Should Women Teach Men Outside the Church?

^//11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.//

1 Timothy 2:11-15

I shall not bother to deal with the various liberal arguments that this passage was purely “cultural” and things of that nature.  I will be taking for granted that Paul AT LEAST forbids women to teach in the church, which is the standard conservative position. It is my intention here to question the idea that this only applies to the church.

Furthermore we know from scripture that women are to be in submission to their own husbands, so women are also not supposed to be in a position of authority over men in the family.

The family is a natural/supernatural institution, while the church is purely formed by supernatural right.  Whether we view the State as more of a natural law institution or more of a supernatural law institution thus should not matter for the purposes of this post.  Whether the State follows the same general structural rules of the family or the church, women should not lead over it.  The Bible casts a negative light on doing otherwise in Isaiah 3:11-12

¹¹ Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him,
    for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him.
¹² My people—infants are their oppressors,
    and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you
    and they have swallowed up^[a] the course of your paths

Now one could say “well, God doesn’t actually forbid women to rule over men, it just says this is a bad thing.”

I think often what we do with passages that make us uncomfortable as conservative Christians is that we do the bare minimum.  If the passage spells out that we must do something, specifically, we’ll obey even if its uncomfortable.  But if the spelling out is not clear, we wind up defaulting to the most culturally comfortable interpretation.  Thus we say that women should submit to men in the church (1 Tim 2) and the family (Eph. 5) but then be practical egalitarians in the state.  However I do not see good reason to interpret the scriptures this way.  It doesn’t make much sense to read the scriptures this way if we are honestly trying to holistically apply Paul’s words.  It seems far more reasonable to take the passage as a general principle.

Why?  Its simple.  Paul appeals  natural law to make his case.  He appeals to creation.  Thus the reason women should not rule over men is not directly related to the supernatural status that the church has.  It is a general rule.  It is based on the fact that God created Adam first, and God created Eve to be a helper to him.  Thus women are not to rule over adult men.  Isaiah 3 further solidifies this case, proclaiming that any nation who ignores this rule in the civil realm is under a curse.

There is simply no good reason to limit these passages to the church and the family unless we make this assumption because we already wish to make it.  It is more comfortable but it is not consistent with a creation focused natural law ethic.

I will spend the rest of this post dealing with some of the best challenges I’ve received for this idea.

#1: What about Deborah?

Answer: Much could be said about Deborah, but to make matters simple, Deborah does not seem to be normative example. Though Deborah seems to have acted in godly manner herself, God choosing her to rule seems to have been an indictment of the men in that era, as Isaiah 3 seems to indicate, as well as in Judges 5 where Deborah clearly says none arose instead of her.

Given the divine intervention in Deborah’s case, I am not convinced that it provides a moral precedent at all, but even if it does, it does so only in the most dire situations, situations that would clearly indict whatever society allowed it.

#2 Does this mean women shouldn’t have authority over men in the workplace?

Yes.  I really don’t see any good argument against this save sentimental ones.

#3. Should women teach men in Bible studies?

I believe that for a woman to teach theology to a man is inherently to place herself in a spiritual authority over him.  Certainly women can discuss theology with men and to share their opinions, but for a woman to take the lead in my mind is to violate the natural law principle.  So where exactly is the line?  I don’t think I have to clearly draw it to say that when a woman is leading the study, she is violating it.

#4. What about other forms of teaching?

I would say the emphasis is on “have authority over a man.”  Thus teaching in a context where it entails exercise of authority seems unlawful.  So I would question a woman as a college professor, I would have less issue with one being a private tutor, since in the latter case she is simply offering help and not necessarily taking on a position of authority.  The exact line here may be difficult to draw, but again, the basic principle applies.  Women should not exercise authority over men.

#5. How old is a man?

This is perhaps the most difficult question since most answers seem arbitrary.  The Bible doesn’t give us a particularly clear answer to when adulthood begins.  I will say that however we answer this question, it should never be used to undermine the general principle that women should not have authority over adult men.  Perhaps the line is difficult to draw, but again, this does not justify minimalistic applications that are not only “too easy” but too often appeal to the desires of men to conform to their culture as much as possible.

If I had to choose a number, I would choose 20.  18 and 21 are both purely arbitrary based on nothing more than the edict of a secular state, so these numbers are meaningless to the theonomic Christia.  20 has precedent in Numbers 1
//
1 The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, ² “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by clans, by fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head. ³ From twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go to war, you and Aaron shall list them, company by company. //

So it was permissible for a man to serve in the military at age 20.  I do not know of any similar age restrictions for drinking, marrying, and so on.  So it does not seem like a precise equivalent to modern adulthood, but it seems to be the only age distinction that is clear in scripture.  Thus I’m comfortable saying dogmatically that it would be sinful to a woman to teach in an authoritative position over a man that is at least 20 years old.  I am also open to the idea that the age would be even younger, perhaps puberty, despite the lack of ability for such a man to serve in the military, but I am not certain of this.

