22. "Property for these evolutionists is simply a tool whereby the state shapes man and the world. As a result, property is again under lawless attack, first from individuals and corporations, now from the state. Since property is a form of power, the totalitarian state seeks to control or to seize private property in order to prevent the people from having any power independently of the state. (458)

23. "But private property is a power which God entrusts to man as a stewardship, because it is God's intention that man should have and exercise power unto the end that the earth be subdued and man's dominion over the earth under God be established. God gives to the state its due power in its domain. Private property is a power given to man to be used under God and to His glory. (458)

24. "A serious and major error which has infected Christian and non-Christian thought alike is that sin can be forgiven. By sin is here meant the principle of sin (Gen. 3:5), man's defiance of God and his insistence on being his own god. Sin as this principle of independence and autonomy cannot be forgiven. (458)

25. "A particular sin or sins can be forgiven; sin as a principle, original sin, cannot be forgiven: it must be eradicated. The saving work of Jesus Christ involved a new creation, ('if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,' II Cor. 5:17 BY), restitution, the perfect keeping of the law as our federal head, and forgiveness of the particular sins of His people. Forgiveness and restitution are inseparable. We are to forgive our brother, i.e., a fellow believer,:sevenfold times (Luke 17:4), but this forgiveness always requires repentance and restitution. There are two aspects to forgiveness, the religious or God-ward aspect, and then the social and criminal aspect. Sin always is an offense against God, and therefore there must always be a theological aspect to every sin, i.e., some kind of settlement or judgment of man for his violation of God's order. But sin also involves other men, or the earth, and particular sins have particular requirements of restitution. To return to the fact that, where sin is forgiven, the reference is not to sin in principle but to a particular act. The references to forgiveness in the law (Lev. cc. 4, 5; Num. 15:28, etc.) have reference to particular acts of sin. Jesus Christ pronounced the forgiveness of sins to those in the covenant of faith, i.e., of particular sins by the redeemed (Matt. 9:2,5; Mark 2:5,9; 3:28; 4:12; Luke 5:20,23; 7:47,48; Rom. 4:7; Col. 2:13; James 5:15; I John 2:12, etc.). For sin in itself, man must die, rather than be forgiven; we die in Christ as sinners who live in terms of the principle of sin, and we arise in Him as a new creation. Against sin as a principle, the penalty is death; for sin as a particular act, forgiveness is possible with repentance and restitution. With this in mind, we can understand why, with respect to criminal law, the death penalty was mandatory for incorrigible criminals. By their repeated crimes, such persons make apparent that crime is their way of life, their principle, as it were. Similarly, restitution requires in other cases the death of the guilty party as the necessary counterpart to the death of the innocent person, the victim. (458, 459)

26. "Restitution must calculate not only the present and future value of a thing stolen, but also the specialized skills involved in its replacement. (460)

27. "Fourth, certain acts, whether deliberate or accidental, incur a liability which requires restitution, for to damage another man's property is to rob him of a measure of its value:

    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.
    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).

    "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)

28. "Seduction is not only an offense against the seventh commandment, but also against the eighth, in that it involves robbing a girl of her virginity (Ex. 22:16, 17). Compensation or restitution meant that 'he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.' Significantly, the word translated pay is in Hebrew weigh; money was then by weight, a weight of a shekel of silver or gold. (461)

29. "Restitution is cited in Scripture as an aspect of atonement. The law of the Passover, the great atonement of the Old Testament era, involved also the requirement of restitution. The sinful Egyptians, because they had defrauded Israel and had sought to kill Israel, were required to make restitution. As the Berkeley Version renders Exodus 12:35, 'And in agreement with the instructions of Moses they asked the Egyptians for silver and golden articles, also for clothing.' It was not enough for God to right the order by destroying Egypt with ten plagues; Israel had to enriched by means of restitution (Ex. 12:36). A similar incident occurred earlier in Egypt to Abraham. Pharaoh's order was such that a man had no protection against seizure of his wife together with his own murder except deception (Gen. 12:11-13). There is no condemnation of Abraham for trying to stay alive: rather, God judged Pharaoh strongly (Gen. 12:17) and brought Abraham out greatly enriched by way of restitution (Gen. 12:16; 13:2). God similarly intervened to judge Abimelech (Gen. 20:3-6), even though Abimelech could plead his own integrity; nonetheless, because he headed a lawless order, God held Abimelech responsible, and restitution ensued (Gen. 20:14-18). In both instances, there is not the slightest hint of any condemnation of Abraham, every indication of God's judgment on monarchs for maintaining lawless orders in which Abraham dared not move honestly and openly. (461, 462)

30. "In all these cases, there is not only judgment by God against the offender but also restitution to the offended. Restitution thus is closely linked to atonement, to justice, and to salvation. Only heresies which limit salvation to a new relationship with eternity fail to see the practical consequences of God's salvation; Calvin called attention to the social consequences of redemption. Commenting on Isaiah 2:4, he noted,

    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)

31. "Salvation is inseparable from restitution, because God's redemption of man and of the world is its restoration to its original position under Him and to His glory. Man's work of restitution for the sin of Adam, for his own original sin as it has worked to mar the earth, is to recognize that, as a new creation in Christ, he must make the earth a new creation under Christ. The work of Christ in man is this work of restitution. (463)

32. "The forgiven man is the man who makes restitution. Forgiveness is in Scripture a juridical term. It has reference to a court of law. Since restitution is in Biblical law at all times basic to forgiveness, to re-establishment into citizenship, the word forgiveness always implies restitution in Scripture. When forgiveness is separated from law and made a matter of feeling, the end result is sentimentalism. Many modern theologians and Christians insist on an unconditional forgiveness for all men, irrespective of repentance and restitution. Such a position is simply a subsidy to and an acceptance of evil as evil. It is antinomianism. (463)

33. "Biblical law, however, asserts the liability of the bystander. Thus, Deuteronomy 22:1-4, declares,

    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.
    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.

