Ron Paul, Gary North and Moses

    Recently a frequent commenter on our blog mentioned Christian Theocracy movements, and we responded, in part, that we were familiar with the writings of some of the leaders of the movement, and mentioned in particular Gary North. As Providence would have it, at about the same time an atheist blogger at Patheos, Libby Anne ( Love, Joy, Feminism) wrote a blog post entitled "The Bizarre Libertarian / Christian Reconstructionist Alliance." She noted that the leading libertarian politician Ron Paul has started his own home-school curriculum, and that the curriculum director is none other than the very same Gary North!
    For those not familiar with Mr. North, he is an economist who became closely associated with the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, one of the founders of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, even marrying Rushdoony's daughter. The basic premise of the movement is that the Old Testament Law is still valid today and should be applied to American society. As Libby Anne pointed out, this means, among other things, stoning adulterers and homosexuals.
    How is it possible, Libby Anne wants to know, to combine libertarianism with theocracy? "I'm having a hard time reconciling the libertarian ideas of freedom from government interference, legal marijuana, etc., with a Christian theocracy based on the Old Testament legal code. Something extremely strange is going on here."
    Something strange indeed. But it should come as no surprise that Gary North is working with Ron Paul. He was first hired by Paul as a research assistant when Paul was first elected to Congress in 1976. The problem, rather, is a jarring disjunction between North's economic philosophy and his professed attachment to biblical ideals.
    Libby Anne tells us that she can "understand how people combine Christian social conservatism with libertarian positions on economics . . ." If she does, she understands more than we do. Rather, we think that North has misunderstood biblical economics.
    North has been committed to the "Austrian School" of economics right from the very beginning. The problem is that when he became associated with Rushdoony he read laissez-faire capitalism back into the Bible. It was Vienna thinly disguised as Jerusalem; Ludwig von Mises masquerading as Moses. But they are actually quite different.
    The real Moses actually had quite a lot to say about economics. While it is true that an essentially free market was allowed to operate, and no provision was made for an elaborate welfare system run by the state, the idea of the private ownership of property was significantly qualified. Every seven years debts were to be forgiven and slaves were to be freed, and every fifty years agricultural land was to be returned to its original owners. Farmers were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor could come in and take what they needed. The underlying principle in all of this was "you shall love your neighbor as yourself: (Lev. 19:18; NKJV). ". . . you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs" (Dt. 15:7,8).
    Rushdoony, in his landmark work The Institutes of Biblical Law (Craig Press, 1973), insisted that all true law, if it is to be valid and binding, must ultimately flow from the Creator Himself. He rejected natural law concepts and denied the state the power to enact positive law. ". . . revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society" (p. 10). Yet Rushdoony was capable of using creative exegesis to explain passages that seemed to with his free-market assumptions.

Rousas J. Rushdoony

    In his treatment of the Eighth Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal"), Rushdoony begins with a discussion of "dominion." The concept of private property is rooted in the fact that God created man to have dominion over the earth. Thus, Rushdoony says, "Man has a God-given urge to dominion, to power" (p. 450). He then goes on to discuss theft, which he defines as "taking another man's property by coercion, fraud, or without his uncoerced consent" (p. 452). This, he says, would include "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 pseudo-moral cover is given by legal enactment."
    But what about those laws in the Mosaic code that require the redistribution of land every fifty years? According to Rushdoony, they have no applicability outside of Palestine. He then concludes by saying that "The purpose of Biblical law with reference to land is to ensure the security of man in his property . . . "(p. 493). Thus it became possible for North to meld the "Austrian School" of economicsd with a professed regard for biblical law.
    They are, in fact, fundamentally different. In a secular legal system there is no sense of moral accountability to a transcendent Supreme Being. Hence the emphasis tends to fall on property rights. What's mine is mine, and I get to keep it. One of the chief functions of the state is to protect my property. But if one looks at human society from the standpoint of God, the Supreme Law-Giver, humanitarian concerns become more important. It is unconscionable that some should starve while others live in luxury. God is less concerned with helping millionaires keep their millions than He is with meeting the basic needs of the poor. "A father of the fatherless, a defender of widows, / Is God in His holy habitation" (Psalm 68:5). Granted, there was no elaborate state-run social welfare system; rather the moral burden for caring for the poor rested directly on property owners, usually through extended family relationships.
    Libby Anne is right: there is a contradiction between libertarianism and theocracy. But it does not appear that Ron Paul has fatally compromised his values. The proposed curriculum says little about Theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism. It does not even contain a Bible curriculum as far as we can see. But it says a great deal about free market economics. It is Gary North who has made the fatal concessions. We do not think that either Ron Paul or Ludwig von Mises pretended to be biblical in their approach. The problem is that neither is Gary North.