 

The insane logic of Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar, Christian Reconstructionist author, made a facebook post recently that I saw shared and realized it deserved a blog response.  The unfortunate thing about DeMar’s logic is that it is the same logic that is used by the “religious right” and other assorted compromising supporters of Donald Trump.  I will be brief, for Trump supporters neither need many words nor deserve them.  Here is the original post:

//

Politics is messy. All you have to do is read the Bible to see that it’s true. Maybe it’s time we stop reading David’s Psalms because he was an adulterer and anaccomplice to murder, and in his later years slept with a young woman to “keep him warm,” although he did not “know” her (1 Kings 1:1-4). Try that today: “Yes, dear, I slept with this beautiful young girl to keep me warm, but I didn’t have sex with her. Doctor’s orders.” Like I said, politics is messy. Maybe it’s time we stop reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes because Solomon had multiple foreign wives, horses, weapons of war, and an accumulation of wealth, all in violation of the law regarding kings (I Kings 10; Deut. 17:14-20). In 1 Kings 11, Solomon’s wives (hundreds of them) turned his heart against God. “Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. . .” (v. 6). The apostle Paul appealed to the pagan Roman ruler Caesar (Acts 25:11) in order to avoid being killed by the Jews, his own countrymen (23:21-14). Like I said, politics is messy. Do I think Trump is the perfect candidate? Absolutely not. Will I be disappointed with some of Trump’s policies if he wins? You can count on it. Hillary is far more politically connected, protected by the media, and has proposed policies that will result in a further economic downturn, an influx of foreign radicals, and additional laws implemented attacking Christians.//

I won’t respond point by point.  This doesn’t deserve or need a point by point response.  There is not a shred of Biblical principle in any of this.  I only intend to briefly respond.  Furthermore, I won’t be rehashing all of the old arguments for why Trump is unqualified.  My post about Darrell Castle proves this more than sufficiently, if Castle is unqualified surely Trump is not qualified either.  This post can be read here:https://reconvenantersassanach.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/why-i-am-not-voting-for-darrell-castle/

The issue, as usual, is not perfection.  It is qualification.  Time and time again this distinction is ignored by the pragmatists, accusing those of us who have principles and who not buy into the pragmatic argument of being perfectionists.  We are not.  And to assert that we do is insane.

To illustrate this very simply, imagine two candidates for pastor.  One is an unrepentant adulterer, the other is an unrepentant murderer.  You would rightly choose neither.  Or imagine you were given the choice between a standard PCUSA liberal and a papist.  Any kind of good magisterial Protestant or even Bible believing Baptist would choose neither.  Does that mean you are a perfectionist?  Of course not. 1 Timothy 3 lists basic qualifications, and you choose a man that generally (though not perfectly) fits those qualifications.  In the same way, as discussed previously in a previous article, there are basic standards of qualification for civil authorities.  You can vote for those who imperfectly meet those qualifications, as long as they meet them.  You cannot vote for those who don’t.  Why this is incredibly controversial in the political realm while being common sense in the ecclesiastical realm is beyond me.  But simply put, the pragmatists are dishonest.  They lie and say we are demanding a perfect candidate but nobody has ever said this.  That a professing reconstructionist would fall into this kind of bad logic is disappointing at best, and proof that the modern theonomy movement is hopelessly infected with American pragmatism at worst.

David repented of his sins.  He also established the true religion.  The same is true for Solomon.  To compare these men, flawed though they were, to Trump is insane.  And while Paul did appeal to Caesar, providing precedence for attempting to persuade wicked leaders not to violate human rights (though I also think Paul was primarily motivated by seeking to bring the gospel to Rome), that is certainly no basis for actually voting for wicked leaders.  There is a huge difference between appealing to a wicked man who is already in authroity to hear your case, and actually choosing to put a wicked man in office.

The post I quoted is totally devoid of exegesis.  I hope we will see reconstructionists oppose it in the strongest of terms.  This is not Christian politics, it is only pragmatic utilitarianism masquerading as such.

Few issues are as contentious among those who love God’s law and wish to see it applied not only in the individual, home, and church, but also in the society at large and by the civil authorities, as is the issue of the regulative principle of civil government. Essentially, the regulative principle of civil government contends that civil government may only act when scripture teaches that it should act. This can be taught explicitly (for instance Genesis 9:6 teaches that murderers are to be executed, Romans 13 teaches that it is for the State to execute God’s vengeance against criminals, thus the State should implement death penalties for murder) but it can also be taught by good and necessary consequences (for instance, the laws about a goring ox provide precedents for dealing with any situation where a person is warned or knows that he is taking an action that seriously endangers the lives of others, and yet takes that action anyway, and there is a loss of life.) The alternative view teaches that government may act as long as action is not forbidden either by scripture or by reason. We do need to be fair to both sides on this debate. Someone who believes in a proper regulative principle of the magistrate does allow for God to command the magistrate by necessary consequence, and those who hold the normative principle would allow that God can forbid the magistrate to act because an action would be unreasonable or would go against natural law. So its not technically fair to say those who support the regulative principle need a proof text, nor that those who oppose the regulative principle need a proof text saying “thou shall not.” Its more complicated than that and I do want to be fair to my brethren who disagree with me.

One’s position on this usually has a large impact on how one sees the State in general.  Though even among those who hold a similar view of government there may be differences in how we see specific issues, in general the regulative principle of government leads to a view where the State is primarily oriented toward the punishing of evildoers.  Taxation, if it is allowed at all, is limited to under 10% of GDP (per 1 Samuel 8) and limited to this express purpose.  People who take the normative principle often (not necessarily always) see the rightful role of the State as being applicable to other issues, including very frequently things like education and welfare.   Many also claim that 1 Samuel 8 is only saying 10% taxation is not to be desired in one particular situation, not necessarily forbidden or even always unwise.

So we can imagine while both sides do sincerely want to honor God’s law, how we view this important issue will greatly affect the way our government’s look.  It is very possible (though I do not say that normative principle advocates necessarily desire this) that a Christian normative principle state could look very much like the State apparatus we see today, only with Christian laws tacked on.  By contrast the regulative principle of government adherent wants to see government radically downsized.

I intend for the rest of this post to just be introductory material on why I support the Regulative Principle of Civil Government.  This is not meant to be exhaustive in nature, nor is it meant to answer every possible question one could have about this principle.