    "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)

34. "If the bystander has an obligation to render aid 'with all lost things' of another man, he has an even more pressing obligation to help rescue the man. Thus, this principle of responsibility appears in Deuteronomy 22:24. A woman assaulted in a city is presumed to have given consent if she does not raise a cry, the origin of the hue and cry common law. At her cry, every man within sound of her voice has a duty to render immediate aid; failure to do so was regarded as a fearful abomination which polluted the land and, figuratively, darkened the sun. The horror felt at such an offense is reflected in the rabbinic tradition:

    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)

35. "Delitzsch's comment on Proverbs 28:17 is very fitting here also:

    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)

36. "The Biblical law thus makes clear the liability of the bystander; it states, in fact, that he cannot be a bystander. An older decision of an American court stated the matter briefly:the law 'requires the doing of good at all times.' (Moore v. Strickling (1899) 46 W.Va. 515, 33 SE 274, 50 LRA 279, 282; in Clark, Biblical Law) The police power of the citizenry rests in Deuteronomy 22:1-4, 24. When a neighbor's property went astray or was lost, or when a man or woman raised a cry of distress, every man had a duty to answer that cry and enforce the law. All citizens have the right of arrest to this day in the United States as a result of this Biblical heritage. (466)

37. "American law has become contradictory since the old common law has been superseded by statute law. . . . Warnick's comments are to the point:

    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.
    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.)

    "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)

38. "In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite avoided the victim and 'passed by on the other side.' The religious leaders claimed to obey the law; they tithed 'mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over the judgment and the love of God' (Luke 11: 42). It was an easy matter to tithe mint; it sometimes required moral courage to help a victim; in the case of the victim Jesus described, not even courage was required, only assistance in terms of the law to a victim abandoned by the criminals. The religious leaders kept the law only when it cost them little or nothing to do so. Jesus confounded them from the law. (467)

39. "It is thus a serious error to reduce the parable of the Good Samaritan to the level of feeling alone, or to a matter of charity; these things are subordinate to the law in this case. Those who despise the law are also without charity. They profess to love the law, but they choose I simple matters for obedience and despise the things which are difficult. Too many churchmen today reduce the law to simple rules about the Sabbath and adultery and by-pass or violate the rest of the law with impunity. This is Phariseeism. (467)

40. "A greatly misunderstood law is Leviticus 19:35-37 concerning honesty in measurements:

    Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weights, or in measure.
    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.

    "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)

41. "That weights means money has long been known. Fairbairn's Bible Encyclopedia, like others, discusses the shekel under the classification of 'Weights.' The Bible speaks of money as a weight. For example, we are told that 'David gave to Oman for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight' (I Chron. 21:25). Opinions differ as to the exact nature of the talent, menah, shekel, bekah, zuza (Reba), and gerah, but Bonar's table of weights is perhaps as good as any. (Horatius Bonar, "Weights," in Fairbairn's Bible Encyclopedia) The shekel was probably half an ounce, avoirdupois weight. (468)

42. "Bonar has been referred to deliberately, because he is also the author of a commentary on Leviticus. In commenting on Leviticus 19:35-37, he devotes three pages to a basically evangelistic homily. In two sentences, he refers to the specific point of the text to say: In markets, in trade, in their shops -- in meting out land with the yard and cubit, or weighting articles in the balance, or trying the capacity of solids. The balances and its weights, the ephah, and its subdivision the hin, must be strictly exact. (Bonar, Leviticus) (468)

43. "It is possible to speak of the studied irrelevance of much preaching and comment on Scripture. A law of central importance to the monetary and economic morality of a nation is treated casually or not at all. The Biblical materialism of the Jews prevented them from being so irrelevant. The Talmud thus noted,

    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)

44. "C.D. Ginsburg also referred to this aspect of the law and cited its enforcement during the time of the second Temple:

    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)

45. "This law has therefore a number of very important implications. First, the old Latin and modern laissez-faire principle, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, is not Biblical. Dishonest merchandising is as serious a matter as dishonest judges and courts. At this point, the modern liberals have been closer to Biblical requirements than conservatives have been. The supposed evolutionary law of the jungle is not Biblical morality. On the other hand, the liberal principle, 'let the seller beware,' is not Biblical either. The law cannot encourage irresponsibility on the part of either buyer or seller. Laissez-faire countenanced irresponsibility by the seller; liberalism and socialism encourage irresponsibility by the buyer. Honest goods are necessary, but also honest payments. The state, as the ministry of justice, does have a duty to maintain justice in the market-place, but it cannot confuse justice with charity. True, the state as the policeman can be corrupt; in fact, if the society as a whole is corrupt, the state will also be corrupt. In a healthy and godly society, the state will function successfully to restrain the minority of evil-doers. The key to the situation is not the state but the religious health of the society. The law specifically states that false weights and measures are "unrighteousness in judgment," or injustices in matters calling for justice. Since justice is the ministry of the state, these are matters for the state to adjudge. (469, 470)

46. "Second, mete-yards are measures of length or surface, of yards, feet, inches, cubits, meters, and the like, including acres, as we have noted. Justice requires the maintaining of strict standards in these matters, and the penalizing of those who defraud by means of false measures. Frauds in this area involve frauds in land transactions, in goods and materials, and in a variety of ways basic to commerce. (470)

47. "Third, fraud in weights is essentially fraudulent money. Very obviously, Biblical money was by weight, a weight of silver or of gold, and every form of coinage in later times was by weight. Earlier, money was not by minting or coining, but was a piece of silver or gold of a specific weight. The gold coinage of the United States followed the Biblical pattern by establishing itself with reference to weight, the ounce, .900 fineness, or fractions of an ounce. (470)

48. "Fractional reserve banking, unbacked or partially backed paper money, and inflation of money by debt and credit, is thus a violation of this law. Isaiah, in listing the charges in God's bill of indictment against Jerusalem, declared that "Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water" (Isa. 1:22). The reference is to false weights, silver replaced with baser metals, or heavily alloyed with them, and to false measures, a quart of wine made into a gallon by mixture with water. (470)

49. "Thus the law clearly requires the condemnation of all fraudulent money. The law of the guilty bystander thus clearly condemns all ministers, priests, and teachers who do not declare the sentence of the law against fraudulent money. Their silence means a guilt comparable to that of corrupt judges or of counterfeiters, in that they counterfeit God's word by their silence or by false interpretations. (470)

50. "As surely as a false yardstick or a false cup measure defrauds a man, just as surely a false money defrauds a man. Even worse, dishonest money introduces a false weight into every monetary transaction in a society, so that radical corruption and injustice prevail. If in every business transaction in any society a basic fraud prevails in the form of (470) dishonest and counterfeit money, then the entire society is polluted, honest men are robbed, and thieves prevail. This is precisely what monetary fraud and inflation perpetrate, the triumph of thieves over godly men. Silence in the face of such radical corruption is an inexcusable ignorance and an evil. Ginsburg (supra) cited the texts condemning false weights. They are declared to be an 'abomination' to the Lord, as witness Solomon's declaration:

    Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).
    Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good (Prov. 20:23).