Other blog posts you might enjoy:
Wealth Management 
Capitalism and the Sabbath 
The Social Agenda of the Tea Party 
Capitalism and Christianity (click here, here, and here)
Jesus and the Torah 

“An Eye for an Eye”

    "I don't get mad; I get even." We have all felt that way at one time or another, and it does seem only fair. After all, what is wrong with insisting on our rights?
    Jesus continues His discussion of the Jewish Torah by examining the principle of retributive justice. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'" (Matt. 5:38; NKJV). The law actually did say that, in several different places in fact: Ex. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-22; and Deut. 19:21. It was a well established principle of law, and seemingly a matter of simple justice.
    What problem, then, could Jesus possible have had with such an obvious truth? The answer goes back to what we have said earlier about the difference between civil and moral law. Civil law is meant to serve a specific function: it involves the way order is maintained in society by the civil authorities. Moral law, however, involves our duties and obligations towards God. Civil law regulates external conduct. Moral law touches the heart and mind. The difficulty here is that the Torah embodies both civil and moral law at the same time. The problem is that during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry the rabbis had focused on the civil aspects of the law, sometimes to the neglect of the underlying moral precepts. The present instance is a case in point.
    The passages cited above were addressed primarily to the civil magistrates and involved the administration of justice. In meting out punishment the rule was strict equity: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. A whole body of case law was built up around this principle and was eventually codified in the Mishnaic tractates Baba Kamma, Baba Metzia, Baba Bathra, and Sanhedrin.
    It was tempting to think that we are entitled to stand up for our rights and demand retributive justice, but we are wrong to think that way. What the moral law requires is quite different. "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:18).
    And so it is that Jesus said, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two" (Matt.5z;39-41). If we love our neighbors as ourselves, if we genuinely car about his wellbeing, we will not seek vengeance but rather reconciliation. The point is to win him, not the case at law.
    And so it is that Jesus sums up His argument by saying, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away" (v. 42). And here Jesus is but echoing the words of the Torah itself: "If there is among you a poor man of your brethren . . . you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs . . . You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him . . .your shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land" (Dt. 15:7-11).
    God requires the civil magistrate to administer the law with strict equity and justice, but He requires us as individuals to practice kindness and compassion in all our dealings with others. The civil law is a concession to human weakness; to practice love is divine.

Jesus on Oaths and Vows

    Jesus next moves on to the subject of oaths and vows. When He says "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord'" (Matt. 5:33; NKJV), He is summarizing the contents of two entire tractates in the Mishnah, one dealing with oaths (Shebuoth) and the other with vows (Nedarim).. The tractates are based, in fact, on actual statements contained in the Torah. False swearing is condemned in Lev. 19:12: "And you shall not swear by My name falsely . . . ," and the duty to keep vows is inculcated in Deut. 23:21: "When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it . . ."
    The rabbis of Jesus' day, however, interpreted these passages in their characteristically legalistic way. The two tractates are filled with detailed discussions about whether one has or has not sworn falsely, or which vows are binding. For example, in Shebuoth 4:13 we are told that if we swear by any of the names of God we are "liable," but if we swear by heaven and earth we are not liable. One gets the impression that in first century Judea and Galilee oaths were rather commonplace. The challenge facing the rabbinical scholars was sorting out which oaths were valid and which ones were not. An example of their reasoning can be seen in a New Testament passage – Matt. 23:16-22.
    This, however, misses the whole point of the passages in the Torah. What God condemns is falsehood, regardless of what form of wording is used. "These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue . . . A false witness who speaks lies . . ." (Prov. 6:16-19).
    Our reputation for honesty should be sufficient to render oaths unnecessary. People should be able to take us at our word. One commentator, William Hendriksen, made this astute observation: " It is characteristic of certain individuals who are aware that their reputation for veracity is not exactly outstanding that the more they lie the more they will also asset that what they are saying is 'gospel truth'" (comm. ad loc.). And so Jesus says, "But let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no,' 'no.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one" (v. 37).
    Lying is one of the most insidious of all sins. It is tempting because it often looks like an easy way out of an embarrassing or difficult situation. But it is destructive because it undermines trust and destroys relationships. A person who has been lied to feels betrayed and will find it difficult to trust the person who lied to him ever again. And without a basic level of honesty and integrity commerce is impossible. Lying is the very opposite of how God expects us to conduct our relationships with each other. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" (Sir Walter Scott).