I will also say that just because I support the regulative principle of government doesn’t mean I agree with modern Christian Reconstructionism in all of the ways it applies this principle.  For instance, while some Christian Reconstructionists might say that pornography should not be a civil matter, I believe it is very possible (and likely) that good and necessary consequences from the law would lead to it being illegal to view or sell pornographic materials (I won’t be making a systematic case for this here).  Many Christian reconstructionists do not believe the sabbath should be enforced, I do believe that the sabbath is now the first day of the week and the Christian civil magistrate should ensure that no works, save those of necessity and mercy, are performed on this day.  Some recons are comfortable with religious pluralism, I am not.  In addition to believing that the Bible is very clear that proselyting for pagan religions (Deuteronomy 13) and open practice of idolatry (Exodus 22:20 and Deuteronomy 17) should be punished, I also believe it is very possible that the precedent of destruction of high places provides precedent for the civil magistrate to suppress even certain forms of worship directed toward the true God (Deuteronomy 12 and 2 Kings 23).  I am still working through some of the details of the general equity here, but keep in mind that this is a general overview.  The rest of this post will be some basic explanation  why I hold to the regulative principle of government in general.

Some (though not all) of my covenanter brethren would say that Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 12 are restricting innovation in the area of worship, but not forbidding adding to government law.  In Deuteronomy 12, I think they are very likely correct ( a common mistake made by Christian Reconstructionists is to refuse to acknowledge this, and thus often accepting innovations in worship) but Deuteronomy 4 seems clearly to be about law in context.  I won’t systematically defend this here, but this seems difficult to argue against.

Secondly, Romans 13 says that we pay taxes “for this purpose” (the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous.)  Perhaps some would stretch the rewarding of the righteous to include things like providing Christian schools, but this seems like a major stretch given that no such thing (or infrastructure to provide for this sort of thing) is seen in the law.  The only reason taxation is ever authorized in the Bible is to punish the evildoer, and the reward to the righteous that is justice exercised against the evildoer.  But the one who does good is praised, he remains in the avenger’s good graces.  So taxation is authorized by God for punishment of the wicked, but it is not authorized for education, welfare, aggressive war, or any other purpose.

Third, all authority requires sanction.  The fact that the judicial code of Moses is fairly exhaustive, if God wanted a legislative branch that also imposed its own laws “according to general wisdom” or however we want to say it, I believe such would have been authorized in the law.  Yet it is not.  There are judges, and the entire community functioned as the executive (the community as a whole, not vigilantes.)  Judges can interpret and apply the law to modern situations, but any interpretations and applications have to be grounded in the existing law and formed as case-law.  So while there is basis for making a judgment about what types of driving are equivalent to leaving a goring ox out, there is no place for autonomously inventing a fine for breaking the law.  If it is comparable, the law should be applied in the same way, if you do the dangerous thing and harm someone, you are held responsible for the blood.

And finally I’d simply apply to a principle that I think is common sense, though I’ll grant that the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach it.  The initiation of violent force definitely requires outside sanction.  Some would say this is too libertarian, but I do not think it is. A true libertarian would not even grant God the right (or at least they would assert that its a right God never exercises) to authorize government as an institution possessing the right to use violent force to punish offenses against God (even those that don’t necessarily “harm” physical people or physical property.)  As a theonomist, I certainly recognize that God not only can but has done so.  Yet I only ask the government to use the sword as God’s avenger, the avenger of God’s Wrath per Romans 13.  Nowhere is the civil government authorized to exercise its own wrath.Furthermore, I think Romans 12:18 is applicable here.  If someone violates the civil laws of God, it no longer depends on the civil government to keep peace with that person.  God has commanded civil force, thus force must be exercised.  On the other hand, if God has not (even implicitly) authorized the use of violence, I believe the civil magistrate has an obligation to keep the peace with that individual as much as it is able.  This includes personal slights against the magistrate (for instance insulting the king or his enforcers, even where they are acting righteously), any citizen who is doing that which is not evil in God’s eyes (for instance, the civil magistrate does not have the right to set arbitrary age limits on consumption of alcohol nor does it have the right to pass laws saying that only the government is allowed to own certain types of guns*), nor does it have the right to even use vengeance against sins for which God has never prescribed (explicitly or implicitly) punishment (for instance the civil magistrate cannot categorically ban the use of drugs, even though doing so in many cases would be equivalent to drunkenness, which under the Law of God is a sin but not a crime.

*There may be Biblical basis (though its not something I’m getting into depth with here) to say that there are certain types of weapons that nobody can rightly own since its impossible to use them in a moral manner.  Hence it MAY be possible to ban the ownership of nuclear weapons if you can combine the prohibition on collateral damage with some case law precedent.  This isn’t something I’ve looked into.  But this is very different than, say, admitting it is moral to own assault weapons but yet saying only government agents can own them for “safety reasons.”  The civil magistrate lacks the right to do this.

Jeremiah 31 and paedobaptism

Its been almost a month since I’ve posted a blog here since I’ve been really busy.  I’m hoping to finish this one and get another one on some other topic up by the end of the week to make up for that.

With that said, I’m going to be taking a break from discussing law (directly) for a post in order to discuss a topic that gets thrown around a lot, the nature of the covenant community in the New Testament.

The Reformed Baptist argument goes something like this.

1. The Old Covenant was a mixture of true believers and unbelievers.

2. Jeremiah 31 teaches that the New Covenant is “not like” the Old because “all shall know me [the Lord]

3. Infants received the sign of the covenant in the Old Covenant because they were born into a mixed covenant.

4. Since the New Covenant is made up of only those who have been born again, nobody is physically born into the new covenant.  Thus the church should do everything reasonably possible to only give the sign of the covenant to members of the New Covenant, which means only giving it to those who “know the Lord.”