    "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)

51. "Fourth, measures here in this law refers to measures of capacity, and the law required strict honesty here as elsewhere. Liquid and dry measures alike are covered by this law. We have noted Isaiah's condemnation of watered wine; a gallon of wine which has been watered may provide an accurate gallon, but it is still dishonest because its contents have been mixed with water. Fruit watered shortly prior to marketing gives a dishonest weight and lesser flavor. Cows given salted feed in order to make them drink heavily and increase their weight represent fraud, as do forms of trucking cows to the sales yard which will dehydrate them and reduce their weight. Fraud thus extends beyond the scales or the bushel basket. (471)

52. "Fifth, just balances refers to what is today called weights. Honest scales are basic to just commerce, and the regulation of scales is thus basic to the ministry of justice. The poor in particular are victimized by dishonest balances (Amos 8:4-8). They are least able to protect themselves and suffer the most from the consequences. (471)

53. "Sixth, the consequences of violations of this law are apparent in the land itself, which will cast out the people. Even as the Nile floods Egypt, so judgment shall sweep over the people (Amos 8:8). The law is emphatic on the relationship of this law to life: Thou shalt not have in thy bag, divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have; that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee (Deut. 25:13-15). This statement has been well noted by Luther, who observed that:

    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)

54. "Calvin said, of Leviticus 19:35,

    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)

55. "In evaluating this law, it is important to set it in the context of the. legal tradition of the modern era, in order to understand the basic conflict of principles. The legal tradition can be divided into three basic positions. First a principle of the older liberalism and more recent conservatism joins the concepts of laissez-faire and self interest. Non-interference by the state in economic affairs is required, and it is held that the self-interest of all individuals adds up to the public good. Caveat emptor reigns, and no attempt is made to enforce this Levitical law. This position clearly posits the rule of the individual as well as his ultimacy in the social order. The self-interest of the individual leads to the greatest good of the greatest number of people. (472)

56. "Second, the new liberalism as well as socialism affirms the rule of the state. The self-interest of the state leads to the greatest good, because the state has the welfare of all the people at heart. Legislation is therefore necessary to enforce honest weights and measures. (472)

57. "In the first, there is no protection for men and society from the sin and rapacity of men; in the second social order, there is no defense for men against the power and depravity of the state. (472, 473)

58. "Third, Biblical law declares the rule of God and His law. God's self-interest is alone the true foundation of law and order. God as all-holy, righteous, and just, does most wisely decree and govern all things. Only as men are redeemed and submit, by grace and/or by compulsion to God's law-order can there be justice. If God's law is not respected, then neither men's self-interest nor the state's self-interest can preserve the social order. 'Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it' (Ps. 127:1). (473)

59. "In commenting on Exodus 22:25, Calvin stated:

    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)

60. "It is commendable when a rich man lends to poor fellow believers, but; this is an act of voluntary charity, whereas the law, as the wording of Leviticus makes clear, requires this charity as mandatory towards employees. No rich believer has the ability to lend to every needy fellow believer. He does have the ability to help those whom he employs. His responsibility here is to advance them loans without interest, against their wages, and to give emergency loans in times of crisis. The prohibition against interest is thus limited to a specific type of case, and it involves more than a mere prohibition, in that an active duty towards these under our authority is required. (477)

61. "Third, while charity is clearly the purpose of this law, charity is not confused here with a gift, a loss, or foolishness. A pledge or security can be, although it need not be, required. As Gary North points out, this forbids fractional reserve banking, in that the security cannot be used to negotiate a second loan, in that it is held by the lender during the day. The pledge requirement was a protection against irresponsibility on the part of the poor worker. If the poor worker were a trustworthy man, the employer would not require the pledge. The pledge or security was thus insurance against failure to repay, or to work out the loan. The charity in this case is thus a gift of the interest, not of the loan. (477)

62. "The indictments of usury in the prophets are indictments of loans to workmen at interest, to seize their small holdings of land. In Psalm 15:5, such usury is coupled with taking "reward against the innocent," i.e., bribe-taking. In Proverbs 28:8, we are told that "He that augmenteth his substance by interest and increase, gathereth it for him that hath pity on the poor," i.e., the man who charges interest to his poor employees who are believers will be judged finally by God, and his wealth given to those who take pity on their poor brethren. Jeremiah faced the hostility of men who enslaved their fellow believers rather than helping them (Jer. 15:10). Ezekial referred to the same kind of oppression (Ezek. 22:12; 18:13). Nehemiah required a return to the Biblical law (Neh. 5:1-13). (477, 478)

63. "Jesus referred to the same kind of loan without interest in passing, in Luke 6:34, 35. His approval of interest on commercial loans is clearly apparent in Luke 19:23, and Matthew 25:27. (478)

64. "Unger's summary statement is thus clearly in the main correct:

    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).
    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)

    "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)

65. "Short term loans are alone permitted. No godly man has the right to mortgage his future indefinitely; his life belongs to God and cannot be forfeited to men. Thus, every kind of debt by believers, whether as charity or for business reasons, must be a short term debt. The sabbath is basically and essentially rest rather than worship, and basic to the sabbath rest is debt-free living. Long-term debts are clearly a violation of the sabbath, and many churches that profess to be devout sabbath-keepers are flagrant sabbath-breakers here. The normal life of the covenant man is to be debt free, to owe no man anything save the obligation of rendering tribute, honor, fear, and custom wherever due, and of rendering that love which is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:7-8). If this and all other laws of God be kept, there will be 'no poor' among the people of God. This is a firm and unqualified statement; it presupposes that the godly man can keep the law to that degree necessary to receive this blessing. (479)

66. "Fifth, the unbelieving are excluded from the charity required by this law, both the interest-free loans and the termination of the debt. in the sabbatical year. The ungodly are already slaves to sin by nature; the true slave cannot be weaned from slavery, and it is foolishness to treat him as a free man. The godly are free men by nature; in times of distress, they need relief to regain their freedom. Freedom cannot be given to a man who loves slavery, and it is foolishness to attempt it by means of money. Regeneration is his only solution. (479)

67. "Sixth, on citing their deliverance from Egypt, God reminds His people that the purpose of His law is to deliver man into freedom, even as He delivered them from slavery to freedom. The purpose of the laws governing interest, and the purpose of the whole law, is man's freedom under God. To speak of deliverance from the law is to speak of deliverance from freedom. The law cannot be freedom to the sinner, but rather a sentence of death for his failure to keep it. The law-breaker is a man in slavery to his sin, a man unable to live in terms of freedom. The law therefore is a continual indictment and a death sentence to him, in that it underscores his impotence and his inability to rule himself: 'what I hate, that I do' (Rom. 7:15). To the redeemed, however, the law is the way of freedom. (479)

