1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon
-
Upload
chalcedon-presbyterian-church -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon
-
8/12/2019 1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
In this message we continue
studying
in
the section of
Deuteronomy Which gives
application to the Eighth
Commandment: T/lOU
shalt
not
steal. n our last message we dealt
with two forms of theft outlined by
Moses in verses 15-18: The theft
of
freedom and theft from God. In this
message we will be skipping verses
19-20 with only a few brief
comments. This is because earlier
in
Deuteronomy
15
we dealt with the
idea involved in verses
19
and
20.
Although there it was given another
application
under
the fourth
commandment.
The law in tllese verses has a
clear application to both the
Fourth and Eighth
Commandments. The
Fourth Commandment
enforces a rest upon God's
people. By God's mercy, the
poor are given a rest from
financial
burden
; they are
not
obligated to pay interest
on loans of necessity, In
regard to the Eighth
Commandment regarding theft, tlle
demand that we not charge interest
on loans of necessity to fellow .
believers makes it elear that to do
so would be a form of theft in God's
sight. So as not to
be
unduly
redundant, we moveon to verses
21-25
to consider the prohibition
of
theft by word and by deed.
Theft by Word
When thou
shalt
vow
a
vow unto
the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack
to
pay it:
for the
Lord
thy God
will
surely require
it of
thee; and it
would
be
sin in thee.
But
i
thou
shalt
forbear
to vow
it shall be
no sin in thee. T/lat
which is gone out of thy lips
thou
shalt
keep and pelf rm; even a
ree
will
oifeling.
according
as
thou hast
vowed
unto the Lord
thy
God, which thou
hast promised with thy
mouth.
This
is one of those laws that does not
immediately strike us as having
relevance to the Eighth
Commandment. We can perhaps
more readily see the anti-theft
principle involved in verses 15 and
16. There Israel was told that it
was
not
necessary to return a
runaway slave that
had
escaped
from a foreign land to Israel.
People were
not
property as pagan
slave law insisted. Thus, to provide
asylum and freedom for a runaway
foreign slave was
not
a theft of
property. There was no moral
compulsion to return a foreign
slave to his kidnapped status.
We can rather easily discern the
theft-concept involved in verses
19-
20. For there we are told how to
~ e u t e r O n D t n l 1
23;21 25
Rev Kenneth
L
Gentry ]r.
loan money particularly what
not
to do with it
in
the particular
circumstance cited. Also in Deut.
24;7
we have an unmistakable
reference to man-stealing or
kidnapping. This makes Deut.
24;7
easily understood in terms of
the Eighth Commandment. But
how does the idea of theft come to
play in tlns case law currently
before us? [believe that as we
consider it we will discover there is
a very important sense in which
this law deals with theft. The
moral principle enunciated here
prohibits theft by word. Let us
notice the particulars of the case
cited to illustrate the matte r of
theft
by
word. First, let us notice
that in two unambiguous
statements Moses makes it clear
mat his illustration is
not
that of a
standing, mandatory obligation
before God.
In
verse 22 the Law
says, But
if thou
shalt forbear to
vow, it shall
be no
sin
in
mee. The
vow was not required.
In
the KJV
verse 23 reads; even a free-will
offering.
Modem
translations have
something along the lines of; you
have voluntarily vowed. The
situation presented is
of
a voluntary
vow to God.
t
is freely
entered
into
by
the person; God does
not
demand it. But, despite the
vow's
not
being required by God,
and its being voluntarily entered
into by human initiative, since it
has been made, it has become
required. And since it has been
made, God does expect its fmition:
The Lord thy God will surely require
it of thee (v. 21). The
command is clear; That
which is gone out of thy lips
thou
shalt keep and pe/form;
even
a free-will offeling,
according as
thou hast
yawed
unto the
Lord
thy God, which
thou hast promised with thy
mouth
v. 23).
As
material
and
sinful
creatures, we all have
materialistic tendencies within us.