At first glance this argument seems reasonable, to the point where I’ve been accused of ignoring the clear meaning of Jeremiah 31 when I don’t accept either the argument or its conclusions.

First off I’m going to share some good reasons I see to say the New Covenant is mixed, then I’m going to explain why I don’t agree with Reformed Baptist exegesis on Jeremiah 31.

Hebrews 10:26-31

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”^[a] says the Lord.^[b] And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”^[c]31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

In the first place, you have people who were sanctified by the blood of the covenant who fall away and profane the blood.  If we agree that you cannot lose your salvation (as the Reformed Baptist does due to believing in Perseverance of the Saints) you have people who werent truly saved yet were part enough of the covenant community to be sanctified by the blood of the covenant.

Some Reformed Baptists would say it was Christ who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, not the person profaning it.  This understanding is possible, but even if that’s true, the passage then says “the Lord will judge his people.”  Who is the Lord judging?  Surely not the elect, but those who fall away, yet they can be referred to as “the Lord’s people.”  This doesn’t make much sense with an ecclesiology that sees only believers as part of the covenant.  The baptistic view would say that the people who are being judged are not God’s people.  But this is not what the scriptures teach.

Also Romans 11:19-24 says:

¹⁹ You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰ Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. ²² Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,^[f] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. ²³ And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. ²⁴ For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

“Cut off” is covenant language.  It is used to describe those who were not circumcized in Genesis 17, and its also used here.  Now certainly this is not to say that some outward sign like circumcision is essential for salvation, but this is exactly the point.  We make a distinction between covenant membership (which one can be cut off from) and being among God’s elect, something that according to Romans 8 nothing can change.  Though there have been many philosophical arguments raised against the idea that one could be cut off from the New “covenant of grace”, Romans 11 is clear that without faith one will be cut off.  Thus if the new covenant is something you can be cut off from, not only true believers are saved.

Now, I am quite willing to grant that what they are being cut off from is, to use more formal theological language, the “administration” of the covenant rather than its “substance.”  However I believe this was true in the Old Covenant as well.  God never promised to save Esau, yet he received the covenant sign and was a part of the nation of Abraham, which at that time was the covenant people of God on earth.

Similarly, God does not promise to save every single infant that is baptized, Christ does not intercede before the Father for non elect infants, yet because we only see the visible church and do not know who is and is not of him, we regard our infants as being part of God’s people on earth, even knowing they may or may not be of his people for eternity.  1 Corinthians 7, though primarily about marriage, clearly alludes to this truth.

So this gets to the question of how I interpret Jeremiah 31.  If you are a Reformed Baptist you might be thinking “your argumentation is all well and good, but Jeremiah 31 says that the New Covenant is different than the Old, so you cant use the mixed covenant of the Old Testament as precedent for how a mixed covenant would work in the New Testament.”  This is still a fair objection, but keep in mind that we have already shown that such an understanding is difficult to reconcile with other texts.  I will now examine why I don’t think its the best understanding of Jeremiah 31 either.

Jeremiah 31:31-35

³¹ “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— ³² not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day thatI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,^[a] says the Lord. ³³ But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴ No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The first problem I have with the literal application of these passages is that it proves too much.  This passage speaks of a day where no longer will people be taught to know the Lord, yet the church continues to teach today.  And it doesn’t just teach outsiders, it even continues to teach the church as a whole to know the Lord.  So in order to make this passage even applicable in this way, Reformed Baptists will say that we teach people in the church but not people in the covenant.  In my mind this is special pleading.  Externally the ministers teach the external people of God just as they always have, all we’re doing (if the Reformed Baptists are right) are simply declaring that those people aren’t part of the covenant community anymore, yet they’re still being taught all the same.

In addition to not fitting well with other scriptures as described above, I also don’t think this view really captures what’s better about the new covenant.  I’d be much more inclined to accept this view if people never walked away from the faith, if all professions of the true gospel were genuine, if we didn’t need apostasy warnings to the church to stand in faith, lest they fall.  But yet clearly these things still continue.

But there is a way in which the New Covenant is really better than the Old, in reality and not just abstractly.  To explain this I point to where Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31.  There’s a lot to quote here, so if you’re not very familiar with the passages in question, I would recommend taking a break from reading this blog to read Hebrews 8-10.

Now, what do we see referenced continually alongside the New Covenant promise?  A change in the priesthood.  We see that now all believers are priests!  In the Old Covenant grace was administered through shadows.  We needed priests on earth who mediated temporally as a shadow of Christ the true mediator.  We needed sacrifices on earth which acted temporally as a shadow of Christ the true sacrifice.  We see the gospel itself taught through various typological shadows.  I believe this type of teaching has been done away with, and I believe that’s how Hebrews 8-10 are to be interpreted.  No longer will the covenant people need to be taught to know the Lord, not in the sense that there are no longer false converts in their midst, but in the sense that every member of the covenant is able to have a personal relationship with the Lord, rather than having to go through a priest or an animal sacrifice.  The type of teaching that features priests as a special class, and the pedagogical ceremonial laws has been done away with.  No longer must ANYONE be taught to know the Lord through shadows, but now only the substance is taught.

Not only is this interpretation more consistent with the rest of scripture, its more consistent internally.  The Reformed Baptist has to explain why teaching is still occurring in the New Covenant and even to visible church members.  I have no need to explain this because the type of teaching I believe Jeremiah 31 is referring to has entirely been done away with and never needs to be used again.  No longer can there be a human priesthood, for Christ is the high priest and all of us are priests.  Because of Christ all of us can commune with God.  But yet there are still false converts within the covenant community, hence the warnings.  And we’re still commanded to give the sign of the covenant to our children, because there is a real people of God on earth, because there is no basis to say the new covenant excludes them now, as discussed previously.