68. "Even a poor man's home has a sanctity which a editor cannot challenge. 'A man's house is his castle.' The source of is principle is Deuteronomy 24:10-13. The dignity of the borrower cannot be infringed by the man making the loan, whether with or without interest. The horror for degrading pawns is expressed in Job 24:9, 10. (480)

69. "Eighth, failure to restore a pledge or pawn when repayment is made robbery, and it is linked to pagan worship, adultery, theft, and murder, as is also exacting usury of a poor fellow believer. This appears clearly Ezekiel 18:10-13:

    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)

70. "The law here has been subjected to extensive attack by socialism and every form of totalitarianism. Statism assumes that its law rather A than God's regenerating power is the principle of freedom. As a result, it legislates against Biblical law. Modern "civil liberty" and "civil rights" legislation requires an equalizing of all men, so that an employer cannot hire or favor his fellow believers in distinction from unbelievers. The end result is the enslavement to the state of all men; the need for charity remains, but the state now makes itself the source of charity and the judge as to who shall receive it. An impersonal and political test replaces the test of faith. (481)

71. "An important aspect of Biblical law is its doctrine of responsibility. In a law previously considered, Exodus 21:28-32, it was established that animals are responsible for their actions, and an ox goring a person was sentenced to death. Animals are clearly held to be accountable. But responsibility also rests with the owner of the ox: if the ox's previous behavior indicated that it was a dangerous animal, and the owner 'hath not kept him in,' then the owner is also responsible. Responsibility is thus not a one-way street. Both owner and animal have a responsibility. This being case law, the reference is to the ox, and to more than an ox, as St. Paul made clear with respect to the law concerning the muzzling of an ox treading out grain (Deut. 25:4; I Cor. 9:9; I Tim. 5:18). (481)

72. "In terms of this, certain observations can be made. First, a parent is responsible for a child if nothing is done to curb, punish, or bring to judgment an irresponsible or delinquent child. If a man is responsible for the actions of an ox, he is certainly responsible for the actions of a delinquent son, if he "hath not kept him," if no attempt has been made to prevent the son from giving vent to his delinquency. (481)

73. "Second, the responsibility of the parent does not absolve the child of his responsibility. The goring ox is always guilty; the owner is only guilty if his negligence can be proven. The prior responsibility is always that of the acting party. The owner or parent can be an accessory to the crime only if he has been delinquent in his responsibility. (481)

74. "Third, transgression beyond a certain point ends responsibility. Thus, in the law of the delinquent son (Deut. 21:18-21), the parents' responsibility to provide for and protect their son ended with the son's delinquency; their duty and their moral responsibility then became denunciation of and separation from their son. (481)

75. "As previously noted, responsibility is not a one-way street. The responsibility of parents for a child ends when that child refuses to submit to the godly authority and discipline of the parents. (481, 482)

76. "The same is true of the responsibility of children for their parents. Again, it is not a one-way street. . . . Another illustration: a mother, a militant liberal or modernist in religion, made her home with her daughter and son-in-law, both devout, orthodox believers. The mother regarded the family's faith, church, and family worship with contempt, belittled it to her grandchildren and daily ridiculed her daughter for her "ignorant, reactionary" faith. Having denied openly the authority of her son-in-law, and having denied the faith of the family, she had forfeited any right to its care and protection. The family's patient suffering was not godly. Because responsibility is a two-way street, the mother had the duty to respect the family's faith, her son-in-Iaw's authority, and her daughter's devotion. (482)

77. "Thus, we may say that, not only does transgression beyond a certain point end responsibility, but fourth, if responsibility is maintained beyond that point it becomes a robbery. Where a juvenile delinquent is tolerated or protected, or a lawless parent allowed to be an affront to the family's faith and authority, the other members of the family are robbed of their due. Unconditional honor and service are due to God alone, not to man. St. Paul's admonition is 'Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour' (Rom. 13:7). No relationship between man and man can be absolutized. We have no absolute bond which ties us unconditionally to any man, either to obey or to love him. Marriage is dissolved by certain transgressions. The parent's duty to the child is nullified by his incorrigible conduct. The child's duty to the parent is limited by his prior obedience to God and the maintenance of God's law-order. In every human relationship, the only absolute is God's law, not man's relationship. (483)

78. "Fifth, not only does the absolutizing of a human relationship involve theft, in that the indulgence of a delinquent family or society member is the robbing of another, but it also involves theft God-ward as well as man-ward. It is an infraction of God's order to indulge evil. It involves robbing one person of his due in order to reward or indulge another, and this means also the violation of God's order to continue man's disorder. (483)

79. "To repeat again, responsibility is not a one-way street. If the ox, an animal of limited intelligence, is accountable for his acts, then every man in his station is also responsible. In every relationship, there is responsibility on every side by every person. (483)

80. "Modern man is hostile to responsibility; he replaces responsibility with sensitivity, sensitivity being defined as awareness of humanity. Thus, a rebellious nun of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Sisters defies authority and declares, 'These men (church officials) have no right to make a judgment when they don't know us.' (Terrence Shea, "A Community Divided. Dissent Nuns now Face a Bigger Split -- With Rome Itself," The National Observer, Monday, November 17, 1969, p. 14.) This nun had entered an order requiring authority but had refused to submit to it. Her freedom to leave and establish her own way of life was not in question. She denied the principle of any responsibility beyond that which she owed to herself. . . . It is a world, therefore, without responsibility. But a world without responsibility is a world of the dead. (483, 484)

81. "Von Rad's observation on Deuteronomy 5:19 is even more explicit:

    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)

82. "Kidnapping was punished by death. Its purpose was usually to sell a person as a slave in another country, where forcible slavery was the rule. In any case, whatever the purpose of kidnapping, this theft of a man's freedom was punished by death. The law specifically calls the kidnapper a thief:

    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)

83. "Third, the death penalty is mandatory for kidnapping. No discretion is allowed the court. To rob a man of his freedom requires death. The law does not have reference to wartime captives, however. (486)

84. "Fourth, Deuteronomy 24:7 forbids stealing a man by anyone who 'maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him.' The ARV mg reading is 'chattel' for 'merchandise,' and Young's Literal Translation reads 'hath tyrannized over him.' The meaning is cruelty, or cruel dealing; it refers to a depersonalized, brutal treatment of a man. Man must be treated as a man at all times; the penalties he suffers must be deserved penalties as a man, not penalties intended to degrade or destroy him as a man. The woman war captive had very specific rights under the law (Deut. 21:10-14); this relationship is strictly circumscribed by law as are all other relationships. (486)