Jesus on Divorce

If lust is tantamount to adultery, divorce is likewise problematical, for it destroys a marriage altogether. And so Jesus considers the problem of divorce next.
    He begins by saying "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce'" (Matt. 5:31; NKJV). This is a direct reference to a passage in the Torah which reads, in part, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house . . ." (Dt. 24:1). The passage goes on to say that if she remarries, and then the second marriage ends through either death or divorce, then she may not remarry the first husband.
    The rabbis of Jesus' day were not exactly sure what to make of this passage. A whole tractate in the Mishnah ("Gittin" – "Bills of Divorce") is devoted to the subject, most of it with questions of procedure: the formula used, the attestation, the method of delivery, even the materials on which the bill could be written. It is not until the very end of the tractate that we have even a brief mention of the grounds for divorce, and here we see an interesting difference of opinion. The tractate mentions three different schools of thought which differed with each other over which word in the text to emphasize. The school of Shammai put the emphasis on the word "uncleanness" and argued that unchastity was the only grounds for divorce. The school of Hillel, on the other hand, noted that the text is inspecific (it could be rendered "because of any foulness" – cf. Latin Vulgate) and argued that a husband could divorce his wife for something as trivial as ruining a meal. One rabbi put the emphasis on the phrase "she finds no favor in his eyes" and argued that divorce was justified if the husband found someone who was better looking than his wife! (Gitt. 9:10).
    Jesus took the side of Shammai. "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matt. 5:32).
    Jesus elaborated on His position in a later discussion He held with some of the Pharisees, a party of Jewish rabbis noted for their strict interpretation of the Torah. As recorded in Matt. 19:3-12, the Pharisees asked Him directly about the grounds of divorce. Jesus answered by pointing to the account of creation in Genesis, noting that it implies that marriage is a permanent, binding, heterosexual relationship. His conclusion? ". . . what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:6). Marriage is for keeps.
    The Pharisees then asked the obvious question about the passage in Deuteronomy: "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (v. 7). In reply Jesus made a significant observation about the Torah: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (v. 8). In other words, He made a distinction between the civil and the moral law. To the extent that the Torah functions as a civil law code, it made concessions to human nature. In real life marriages fail. There has to be an orderly way to dissolve them. Therefore, without explicitly sanctioning divorce, the Torah accommodated it by providing for a certificate of divorce. "But from the beginning it was not so." As the passage in Genesis demonstrated, it was never the intention of the Creator that marriages should be dissolved. The sanctity of marriage is a basic moral principle. And so Jesus repeats what He had said earlier: divorce is permissible only in cases of infidelity.
    The implications for society are far-reaching. The family is the basic social unit – the place where children are socialized and where their physical needs are met. The stability of the family, in turn, depends on the sanctity of marriage. Divorce rips apart the bond that holds the family together. Divorce is traumatic precisely because the marriage bond is so intimate and exists on so many different levels – physical, emotional, and economic.
    Seen in this light no-fault divorce was a catastrophic mistake. It had the effect of fundamentally altering the character of marriage. Instead of being a sacred union between a husband and a wife, marriage became a mere legal technicality, a simple contract between two parties that could be terminated at any time by mutual consent. Few people in America today expect a marriage to be permanent, and if it is not permanent, there is less incentive to make it work. The result is that today one out of every two marriages in the US ends in divorce.
    There is no question that marriage can be a difficult and challenging proposition. To make a marriage work requires wisdom, patience, understanding, and self-sacrifice. Our modern "me first" mentality is the reason so many marriages fall apart. But the root cause is sin – our stubborn, self-centered nature. Divorce, then, represents a moral failure.