Why I am not voting for Darrell Castle

Its election season again, a time of year where most of professing Christianity throws out the principles they hold dear and make compromises with the world.  Most of the well known Christian celebrity teachers compromise on these issues, if indeed they talk about them at all.  Wayne Grudem in particular endorsed Donald Trump for President, while Thabiti Anyabwile endorsed Hillary Clinton.  I’m not going to make a full post on why either of these individuals, or the legions of others who make similar arguments, because I don’t really see this as a debatable issue.  The Bible has numerous passages that are clear about Christians only choosing just men, men who are just by God’s standards, to rule over them.  A few of these passages are:

“If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.” Proverbs 29:12

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Samuel 23:23

Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.  Exodus 18:21

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.  Psalm 2:12
And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.  Romans 3:8

In my mind this is more than sufficient scriptural ground not to vote for men who are not Biblically qualified.  And as we can see even a very cursory reading of these passages would rule out voting for a man who is unjust or who does not rule “in the fear of the Lord.”  This standard pretty clearly rules out Trump, Clinton, and Johnson from being qualified for the office, and I have no interest in watering down those Biblical standards for the sake of pragmatism.  I am convinced God will not bless his people as long as they continue to compromise on their principles for political expediency.

Which brings me to a more subtle compromise, one which I believe many godly people who rightly detest unbiblical compromises have fallen into, including many of my fellow theonomists.  That compromise is to vote for Darrell Castle for President.  The rest of this post will be dedicated to explaining why I do not believe a Christian should vote for Darrell Castle.  I believe these arguments would probably apply to Tom Hoefling as well, but I don’t know much about him and I haven’t seen as many people specifically say they’re voting for him as Castle, so I’m primarily going to be aiming my comments at Castle, and the reader who knows more about Hoefling should be able to discern whether the comments rightly ought to apply to him.

But before I start I want to make a couple of notes.  First of all, I respect that Castle supporters are at least trying to be principled by voting for a believer rather than one of the “big three” pagans.  Second of all, I’m primarily addressing this critique to those who would be of a theonomic persuasion, yet are voting for Castle.  If you’re a Christian constitutionalist or a libertarian these arguments won’t so much apply to you.  You should read the arguments anyway, but you’d really have to change your views on religious pluralism in order to be convinced not to vote for Castle.

With that being said, I don’t demand a perfect candidate to vote for before I’d support them.  This accusation gets thrown out a lot.  And its not true.  Here’s an example of the type of imperfect candidate I’d support

9So in the twentieth year of Jeroboam the king of Israel, Asa began to reign as king of Judah. 10He reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom. 11Asa did what was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father. 12He also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made. 13He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother, because she had made a horrid image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her horrid image and burned itat the brook Kidron. 14But the high places were not taken away; nevertheless the heart of Asa was wholly devoted to the LORD all his days. 1 Kings 15:9-14

The high places were pagan places of worship.  God commanded his people to tear all of them down (Deuteronomy 12).  Yet kings like Asa allowed people to worship God at those places.  He did not, however, tolerate the worship of false Gods.  Idols (which couldn’t be used to worship the true God) were destroyed.  When I see “good but imperfect” kings in the Bible, this is usually what I see.  Leaders who tolerate bad forms of worship toward God but do not tolerate worship of false gods.  On the other hand when I look at one of the most ideal leaders in the Old Testament, King Josiah (who was himself certainly a fallible man) I see this:

2 Kings 23:5-14

⁵ And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens. ⁶ And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. ⁷ And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. ⁸ And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one’s left at the gate of the city. ⁹ However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers. ¹⁰ And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.^{[a] 11} And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts.^[b] And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. ¹² And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altarsthat Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down and broke in pieces^[c] and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. ¹³ And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. ¹⁴ And he broke in pieces the pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with the bones of men.
I could more exhaustively cite more examples, but the point is that good leaders are very interested in the true religion and promote it by using the sword against evildoers.  This doesn’t mean people are required to convert, but it does mean that outward worship of false gods is a civil offense just like theft, murder, sexual immorality, or anything else.

I believe strongly in, and care deeply about, liberty.  If you read my article “Biblical Taxation” you’ll know that I believe government should be way smaller than it is.  But saying government should be small is very different than saying it should be a neutral force in society.

What of Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party?  I quote from the preamble to the Constitution Party platform http://www.constitutionparty.com/preamble/
//
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
//

 

I approve of the fact that they acknowledge our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  On this matter the Constitution Party is better than the Constitution itself, which leaves all such mentions out and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ at all.  Nevertheless, the second paragraph here is problematic.  I wouldn’t necessarily object to “asylum and prosperity” depending on how defined.  A member of a false religion could live and work in a Christian nation so long as he kept his errors in his heart and didn’t openly worship his false god or proselytize his false religion to others.  However “freedom of worship” is a completely unbiblical concept.   We never see any ruler praised in scripture for protecting “freedom of religion” for anyone.  Instead, we see rulers praised if they crush false religions and promote the worship of the true God.

With that being said, while I could vote for a ruler who imperfectly defends the true religion, I do not see how I could in good conscience vote for a candidate who by his own admission would do nothing to stop the spread of false religion in this country.  What groups like the Constitution Party want is a liberty that can be appreciated by people of all faiths.  But when I look at scripture and how God handles his people, this is not what I see.  I do not see any sign that God blesses a nation that tolerates false religion.  I also see no sign that God will bless a nation with a constitution that refuses to recognize him.  As Isaiah 49:23 says

Kings shall be your foster fathers,
    and their queens your nursing mothers.
With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you,
    and lick the dust of your feet.
Then you will know that I am the Lord;
    those who wait for me shall not be put to shame.”