85. "To return to the interpretation of theft as, essentially, the robbing of a man's freedom: false weights and measures, fraudulent money, and the destruction, impairment or theft of property all diminish or destroy a man's freedom. Property is basic to man's freedom. A tyrannical state always limits a man's use of his property, taxes it, or confiscates that property as an effective means of enslaving a man without necessarily touching his person. The interpretation of Noth and von Rad, I instead of altering the traditional interpretations of the eighth commandment rather reinforce them, in that theft is seen as more than the lawless seizure or destruction of property: it is at the same time an assault on man's freedom. (486)

86. "Neither the state nor any individual has any right to transgress this law. (487)

87. "The state does transgress this law not only by acts of confiscation, manipulation of money, and by taxation, but also by any and every undercutting of Biblical faith and education. State supported and controlled education is theft, not only in its taxation plan, but also by virtue of its destruction of public character, so that a godly society is turned into a thieves' market. The 1860's in the United States saw a decline of Christian faith, a rise of statist education, and the birth of social Darwinism. On Wall Street, Drew, Fiske, Gould and other men manipulated the market and corporations with radical contempt for morality. All the same, there was then still enough Biblical morality in the people at large to make possible some surprising evidences of public character. (487)

88. "This loss of public character robs every godly man of considerable peace and security. This theft is chargeable against the state and its anti-Christian schools. (487)

89. "The same lawless siege-living condition again prevails. By their destruction of godly education and of Biblical law, the nations have robbed their people of freedom, and the people, by their apostasy, have denied themselves freedom. The psalmist long ago observed, of those who attempt to build up a city and to safeguard it without God, that,

    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)

90. "To return again to the definition of theft as the stealing of freedom, the implication is clearly that property is freedom. A man is free if his person and his possessions are under his control. To the degree that his person is free, and to the degree that he has property free of hindrances, to that degree a man is free. The old word freeman has as one of its older meanings the member of a corporation, a property owner. The same is true of the word freeholder. The restriction of suffrage to property owners had as its basis in part the restriction of the vote to freemen. (488)

91. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's land mark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it" (Deut. 19:14). The law is cited also in Deuteronomy 27:17, Proverbs 22:28; 23:10; Job 24:2. (488)

92. "This law appears also in other ancient law codes. In Rome, removal of the landmarks was punishable by death. According to Calvin,

    . . . 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)

93. "The land laws required a sabbath rest for the land (Ex. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:1-11). The true meaning of the sabbath is rest, rather than worship, and a rest due to the land itself for the revitalizing of the earth. To deny a sabbath to the land is to defraud the land and to rob it of its due. Bonar commented on this law that 'It has been well said that by the weekly Sabbath they owned that they themselves belonged to Jehovah, and by this seventh-year Sabbath they professed that the land was His, and they His tenants.' (Bonar, Leviticus, p. 446) (489, 490)

94. "At the heart of the land law is the declaration, 'The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me' (Lev. 25:23). This law sounds especially strange in modern ears, for farm land has become, especially in North America, an area for speculative buying and selling, and the changes of ownership in some areas are very many. In most of the world, land has been and is still regarded as an inalienable family possession. Perhaps the most important resistance to communism and the communist empire has come, not from foreign countries, but from the long-suffering and stubbornly resisting peasants. The sale of land, and the confiscation of land, these are things the peasant refuses to accept: land is an inheritance which cannot be alienated. The peasant parties of the various European countries have been responsible groups and their leaders superior politicians and statesmen. Significantly, the International Peasant Union, with its stubborn resistance to the Soviet Empire, has as its emblem a green flag, the color of budding crops and of hope. (Henry ;C. Wolfe, "Peasants vs. Communism," Christian Economics, vol. XXI, no. 21, November 11, 1969, pp. 1,3.) (490)

95. "It is important therefore to analyze carefully the meaning, of Leviticus 25:23-28, and then its significance for our times. First, the general rule is that 'the land shall not be sold forever,' or literally, 'to annihilation, i.e., so as to vanish away from, or be for ever lost to, the seller.' (Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, II, 461) Sales were in effect leases, because no man had the right to alienate the Lord's land. (490)

96. "Just as obviously, God does intend that land laws give a stability to society. The absence of any land and property tax in Biblical law very definitely protects enduring ownership, whereas modern tax laws destroy ownership. To cite an example, in one city, a lovely area of very superior homes, from ten to twenty rooms, some of stone construction, became, in about 25 years, so heavily taxed, that the homes either had to be torn down to make way for apartments, or sold for use as dormitories. The ownership of these homes was made prohibitive to impossible by means of taxes. (492)

97. "In another area, taxes led to the deterioration of the area, as people moved out and homes were made into multiple dwellings. Taxes then went down, and others moved in, so that a 90 percent change in population occurred in less than ten years. People who had built there, expecting to remain for life, lost heavily. Taxation of property is a means of destroying property and is a form of robbery. (492)

98. "Taxation makes for the speculative use of land, and it destroys the stability of communities. There is a marked hostility today to the development and preservation of communities by religious and ethnic groups, and such hostility leads to the destruction of property. The destruction of the Boston West End Italian community by urban re-development and 'slum clearance' has been ably described by H. J. Gans. A family centered society, extensively policing and disciplining itself, was broken up by a 'slum clearance' project, because the area was coveted by planners. Both the taxing power, and the eminent domain exercised, are anti-Biblical. (For an account of the Boston West End, see Herbert J. Gans, The Urban Villagers) (492)

99. "Eminent domain is a divine right. It belongs to God alone. The 'right' of the state to eminent domain has no place in Biblical law. (See R.J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity, chapter on "Eminent Domain.") The state has a duty to protect man and his property, but not to tax or to confiscate it. (492)

100. "To summarize the Biblical tax laws in relationship to the ownership of land, the basic tax was the poll or head tax (Ex. 30:11-16), which had to be the same for all men. It was paid by men only, all men of age twenty and over. This tax was collected by the civil authority for the maintenance of the civil order, to provide all men with a covering or atonement of civil justice.
     "The tithe met the general religious and social needs of the community, education, welfare, and the like.
     "There was thus no land tax or property tax. Since 'he earth is the LORD'S and the fullness thereof' (Ex. 9:29, etc.), a land tax usurps God's rights and is unlawful. The purpose of Biblical law with reference to land is to ensure the security of man in his property; a property tax of any kind is a denial of this God-ordained security. (492, 493)