We tend to think that if
we
do not
objectively steal some tangible good
or money,
then
we are not guilty of
breaking God's Eightb
Commandment
against theft. And it
is obvious that tbere is
no
command
in
the Ten
Commandments that says, Thou
shalt
not break thy
word.
But a proper understanding of
God's Law, and particularly of the
stmcture of Deuteronomy which is
based on the order of
me Ten
Commandments, sbould help us.
For
SUell
will lead us to understand
that our spoken word is a property
in God's sight. We are responsible
for
our
words. And especially if we
use our word to make a promise.
The idea thou shalt not break thy
word is involved in thou
slUJlt not
steal. Once uttered, a promised
vow is an qbligation, even if it was
March/April, 1997 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon * 7
-
8/12/2019 1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/3
not demanded
of
you. Second, not
only s th VQW expected
to
be
perform
ed
once uttered, put it is
even
a
matter of
theft iI l God's sight
if
its performance is
unduly
delayed. Verse
21
clearly says,
When
thou
s
halt vow a vow unto the
Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to
pay
it
... " Oftentimes
it
is the case
that
Christians make a vow that
they regret. And frequently either
the dread of its performance or
sheer laziness leads to an evil delay
of
its keeping. Perhaps with the
hope the vow will be forgotten. But
God
does
not
forget
our
vows -
whether
made
to
Him Cas
here)
or
to anyone. Verse 21 goes on
to
say:
-
such
as its non-aggression
treaties made
with
nations
it
later
conquers .
When
we present our
children to the
Lord
in
baptism,
parents
take vowS obligating
themselves to train the children in
the nurture and admonition of the
Lord. Too often this was mere
outward
show. It means absolutely
nothing -- they think When we get
married, we lake so
lemn
vows
obligatingus to uphold our
commitments in
marriage. Too
often even Christians see marriage
as a chain inhibiting their freedom,
and break
lhe
vows. But God's Law
is clear: the Lord thy
God
will surely
re
quire it
oj thee. "Third,
and
what is
more,
our
Lord Jesus interprets the
under oath n
Matt, 26;63ff. May
we say that He sinned in that? (3)
Elsewhere Paul and others allow
themselves to
be put under
.oath.
And the Word
of God
never
condemns them for it .
WhatJesus
is
responding against here is the
Pharisaic misapplication of the law
of
vows
and
oaths. '
The
Pharisees
wo
uld
play
with
words. o
circumvent the truth. They would
find mental reservations and tricks
of
words
apd
phrasing
in
order to
void their oaths. Jesus warned
that even their
common
words
should be their bonds and that they
were sinful for obscuring the tn,lth
in their speech.
This is
why in
verse 20
of
Matthew 5 .He warns
Jar the Lord thy God will surely
require
it
oj
thee; and
it
would be
sin in thee.
With
the decline
in
the vitality
of
Christian
faith
,
there has
been
a decline in
the
sanctity of
vows. Ecclesiastes
5: Iff warns of su
ch:
Keep thy
Joot
when thou goest
to
the house
oj
God,
and
be
more
ready to
Vows Ire solemn
commitmenls. A.nd
vow.s to God
(Ire oj the highest order oj
solemn COflllllitments."
that
our
righteousness
must
exceed that
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees. Christians, letus
hold in high regard
our
vows
before the Lord. God expects
it. Let
US not
be thieves
in
word. Let
us
follow our
master, Jesus Christ, and let
our word by
Qur oath, even in
ear,
than
to give the s
acrifice
oj
Jools:
Jar
they consider not that they do
evil.
Be
not
rash
with thy mouth, and
let
not thine heart
be hasty to
utter
any
thing
beJore
God:
Jar
God is in
heaven, and
thou
upon
earth:
therefore
let
thy words
beJew ....
\hen
thou
vow es t a vow unto God, d
r
not
to
p y
it; Jar
he hath no pleasure
in
Jools:
pay
that
which
thou
hast
vowed.