As Christians we should be supporting leaders who will support Christ’s church.  We should be supporting leaders who will use the sword not only against violations of the second table, but also against violations of the first.  While Darrell Castle is a better candidate than most of the others, he’s still a compromise candidate.  He’s a compromised candidate because there’s not a single verse in the Bible that would suggest that he is qualified for a political leadership position.  See Deuteronomy 17:14-20

¹⁴ “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ ¹⁵ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. ¹⁶ Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ ¹⁷ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

¹⁸ “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by^[a] the Levitical priests.¹⁹ And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life,that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, ²⁰ that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

 

Some would say that even trying to follow a law like this is inherently ridiculous.  Not only are there multiple references to “Israel”, but the law also features Levitical priests (which have been done away with) and writing down a physical copy of the law (which in the days of the printing press may seem unnecessary.)  Its at this point that its important to consider the general equity of the law vs the particular equity.  In one case God told Israelites to build fences around their roof.  This doesn’t mean we literally have to build a fence around our roof today, its a law requiring that people respect the lives of others on their property and don’t unnecessarily endanger them.  In Israel people walked around on the roof and had parties on the top of the roof.  However, the fact that we no longer walk on the roof today doesn’t mean we can disregard the safety of others now.  In the same way, while a leader writing down a physical copy of the Law is probably unnecessary in the era of a printing press, the general equity of the command is that the laws must be understood and followed by the king.

Of those laws, perhaps the most frequently repeated and emphasized is the wickedness of idolatry and the need to suppress it.  While the Constitution Party says it wants to be governed by “Biblical principles”, the reality is it wants to be governed by the US Constitution, which is pluralistic in nature.  The Constitution Party wants am America where all religions are treated equally, while the Biblical vision for society is a system in which only the Christian religion is upheld while all other religions are suppressed.  I don’t demand a leader perfectly understand God’s laws before I’ll vote for them.  I certainly don’t perfectly understand God’s laws.  But justice is defined by God’s laws, and so qualification for leadership certainly entails at a minimum attempting to uphold them, and not just the second table of the law, but the first table as well.  With that being said I cannot justify voting for Darrell Castle.  To do so would be to fall into a lesser form of the same compromises we rightly detest from neocons, liberals, and libertarians.  To truly uphold the law of God, we must vote for candidates who desire the law of God to be the law of the land, not for candidates who want pluralism.  With that being said, I would recommend that any Bible believing theonomist either write in a candidate, someone who truly understands theonomic governance, or else to abstain from voting.  And in the meantime, continue to preach the gospel, continue to disciple the brethren, and continue to pray for repentance and reformation in families, the church, and ultimately the civil magistrates as well.

Free Markets or Fair Markets?

I wasn’t planning to write another post about economics so soon after my taxation blog, but there was an interesting blog post written from the covenanter theonomic perspective about free markets which I thought was interesting enough to respond to.  The original article is found here: https://mintdill.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/fair-market-price-setting-commission-oppressing-the-poor-monopolies-price-gouging-concerning-scarcity-and-supply/

To get some preliminary thoughts out of the way before I dissect where I do and do not agree with the blog linked here on economics:

1. I will only be covering this subject from the perspective of scripture and logic.  In other words, I won’t be dealing explicitly with either the Westminster Confession or the Westminster divines.  The reasons for this are because the writer I am responding to is MUCH more knowledgeable about both than I am, I do not doubt that most of all of the divines are in agreement with him, and while I believe the use of confessions is important they are not infallible.  However, I will say up front that as written I dont disagree with any of the specifics in WLC 142 that the blog uses to support its position.

2. I greatly respect both the man who wrote this blog and the excellent exegetical work he has done in general.  Furthermore, while I do not agree with the scriptural conclusions of this particular article, I respect that the author at least made a strong attempt to justify his position with scripture.  He did not simply appeal to a vague notion of natural law or “the Bible doesn’t say we cant.”  He recognized furthermore that he had to make a positive case from scripture for government intervention in the economy, and he made a good effort to do so.  I have nothing but respect for this.

3. When I talk about “free market economics” it should be assumed that I am exempting obvious cases where scripture does have government’s interfering with markets in particular circumstances. Sabbath legislation is the most obvious instance where scripture interferes with the market for moral reasons.  In addition, anti-prostitution laws (discussed in the first blog) do restrict any possible market on prostitution, etc.  But I am dealing with the general structure of the economy here, particularly the issues mentioned in the blog, not these exceptions.

So, free markets or fair markets?  What does the scripture teach.

To the first place, we must go to the established principle of scripture that the Israelites (and by extension, Christian nations) are not to add to the law of God.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2

“And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules^[a] that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. ² You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

Some people believe these passages are dealing only with worship, but I see no reason to think this given that the Pentateuch includes plenty of judicial instructions as well as worship ones.  Deconstructing this entire objection would probably be worthy of a post in and of itself, so for now I’m simply going to operate based on what I believe the correct understanding of this text is, namely that civil magistrates should not legislate on matters where the Bible does not.

With that being said its impossible to document all the ways the Bible does not say the government should interfere with economics, so instead I will deal with the cases where it is asserted that the Bible does give authority to interact with such things.

//

“You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume. You shall have honest scales, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” – Lev. 19:35-36//

Sure this isn’t dealing with just currency.  I get that.  If I were to claim I’m selling you two liters of water, but actually its only one and a half liters, that would be dishonest.  It is in fact fraud, a form of theft.  And the law that the thief must pay back double is certainly enough to criminalize such behavior, we don’t need to find another specific instance saying that particular kind of theft is unlawful.  I certainly agree with this.