101. "Obviously then, a very real and material fulfillment is the only valid meaning here. Very generally, then, this meaning is as follows: First, the earth is the property of Jesus Christ, because He is the messianic King, the very Son of God as well as the royal Son of David.
     "Second, this King has the right of eminent domain and can do as He pleases with His property. He can turn out the ungodly and give the kingdom to those who obey Him. As Jesus declared, 'Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof' (Matt. 21:43). The purpose of His coming is to dispossess the present world leadership and to give His domain to His people. (495)

102. "Third, this means that the people of God must expect His kingdom, enforce its laws, and be faithful to the creation mandate to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it (Gen. 1:26-28). (495)

103. "Fourth, 'Through the Messiah, God will dethrone all enemies.' (William F. Arndt, The Gospel According to St. Luke p. 60) This plainly means total victory. The Magnificat clearly prophesies the total victory of Jesus Christ and the uprooting of the kingdom of man. The ungodly will be openly confounded and turned out, and the people of God equally openly brought to power and victory. Israel, the covenant people of God, shall be established in full power. (494, 495)

104. "Fifth,the law, 'Thou shalt not steal,' means also that man cannot rob God of His prerogatives, nor of His property. God casts the thieves out of His vineyard (Matt. 21:33-44) and grinds to powder His enemies. (495)

105. "The virgin birth therefore is the confirmation of God's law and an emphatic assertion of God's property rights over man and the earth. This miracle sounds the note of victory and restoration. (495)

106. "According to Leviticus 19:13, 'Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until morning.' Ginsburg noted,

     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).
     "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)

     "According to Clarkson, the law requires 'integrity in daily transactions' and honesty:

     '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)

107. "Gardiner brings us to the heart of this law. We have here a variation of the law against theft which is particularly directed against abuses of power, against oppression. Wages are to be paid promptly, at the specified and contracted time. In antiquity, payment was by the day; this meant that payment had to be made at the end of the working day, not the next morning. Failure to pay at the required time was thus a criminal act: it was theft. (497)

108. "This point is an important one. Many of the goals sought by modern liberals are a part of the Mosaic law, but with a significant difference. Biblical law required the just treatment of the laborer; it forbad fraud in foods, measures, money, and drugs. It required soil conservation, and much else, but not by administrative agencies. The criminal law forbad murder and theft, and all harmful drugs and foods were forbidden as destructive of life; fraudulent foods and goods were theft, and so on. In modern society, these offenses are too often the jurisdiction of arbitrary administrative agencies, as are labor problems, with the result that the criminal law is subverted and the very purpose of this law, the prevention of oppression, nullified. Moreover, because civil statute law has replaced Biblical law, men can be harmed and their lives shortened by dangerous drugs and sprays, and no crime exists unless a statute covers the specific offense. The combination of statute law and administrative law has created oppression, whereas the common law of Scripture gives man a principle of justice and a basis for a public understanding of law. (497)

109. "It is possible to defraud our neighbor by a variety of ways. His property can be alienated by expropriation, injury, restrictive legislation, and a variety of other means. A man's property, moreover, includes more than his land, home, material possessions, and money. A man has a property also in his ideas and inventions. Patents thus have a long history in Western culture as an outgrowth of the law against theft. The fact that patent laws have sometimes been very poor during that long history does not nullify their necessity. One of the reasons for the progress of Western civilization has been patent laws, whereby men could develop an invention and prevent the theft of their ingenuity. The Plant Patent Act of 1930 brought great progress to plant breeding and to nurserymen, in that it protected their investments of time and money. (Ken and Pat Kraft, Fruits for the Home Garden, p. 22) The present erosion of patent laws by judicial and administrative interpretations is a major threat to future progress. (497)

110. "Copyright laws have a complicated history, which is not our concern here, but they too rest on the premise that a man has a property right in his written works. (497)

111. "The Berkeley Version translates the first clause of this law, 'Neither use extortion toward your neighbor,' and the Torah translation reads it as 'You shall not coerce your neighbor.' The reference is to any I kind of oppression, legal or illegal, whereby another man is deprived of his property and possessions. Legal and illegal extortion tend to go hand in hand. When men are given to lawlessness, their society will also be lawless, as will be their laws and courts. In legal extortion or fraud, men use the agency of the state or its courts to conduct their robberies. Laws which discriminate against the poor because they are poor, or against the rich because they are rich, are laws of extortion. Laws which seek to equalize men's incomes are laws of extortion. (498)

112. "The basic intention of this law, since it deals with 'the faults of power,' is to legislate against the various forms of legalized robbery which so often accompany the control of the state by one class or another. The references to this law in Scripture are many. To cite a few, Proverbs 22:22,23 declares,

     Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate;
     For the LORD will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.

     "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)

113. "These latter statements give us an insight into the dimensions of Biblical law. Modern civil law foresees only civil enforcement. Biblical law requires civil enforcement and declares the certainty of ultimate divine judgment in history for failure to enforce His laws. Biblical criminal law is thus essentially religious law, and it has in mind two courts, the God-ordained courts of the social order, and the Supreme Court of Almighty God. (498)

114. "Ehrlich's comment is to the point:

     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)

115. "Eminent domain is an assertion of sovereignty, and in Scripture is ascribed to God alone. Because of His right of eminent domain, God brought judgment upon Egypt (Ex. 9:29). Because of His right of eminent domain, God moreover gave the law of the domain to Israel and declared it to be for all the earth and to all people, "for all the earth is mine" (Ex. 19:5). This affirmation is again stated in Deuteronomy 10:12-14:

     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,
     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.

     "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)

116. "The origins of eminent domain are in pagan kingship. The term, eminent domain, may originate in Grotius in 1625. Since then, it has had a significant development. More important, the concept did not originate with Grotius, and it became significant in Christendom only as natural law thinking was developed. Because the philosophy of natural law locates the ultimate law within nature, it therefore locates the sovereign power within nature also, with the result that sovereignty is ascribed to a temporal power. 'Sovereignty ('majesty,' 'supremacy,' etc.), in the theory of Natural Law, not only means a particular form or quality of political authority; it also means political authority itself, in its own essential substance.' (Otto Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500 to 1800) (500)

117. "First, the natural right of the state to eminent domain has been presupposed and the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution has been over-ruled in terms of it. There is no express delegation of eminent domain to the federal government in the Constitution, which means that it was prohibited to it, if the Tenth Amendment has any meaning. But a prior right, a law of nature, is assumed, after Grotius, which grants to every state a supposed right which no law or constitution can alter. Thus, although the U. S. Constitution does not grant eminent domain to the federal government, and although the act of cession of the District of Columbia to the federal government specifically required 'that the property rights of the inhabitants should remain unaffected,' this provision was held to have no application because of an absolute right on the part of the state. Second, this absolute right to eminent domain is derived from 'the right of sovereignty.' Again, this is an amazing assumption, in that the U. S. Constitution at no time uses the word 'sovereignty,' and, in fact, avoids it. The Puritan tradition reserved the word properly to God, and the separation of the United States from King George III made them especially hostile to any political revival of the concept of sovereignty. There is thus no 'right of sovereignty' envisioned in the U.S. Constitution of 1787-1791. (501)