Adultery

    The "sexual revolution" of the 1960's radically changed the social mores of America. It has had a profound impact on family life that is likely to be felt for generations to come. But was it a mistake? Did we lose something that we cannot recover?
    By the standards of Jesus' teaching the answer is "yes," it was a mistake. After discussing murder and anger, Jesus went on in the Sermon on the Mount to consider the subject of adultery. It is here that modern society is likely to feel the enormous distance between us and Christianity. To understand what Jesus was talking about, we must understand marriage; and in modern society marriage has become virtually a meaningless concept.
    No fault divorce turned marriage into a mere legal technicality. A "marriage" can be terminated at any time for any reason as long as both parties agree to it. One out of every two marriages in the U.S. ends in divorce, and many younger couples are dispensing with the formality altogether. Cohabitation and out-of-wedlock pregnancies have become common and accepted. And now we have "gay marriage," an attempt to cover a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle with a thin veneer of respectability. "Marriage" has become something of a sick joke.
    According to the Bible human sexuality is not an accident of nature, the result of a blind, purposeless natural process called "evolution." Rather, it is something created by God. It exists by design. When God created the first human being, Adam, He said, "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make a helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:8; NKJV). God then created the first woman, Eve, and brought her to Adam. The text adds the explanatory comment: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (v. 24). The Hebrew word translated "be joined" means "to cling, cleave, be close to." In this particular context it implies an intimate relationship marked by affection and loyalty. In marriage a husband and wife are bound to each other both physically and emotionally.
    Adultery is the act of unfaithfulness to one's life partner. It is an assault on the most intimate of all relationships. The victim feels betrayed, degraded and humiliated. The family is destroyed. The children are liable to bear the emotional scars for many years to come. Marriage is a relationship that was never meant to end, and for this reason adultery is one of the most heinous of all crimes. The Torah, in fact, prescribed the death penalty for it (Lev. 20:10).
    Here again Jesus internalizes the principle. "But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28). The very desire to commit adultery is itself a sinful impulse. What Jesus is doing here is interpreting the Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery") in light of the Tenth Commandment ("You shall not covet your neighbor's house; You shall not covet your neighbor's wife," etc. . . .) The words "lust" and "covet" mean basically the same thing (The Greek version uses the same word in both passages). And here once again Jesus is echoing the words of the Old Testament. Solomon warned against falling prey to the seductress: "Do not lust after her beauty in your heart . . ." (Prov. 6:25), and Job could say "I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?" (Job 31:1). Job then went on to say, "For what is the allotment of God from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is it not destruction for the wicked, And disaster for workers of iniquity?" (vv. 2,3). Jesus, in turn, takes note of the same fact: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:29).
    The marriage bond between a husband and wife is sacred. Upon this the most intimate of all human relationships, and the stability of society, rest. Anything that would undermine that relationship is just plain evil. Herein lies the present peril of Western society.

You Shall not Murder

Jesus then goes on to discuss particulars, starting with the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder." When He says "You have heard that it was said of old . . ." (Matt. 5:21; NKJV), the reference is to an idea stated in a tractate in the Mishnah entitled "Aboth" ("Fathers"). Aboth describes a chain of tradition that allegedly extends from Moses through a long succession of rabbis down to a certain Judah the Patriarch, who was the apparent compiler of the Mishnah in the Second Century A.D. The Pharisees in particular relied on this oral tradition to supplement their understanding of the Torah.

    What was said to "those of old" was "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment." The first clause is, of course, the Sixth of the Ten Commandments, and is in the Bible. The second clause ("whoever murders will be in danger of the judgement") is a brief synopsis of the treatment of the subject in the Mishnah. The tractate Sanhedrin discusses a number of different scenarios and makes a pronouncement on each. "If a murderer had struck his fellow with a stone or with [an instrument of] iron, or if he had pressed him down into the water or into the fire and he could not arise out of it, and he died, he is culpable." But, "if he pushed him [and he fell] into the water or into the fire and he could arise out of it, and yet he died, he is not culpable" (Sanh. 9:1).

    But according to Jesus this misses the whole point. While the Sanhedrin obviously had to make decisions about the individual cases that came before it, what was largely missing in the legal discussions was the intent of the Law. The underlying principle of the law concerning murder was stated in Lev. 19:17,18: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." In other words, the intent of the precept is not simply that we should avoid certain circumstances that might lead to the death of the victim, but rather that we should have an active concern for his wellbeing. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

    Jesus draws attention to the underlying motive of murder, which is anger. "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment . . ." (v. 22). While man looks on the outward appearance, God looks on the heart; and from God's perspective, the difference between the heart of a murderer and the heart of a person with "anger management issues" is virtually indistinguishable. If the only reason we do not act on our impulses is because we fear civil punishment, that hardly makes us moral persons. An evil desire springs from an evil heart, and the heart lies fully exposed to God's view.