But all this really teaches should be illegal is fraud, and this is something that every “reconstructionist” and even every libertarian I’ve ever heard of would agree to.  The writer goes on to argue that this command implicitly gives the civil magistrates authority to prohibit “price gouging” and even to decide what types of prices are fair and not fair, and I simply don’t see anything like that in the text.  If I sell you 2 liters of water for 2 dollars but you think it should only have been one dollar, that simply doesn’t violate anything in this text.  It might be taking advantage of your distress, or it might not, but there’s certainly no simple law that could easily distinguish between the two.  But its certainly not fraud, and seeing as it is not the job of governments to discern people’s hearts, its also not their job to assume that high prices are inherently malicious.

Now, if the prices are based on lies I would agree that that’s a different issue.  For instance if I sell a medication and claim that it can cure headaches, and it actually doesn’t cure headaches, that’s fraud.  But that’s a very different issue than some civil magistrate claiming that I’m selling it for too much even if I am being completely honest about how many doses, what the medication will do, etc.  To read that into this text seems like a stretch in my mind.  Its not just a different case law application, its a completely different issue.

The writer points out Deuteronomy 25:13-16 in support of his idea, but the issue is the same.  Dishonestly measuring and weighing things is crime.  If I say I’ll pay you two ounces of gold, but I use a scale that records an ounce and a half as two ounces, that’s stealing and a crime.  But that is very different from me honestly charging two ounces where the rest of the community thinks a lower price would be fair.

Michael says:

//

The use of a false weight or measure involves both deceit and theft; deceit, because it is purported to be what it is not; theft, because it leads the buyer to spend more money than the commodity is actually worth and thus punishable by the civil magistrates as a form of theft and a violation of the Law of God.//

I agree with this, but it is how we define “actually worth” that I think is the issue.  Let’s say I promise that some medicine I have will cure headaches, but in reality you have to take twice as much as I claimed in order to cure a headache.  In that case I’m selling it for more than its worth because I lied.  You paid me an amount of money thinking (and me telling you) that one pill would be enough to cure the headache, thus you’re actually (effectively) only getting half the amount of medication I told you you would.  I have no problem with magistrates punishing something like that as fraud, assuming it was proven.

But this is quite a different matter than me simply charging a high price for the medicine but being honest about that.  The solution to that is not government intervention.  There is no theft in this case.  Rather the solution is competition.  If the price is high, someone else can enter the market and sell for a lower price and make a profit.  This is how capitalism works.  Now it  is true that our own unrighteous government often interferes with such free market transactions, unjustifiably uses force to prevent lawful transactions, and this is theft.  But that’s a different issue.  Furthermore, fraud is an issue that is distinct from the difficult to define concept of “oppressive pricing.”

Two more passages he uses quoted below:

//

“’Thus says the Lord GOD, “Enough, you princes of Israel; put away violence and destruction, and practice justice and righteousness Stop your expropriations from My people,” declares the Lord GOD. “You shall have just balances, a just ephah and a just bath.” Ezekiel 45:9-10

“The people of the land have violently oppressed by spoiling and robbing, and have vexed the poor and the needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger against right. And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none.” – Ezekiel 22:29-31

//

Ezekiel 45 is addressing princes, and thus seems far more likely to be addressing oppressive taxation (which we addressed last time), eminient domain, or government using coercion to prevent the poor from prospering than anything else.  And Ezekiel 22 is talking about robbery, plunder, and violence.  Neither of these passages says anything even remotely applicable as a case law to regulate prices, rather these laws condemn the people of the land for violence, theft, and destruction, and also condemn princes for plundering.  Not only do these passages not teach that sufficiently high prices should be made illegal, they also don’t provide any kind of a framework for determining what such prices would be, which means that the only way such a law could be implemented would be autonomous man deciding what is and isnt fair, which I know isn’t what Michael wants either.

Martin Luther says (which the blog writer uses as proof):

//

The rule ought to be, not: I may sell my wares as dear as I can or will, but: I may sell my wares as dear as I ought, or as is right and proper. For your selling ought not to be a work that is entirely within your own power and will, without law or limit, as though you were a god and beholden to no one; but because this selling of yours is a work that you perform toward your neighbor …

 

But in order not to leave this question entirely unanswered, the best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living, just as at certain places they fix the price of wine, fish, bread and the like. …

the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighbourhood. In this matter we can accept the proverb: “Do like others and you are no fool.” Any profit made in this way, I consider honest and well earned, since there is risk of loss in wares and outlay, and the profits cannot be all too great.

But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbour, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living. …

In deciding how much profit you ought to take on your business and your labour, there is no better way to reckon it than by estimating the amount of time and labour” –Martin Luther, On Trade//

There are many problems with this.  The first one is that Luther simply asserts that allowing people the freedom to determine their own prices makes them as gods.  But he doesn’t prove it.  Its also not the case that the seller is autonomously determining the price.  Prices are essentially agreements between buyers and sellers on a broader scale.  If a seller continually inflates his prices he may find himself without a buyer.  THAT is the correct punishment, not government involvement.

The second issue is that the merchant’s living is only “not honest” if (as discussed previously) he is not honest.  For instance if the merchant claims he put ten hours of work in when he only put 5, or claims that the goods work better or are more numerous than truly they are, or otherwise engages in fraud, than I would agree that isn’t an honest living.  However simply the fact that he makes a lot of money does not mean his living is not honest.
The third issue is that the labor theory of value isn’t accurate.  It is possible for any number of reasons to produce a better and more worthwhile product in five hours than in seven, and if people are willing to pay more for the better product, it is absurd to punish the skilled man’s innovation by limiting his profit.  Furthermore a man could work for a very long time and yet not produce something valuable enough that people are interested in buying it.  Value isn’t determined by labor done, but the worthwhile nature of a product to a consumer: again, assuming the seller sells honestly rather than engaging in fraud.