118. "In terms of this claim to sovereignty and to eminent domain, no constitution and no law has validity, in that all legislation can be set aside by means of an assertion of a prior sovereign power in the state. No legislation can give citizens any immunity against a state wherein the courts maintain a doctrine of eminent domain, whereby every law is subject to rejection wherever the sovereign power of the state so decrees. (502)

119. "Quite logically, the federal income tax legislation calls what the taxpayer is allowed to keep an 'exemption' by the state, i.e., an act of grace. All a man's property and income, his artistic and commercial products, are, in terms of this claim to sovereignty and eminent domain, the property of the state, or at the least under the control and use of the state. (502)

120. "Only as the sovereign power and saving grace of the triune God are asserted and accepted can the claims of the state to be the source of sovereignty and grace be undercut and nullified. (502)

121. "Not surprisingly, the assertion of the sovereignty of the state, a humanistic concept, let in the 18th and 19th centuries to a counter assertion, the sovereignty of the individual, again a humanistic principle. (502)

122. "As against the natural law philosophies, Biblical law declares the sovereignty of the triune God and His sole right to eminent domain. All property is held in trust under and in stewardship to God the King. No institution can exercise any prerogative of God unless specifically . delegated to do so, within the specified area of God's law. The state thus is the ministry of justice, not the original property owner or the sovereign lord over the land. Accordingly, the state has no right of eminent domain. (504)

123. "The several laws on labor are as follows:

     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).
     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).

     "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)

124. "Second, God declares that His own supreme court is the proper court of appeals for labor. This is clearly a promise of judgment against thieves among employers and a thieving state which does not prosecute theft. (505)

125. "The strong sense of horror against the abuse of power by employers is apparent in Biblical declarations, and in Ben Sirach, who wrote, 'he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder' (Ecclus. 34:22). The word of the Lord through Jeremiah was one of judgment concerning such men: 'Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's services without wages, and giveth him not for his work' (Jer. 22:13). The word through Malachi is similar:

     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)

126. "Third, while the intent of the law is to promote the godly use of power, the honest treatment of workmen is not a favor to them but an obligation. St. Paul summarized the principle of the law succinctly: 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt' (Rom. 4:4), rendered by the Berkeley Version as 'Now, to a workman wages are not credited as a favor, but as an obligation.' Work done for us or by us is a debt which must be promptly paid as per contract, or it is theft and to be prosecuted as such. (505, 506)

127. "Fourth, the property owner is the sole governor of his property, and, provided he deals honestly with his workmen, can do as he pleases with his own. Thus, in the parable of the householder who hired men at different hours of the day, some in the morning, others at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, yet paid them all the same wages, the Lord declared,. 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?' (Matt. 20:15). The master had said to each, 'Whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive' (Matt. 20:7), and if some worked only one hour but received a full day's wages, no injustice was done to those who worked all day and received a full day's wages. The owner is in debt to the extent of the labor performed; control of his money and property, however, does not thereby pass to the workman. (506)

128. "Fifth, a principle with respect to pay is established in Deuteronomy 25:4 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn' or grain. This, of course, is the classic example of case law, a general principle of law illustrated by a minimal case. If the ox deserves his pay, his food, how much more so man? Therefore, 'the workman is worthy of his meat' (Matt. 10:10) or 'the labourer is worthy of his hire' (Luke 10:7). As St. Paul summarized it, in speaking of the pay of pastors,

     Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
     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).

     "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)

129. "On the non-economic side, it is clear that, while economics are not by-passed, the relationship of master and workman is not reduced to economics alone. The ox is not 'muzzled;' but the ox is also trained by the master and cared for by him. The apostles and ministers have more than an economic relationship to those whom they serve; the relationship is definitely not one of charity, but it is not merely economic. The law calls the workman 'thy neighbor,' indicating a social relationship as well as an economic one. The relationship of worker and employer cannot be reduced to the bare bones of economics, neither can it defy economics. Between the two, there is a vast world of personal relationships. The relationship of Japanese capital and labor has been called paternalistic and feudal, but it is an economically sound relationship and yet personal. Western humanism has depersonalized and atomized relationships with unhappy results. A variety of institutions and organizations now intrude into the relationship: statist administrative agencies, labor guilds and unions, and manufacturer's organizations. On top of that business has systematically depersonalized itself and widened the gap. (506, 507)

130. "The correlation between the nature of work and pay for that work is again asserted by St. Paul in I Corinthians 3:8, 'and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour;' or, in the Berkeley Version, 'each will receive his own pay in agreement with his particular labor.' It is asserted with respect to the ministers who served the Corinthian church, a non-economic ministry and yet with an economic principle appealed to by St. Paul. At no point is this economic principle abandoned, therefore, nor at any point is the fact of a personal relationship by-passed. The pressing question with respect to labor relations is the 'right to strike.' Does a moral right to strike exist? Hazlitt has raised questions with respect to it. (Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson) Read has denied that such a moral right exists: 'No person, nor any combination of persons, has a moral right to force themselves -- at their price -- on any employer, or to forcibly preclude his hiring others.' (Leonard E. Read, The Coming Aristocracy) As Read further states,

     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.
     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)

     "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)

131. "To cite one example: after World War II, a garment manufacturer built a plant in a community of retired people living on pensions. Inflation was forcing many wives and widows to look for work in a community with little employment opportunities. The manufacturer used political associations to make himself immune to various codes and inspections; he paid the minimum wage, had women lining up for jobs, and had ensured against union interference, so that no attempt was made to unionize his plant. Union members cited this as a classic case of a sweat-shop, geared to out-compete other manufacturers; for them, it "proved" the necessity for unionism. The manufacturer, however, was bankrupt and out of business in a very few years. Paying very poor wages, he could only employ those who could not get jobs I elsewhere. Morale was low, and workmanship very poor. Although using quality materials, his products were sub-standard and were soon turned down by all good retailers. If he trained a good employee, that employee moved on to a better job. Thus, an attempt to use politics and misfortune to take advantage of workers ended in a major financial disaster. (508)