Better
is. t
that
thou shouldest not vOw,
than that thou
shouldest
vow
and lOt
pay
. Vows are
solemn
commitmentS. And vows to God are
of
the
highest
order
of
solenm
commitments. When we join a
church or
become communicants,
we
take
vowsCsuch as
we
in
the
PCA administer) promising to
attend
church and support it. But
there are those
who
absolutely .
consider such vows non-binding.
They infrequentl
y,
seldom,
or
even
never
come
to
worship God They
view sUch solemn vows as the
Soviet
Union
views
solemn
treaties -
laW
even more vigorously than we
might expect. In Matthew Jesus
says that He came not
to
destroy
the Law but to fill
it
up, that is, to
properly interpret
it.
He
then
teaches
in
Matt. 5:33-
37
:
Again y
e
have
heard that
it
hath been
said
by
them
oj old
time, Thou shalt
n
ot
Jorswear thyself, but
shalt
perform
unto the Lord thine oaths: But
I
say
unto
you, swear not
at
all;
neither
by
heaven;
Jor it
is
God's throne:
Nor by
the
earth;forit
is his Jootstool: neither
by
Jerusal
e
m; Jar
it
is
the
city
oj
the
great King ... But let
your
communication be, Yea , yea; Nay,
nay:
Jar
whatsoever
is
more
than
these
cometh
oj evil." Here
we must
understand
that He was
not
fo r
bidding
vows and oaths. This
is
obvious for several reasons: (1)
Vows and oaths are a part of God's
moral Law
which
He
had jus
t said
He
had
not come to destroy. (2)
Later during His trial He is
brough
t
18 t THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon,t March/April, 1997
common,
everyday speech.
Theft by Deed
In
the Middle Ages
Roman]
esuit
priests created
an
ethical principle .
that stated
that
"the ends justify the
means." That is, they taught that
if
you
had
good end in
mind,
then it
did not
matter
what
means you
might
employ in
the securing
of
that good end. They sought
to
justify the
poor in
their stealing
food from the rich: .What they
did
was
undermine
biblical moralily
and
e t h i ~
By their influence and
error they set the stage for secular
humanism
s
situation
ethics."
Situation ethics says that there are
no fundamental moral laws that
govern
us
.
We
are only to be
governed
by
the situation we are in.
There is
no
absolute right
and
wrong. Our circumstances
determine the rightness or
wrongness
of our
actions. Situation
-
8/12/2019 1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
ethics is extremely widespread
today, even among Christians who
seek to justifY themselves in sin. Bu t
the second case law we will
consider in this message deals very
pointedly with situation ethics, as
well as with property rights a
nd
compassion. Of
CQurse,
by the very
fact that it is a law, it deals a fatal
blow to any suppos ed Christian
situation ethics. Because as Joseph
Fletcher, the
fa
ther oftnodern .
situation ethics,
has
stated: Law
ethics is the enemy.
Nevertheless, even beyond that
truth, this law directly confronts
situation ethics. But it does so in a
very important and humane way.
Let us look carefully at the law in
verses 24 and 25: When thou comest
into
thy neighbor
's
Vineyard, then
thou
mayest eat
grape
s thy fill
at
thine
own
.
pleasure; but thou
sh
alt 11 t put any
il1
thy
vessel. When thou comest into
the .
standing corn
of
thy neighbor, then
.
thou mayest
pluck the ears
with
thine '
hand; but thou
shalt
not
move
a
sickle
unto thy neighbor's
standing corn.
L
et
us notice several important
implications from this passage.
First, contrary to communism and
socialism, this law allows for private
property rights. Clearly the
man
in
view has ownership
of
his field
and
its produce - conU-ary to
communism. His economic rights
are protected by implication, the
field is said to be
thy
neighbor'S
field. He is also protected
by
direct
statement: Of the grapes in the
man's vineyard, the passer-by
is
warned tllOu
shalt
not put any in thy
vessel. Of the com in his field, the
stranger is cautioned: thou shalt not
move
a skkle
unto thy
neighbor's
standing
com.