    But it is not just a matter of escaping the censure of the civil authorities. It is ultimately God with Whom we have to do. Jesus reminds His listeners "Whoever says 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire." "Gehenna" (from the Hebrew for "The Valley of Hinnom") was a valley just outside of Jerusalem where children were once sacrificed by fire to the pagan deity Moloch. It was a vivid symbol of eternal punishment. The implication here is that we are not just dealing with whatever punishment the civil authorities might mete out. Rather we face an offended God Who is able to punish us in hell.

    Jesus then tells us what we must do. If we are making an offering at the altar at the temple, and we remember that we have offended someone, before we proceed with the offering, we should go and seek reconciliation with the offended brother, and then return to offer our gifts. In other words, the offering means nothing if our conduct is not right. Here Jesus is echoing the thought of Psalm 51:16,17). "For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and contrite heart – These, O God, You will not despise."

    In the sight of God a shallow religious formalism will not do. What God wants to see is a religious profession backed up by a right attitude and right behavior. It is the way we live that counts, not what we say. The danger of our time is to keep up the pretense of religious profession, while accommodating our lives to the secular and materialistic spirit of the age. We are deceiving no one but ourselves.

Jesus and the Torah

One of the most perplexing issues surrounding Christian ethics has to do with the relationship between Jesus' teachings and the Old Testament law. In Matt. 5:21-48 Jesus presents six antitheses in which He seems to be breaking with Jewish tradition ("You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . ."). Yet in the immediately preceding verses Jesus appears to be saying the exact opposite. He seems to be arguing for the permanence of the law.

    To understand what Jesus is saying it is necessary to understand the nature of the "Torah" or the Old Testament law. Ancient Israel was unique. It did have a code of civil laws much like most other nations in the ancient Near East, but what made Israel different was its distinctive worldview. Unlike the polytheism of the surrounding nations, the national creed of Israel posited a single, eternal, self-existent and all-powerful Deity, Who created everything else out of nothing. Israel was God's chosen people, bound to Him by a covenant. This means that the Torah was much more than just a civil law code; it was also a theological statement defining the relationship between Israel and God.

    By Jesus' time, however, there was the natural human tendency to think of morality in sociological terms. People's sense of right and wrong was largely determined by the mores of society. In the case of First Century Judaism the determining factor was often the Sanhedrin, a court that sat in Jerusalem and heard cases under Jewish law. The inevitable tendency of such a court was to focus on the civil aspects of the Torah. One was guilty ("liable to punishment") if he did thus and so, and was innocent if he did not. The determinations of the Sanhedrin were eventually codified in a Second Century called the Mishnah. The Mishnah, in turn, forms the basis for modern day rabbinical Judaism.

    What was all too easily forgotten in the midst of all the judicial activity were man's moral and religious obligations toward God. And it is at this point that Jesus enters the picture. Standing squarely in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets,, Jesus issued a ringing call for righteousness as a right attitude of heart before God. It is a call for justice and humanity in all our dealings with our fellow human beings. It is also a terrifying indictment of human society as it currently exists.

    Jesus made it very clear that His intent was not to set aside the law, but rather to fulfill it (v. 17). The law is a reflection of God's own righteous and holy character. As such it is permanent; it will never change. What Jesus did was to keep the law perfectly Himself, and to offer Himself up as a sacrifice for sins so that we could be forgiven even as He upholds the majesty of the divine law. The death of Christ was a demonstration of mercy combined with perfect justice. But His final aim was to promote holiness, not provide an escape from it.

    Jesus concludes the section by saying, "For I say, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (v. 20; NKJV). The Pharisees were a First Century sect of the Jews who were known for their strict interpretation of the law. But even they fell short of God's perfect standard of righteousness.

    The passage says a lot about our modern day, comfortable, middle-class Christianity. We often think and act as if the chief end of God is to make us happy. God is a kind of doting Father in the sky Who understands and forgives our weaknesses and failures. He simply accepts us the way we are, with unconditional love. But that is not what the Bible says at all. The mission of Jesus when He came into the world was to save us from both the guilt and the power of sin, and the end result should be lives transformed by God's grace. Anything less is a pious fraud, and a dangerous self-delusion. If we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven we will do well to take careful heed to what Jesus says.