132. "But let us examine the same problem morally. The attempt to use violence to force an employer to pay a desired non-economic wage is clearly robbery. It is a demand that either the employer rob himself or his customers, which can mean pricing himself out of the market. True, many employers are evil men, and many workmen are evil men also. Neither has the right to rob the other. If neither is violating a criminal law, there is no right on the part of either to call in the state. No individual has the right to attempt by force to convert or regenerate another man. (508)

133. "The false premise of contemporary policies is that by means of statist action utopia can be made a reality in a short time. Most people define utopia, moreover, in terms of what they want. Thus, the major U.S. business corporations, around 1900, were unable to withstand the competition of smaller rivals, and a marked decentralization was under way. Legislation on a national scale against 'monopolies' actually make monopolies possible, and it saved the day for 'big business.' (Gabriel Kilko, The Triumph of Conservatism, A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916) This concentration of economic power has been furthered by union monopolies. Supposedly, by these moves towards stabilization of the economic scene, utopia and prosperity are assured. In reality, stagnation and decay are guaranteed as the stabilization increases. Economic progress is not stabilization but a process of growth and destruction, competition and advance. Morally, no man can be converted by force, and 'conversion by violence' leads only to deeper divisions in a society, and to more unresolved conflicts. No more than frosting on a cake of mud will make it a pastry, will force resolve the problems of man and convert men into saints. (508, 509)

134. "The law, as its instrument, requires force, and force can be used legitimately where men violate the criminal law, where they steal, kill, and the like. The law can govern men's behavior where justice is violated, but it cannot change the heart of man. Even more, the law cannot be used to deprive a property owner of his property rights. We may agree that a man is evil, or that he is unpleasant to deal with, but unless that man violates the law, we cannot touch him. The law must allow us to recover property from a thief, but it cannot legitimately allow us to steal from that thief. When business and labor use the law I to steal from the consumer, or from one another, they are denying the rule of law in favor of the rule of might, of violence, for might apart from right is violence. Theft is theft, whether it be stealing from the rich, the poor, or the middle classes. The premise of pro-business legislation is this: It is right to steal for the sake of business, since business is good for the country. The premise of pro-labor legislation is: It is right to steal for the sake of labor, since the working man is poor, and also because he has many votes. The word of God is very clear: Thou shalt not steal. (509)

135. "A labor association may call itself Christian, but if it accepts the basic premises of unionism, it becomes morally compromised. Thus, the 'Principles and Practices of the Christian Labor Association of Canada' equates equalitarian principles with Scripture. Its second principle reads,

     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)

136. "The fifth principle reads,

     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)

137. "The fact that a worker is poor gives him no more right to steal than an employer's power gives him a right to defraud. Theft is not a privilege or right pertaining to any class of men.

138. "Every crime is an offense against God's law order, but certain acts are in particular singled out as especially offensive. One of these is the failure to tithe, which is described as robbing God (Mal. 3:8-12). (510)

139. "Before analyzing the implications of that fact, let us review the basic laws in this area. First, the basic civil tax in Scripture, the only tax, is the poll or head tax, paid by every man twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). The same tax was assessed on all men: "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less" (Ex. 30:15). All have the same stake in justice and therefore pay the same tax. (510)

140. "Second, no man is allowed to tax his own future by means of debt. The length of a debt is limited to six years (Deut. 15:1-4). No man has a right to mortgage his future, since his life belongs to God. (510)

141. "Third, the tithe is required of all men (Lev. 27:30-32; I Cor. 9:12-14; Num. 18:21-28; Mal. 3:8-12; Prov. 3:9-10; 11:24f.; Matt. 23:23; Heb. 7:1-8.) The regular tithe, ten percent of one's income (Deut. 14:22), was then tithed to the priests, who received ten percent of the tithe (Num. 18:21-28). Thus, the church tithe was a fraction of the total tithe. The poor tithe, paid every other year (Deut. 14:28; Amos 4:4), alternated with the rejoicing tithe (Deut. 14:22-26) on each six-year cycle out of seven. Thus, the combined poor tithe and religious tithe, averaged out to about 15 percent per year; some say 18 percent. Some of the regular tithe went for levitical services to worship, and to music; much of it went to general social financing, i.e., to godly education and a number of other related services. (511)

142. "If this be true, when then is the failure to tithe held to be robbing God? The answer is very clear: without the tithe, a totalitarian state progressively develops to play god over society. With the tithe the rule of society is restored to God through His ordained tax. A variety of agencies are created by the tithe to minister to the needs of godly society and to provide the needed social financing. The tithe belongs to neither church nor state: it belongs to God and is to be given by God's people to those who will administer it under God. Its social consequences have been ably described by Ewing:

     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)

143. "In view of the radical implications of the tithe for society, the failure of the church to teach its importance and meaning constitutes a form of robbing God as surely as does the failure to pay the tithe. (511)

144. "Another form of robbery against God is the failure to provide for gleaning. According to Leviticus 19:9-11, total harvesting is prohibited; 'the poor and stranger' are to gain some harvest from 'the corners' of the field or trees. Here again God has provided a means of social welfare whereby the state is by-passed. (511)

145. "Modern urban gleaning includes the work of Goodwill Industries. Even more, it once included all garbage and trash collections by private parties. Paper was bought and re-processed for use; rags were important for a variety of uses, garbage for hog feed, or for compost, metals for scrap, old bottles for re-use, and so on. Private enterprise made profitable use of trash, whereas today most cities, having made trash collections a socialist monopoly, have mountains of expensively collected trash accumulating and creating major problems. Not too many years! ago, trash collection was a business many immigrants entered as poor men and sometimes left as prosperous citizens. (511)

146. "Failure to observe the sabbath years with respect to the land means not only robbing the earth of its rest, but robbing God. Noth rightly observed, 'The Sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee have each in a special way the same theme -- the restitutio in integrum or restoration to an original state.' (Martin Noth, Leviticus,) Restoration is God's purpose and man is summoned to fulfill, not to impede it. All restoration looks ahead to the times of jubilee. The times of jubilee were once basic to Western man's hope and resounded in his song. However misguided, many Civil War soldiers sang songs looking to jubilee, in the belief that their struggle brought it closer. The jubilee is referred to in 'Marching Through Georgia,' 'Kingdom Coming,' and other songs of the period. (Irwin Silber (editor), Soldier Songs and Home-Front Ballads of the Civil War (512)

147. "Turning again to the tithe, how the early church understood the tithe is important, in that it is clear that they saw it as a binding law the purpose of which was broader than the church. Thus, The Apostolic Constitution says of the clergy,

     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)

148. "A pseudo-Augustinian sermon stated that refusing to tithe is simply theft:

     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