The man
who
planted the crops owns tl1em. They
may not be harvested by another.
Thus, the passer-by may not fill a
vessel to haul off grapes, or bring a
sickle to cut quantities of
com
.
Biblical Law is fundamentally
capitalistic. But Biblical economics
is a capitalism
impr
egnated
by
Christian values and concerns.
Notice that: Second, the godly field
owner is to have a good-neighborly
concern
and
compassion for others.
The illustration presented
is of
a
passer-by on a trip.
Under
God's
moral law, such a traveler has the
moral right to
quench
his hunger
while traveling
down th
e road. (We
must remember that there were no
motels on every corner and travel
was laborious and even dangerous
back then.) To do so was not
tantamount to theft. God's Law
took the difficult circumstances into
accounl. It requires compassion
and neighborliness
on
our part
toward those in need. Furthermore,
God's people must recognize where
their
produce
comes from. Their
production was a direct result of
God's mercy ,illd compassion
toward them. Deuteronomy 28:3-
5,8,
11
states: Blessed shalt thou
be
in the
city
.and
blessed shalt thou.
be in
.
field. Blessed shall
be the fruit of
thy body,
mid
the fruit of thy ground,
and the fruit of
thy
cattle, the inc rease
of thy kine, and the J10cks of thy sheep.
Blessed shall be thy
basket
and thy
store....
The
Lord
shall command the
blessing
upon thee in
thy storehouses,
and in
all
that thou settest
thine
hand
unto
;
and
he s
hall bless
thee
in
the
land
whkh the Lord thy
God
giveth
thee
...
And the
Lord
shall make
thee
plenteous in
goods,
in thefruit of thy
body,
and in
the fruit of
tlly cattle
,
and
in the fruit of
thy ground, in
the
land
which the
Lord
swore unto thy fathers
to
give thee.
All that God's people
have, they must recognize comes
from God. Theologically they must
understand that evelY
good
and
pelfect
gift
cometh
from
above
Oms.
1:17). They
must
recognize that
th
ey have nothing but
what they
received l Cor. 4:7).
Consequently, even though they
have private property rights
protected by God's Law , they still
have fundamental moral obligations
before God to
do
good to
th
eir
neighbors. Thus, this law protected
both the property rights
of
the
farmer, while at the same time gave
moral protections to
the hungry
traveller.
It
should be noted that no
civil sanctions
or
punishments are
meted out
to
the farmer who
refuses
o
be merciful. Su
ch
was
not a matter of stale
concern
. t
was a matter
of
religious
concern
.
For men to justify plundering the
wealthy as a pattern
of
life for the
po
or, is for them
to
a
ttempt
to call
evil good and
good
evil.
God
warns
against such in Isaiah 5:20. The
poor have no civil right to the
goods of the wealthy. However, the
wealthy do have a moral obligation
to do good with the wealth God has
given them as a trust. To not do so
is a form, not of material theft,
but
moral theft.
Conclusion
The world in whicb man dwells
has two dimensions: the material
dimension and the spiritual
dimension. God's Law has two
dimensions: material and spiritual.
Not only does God's
Law
prohibit
the theft
of
material goods, but also
theft
in
the spiritua l realm. When
we make vows either to and before
God, we are obligated to keep
them. fwe do not
then
are we
robbing God through words. Not
only so, but we must understand
that in the spiritual re
ahn
are moral
obligations that move us , even
when
there are no civil obligations
that may do so. The state should
not be allowed to force us to assist
the poor. That simply is
not
the
task of state government. God is
He who forces us to
do good
with
he wealth that He gives. The poor
may not steal from the rich. But
neither may the rich spiritually steal
from the poor
by
neglect
of
compassion and du t
y.
March/April 997 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 9