Furthermore I wonder if the logistics of the government literally spelling out that this or that must be selled for this and that price has been considered.  This would undoubtedly create a bureaucracy far more large than anything that existed in Israel.

//

So yes, I support Price fixing for a Fair-Market System through a Price Fixing Ministry of Justice and believe it is based on Scriptural law both explicit as well as good and necessary inference. It is better to be decided in the multitudes of people in counsel then in the greedy mind of one as long as that counsel of people are not bought by businesses and corporations to also enforce their form of price gouging and monopolies..//

Yeah its pretty much inevitable, especially in the type of low tax regime that we both believe the scripture teaches, that businesses would abuse and buy out such an organization.  But worse, its not Biblical.  There’s no basis for “the multitudes of people” to decide what I sell my property for.  This is the same type of reasoning behind eminent domain.

The issue is that money is a signal of how much something is valued.  Markets naturally adjust so that supply is equal to demand and that if you value something enough to pay for it, you get the thing.  There is no reason for merchants to charge so much that demand outweighs supply, because in that case they simply have wares that they don’t get to sell at all, and what good is that to them?  But if prices are artificially kept low, supply winds up being less than demand and people have to do without.  Furthermore this discourages new and innovative ways of producing more products that people want.  Simply put, it is not good economics.  There’s also nowhere in scripture where such a bureaucracy is taught.  God’s law simply doesn’t teach this.
//
That also must be prevented! In fact I question that legitimacy of the concept and idea of corporations in the first place based on divine law but that I will leave for another day to write about.//

I agree with the author that the limited liability corporation is a human fiction and has no basis in scripture, but since he does not address the issue further, I wont either.

//

It is also extremely wicked to raise the prices of products just because of scarity or a shortage in supply.//

This is also bad economics, though I understand it seems like common sense to people the first time they hear it.  It seems horrible to raise prices to take advantage of people who are in a disaster.  And I agree that its wrong IF the intent is to take advantage, though intents cant really fall under legislation.  However, there are other reasons for prices to rise in disaster situations, perfectly legitimate ones.

1. The supply is shifting to meet the demand.  If the supply is not allowed to raise to meet the increased demand, it will be very difficult for even those who have desperate need to buy anything as the shelves will continually be cleaned off by the desperate masses that are being provided goods at a far cheaper price than a business can actually afford to provide them (given the circumstances).  Whereas with so called “price gouging” the supply raises to meet the demand, people are more likely due to the increased prices to be more frugal and only buy what they need, and those who most desperately need something will be able to get it if they are willing to pay for it.  This principle can be abused but is not in and of itself invalid.

2. Allowing “price-gouging” also gives economic incentive for those outside the disaster area to help out.  For instance after a hurricane a company might transport water into the disaster area IF they can be adequately compensated, but its going to be more expensive to deliver the goods.  While I’m not going to dispute that it would be charitable and praiseworthy to deliver them at a loss or without profit, that would be charity, which I don’t see any merit for government to enforce, and I don’t think Michael does either.  A business could just as easily choose not to sell rather than sell for what they consider beneficial.  It is absurd to say that a business could refuse to sell in a disaster area, but that they could not sell above certain prices.  This simply isn’t good economics, and if Martin Luther or the Westminster divines thought this, I respectfully disagree with them.

//

Even more heinous is to purposefully buy up entire supplies of goods so as to engross the price or create a monopoly in such wares as to fix your own price of what YOU think is fair or to corner the market by the preventing of others to sell similar like products or even at a lower cost.//

I cant think of any praiseworthy reasons to do this, and so I’m inclined to think its immoral.  What I more question though is not whether its moral but whether its actually possible.  If you raise your prices too high someone will inevitably innovate to beat you. There’s a good article on this here: https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons (I will note that the writers at mises.org [with the exception of Gary North] are both economic and social libertarians, whereas I’m an economic libertarian and a social theocrat, thus I don’t exhaustively condone everything they say, I also recognize that this is a long article but it explains how the issue of monopolies is more complicated than it might seem.)  But though I don’t know that its possible to do successfully, I’m inclined to think that trying to reduce your prices super low in order to buy everyone else out is immoral.  I cant think of any good reason to do that.  That said I’m not convinced there’s a basis for the civil magistrate to interfere with something like this.  But even if it could be proven that the civil magistrate should break up deliberate attempts to artificially create a monopoly by reducing prices so low that you lose money off your goods (and your competetors cant keep up), this wouldn’t be a basis either for breaking up so called “natural monopolies” (where the monopolist becomes a monopolist by creating the best product) or for any of the other proposals in the original blog.

//

These are all issues and matters that are explicitly and categorically condemned within our confessional standards and a Christian as no business practicing any of these practices. These are issues that are required to be suppressed at the national levels and ARE within the realm of civil magistracy.

 

Such monopolies of commodities, especially of the necessities of life, are so clearly unjust that they are to be prohibited by civil legislation..//

Unless we take the route of all sin being civil crime, I still don’t see where we’re getting a case law allowing the prohibition of these practices.  I MIGHT see my way to being convinced that deliberately selling at a loss is fraudulent, but I’d need to see that case developed more…. it would also have weird implications for disaster relief and stuff like that (since one could sell at a loss for charitable reasons.)  I’m open to hearing such a case but I’m not currently convinced one way or the other.  But again, even if that particular thing could be established as fraudulent, the rest really cant.

Some more passages from Michael and quick responses:

//

“Hear this, you who trample the needy, to do away with the humble of the land, saying, “When will the new moon be over, So that we may sell grain, And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market, To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger, And to cheat with dishonest scales, So as to buy the helpless for money And the needy for a pair of sandals, And that we may sell the refuse of the wheat?” Amos 8:4-6//

This passage is dealing with commerce on the sabbath (which I’d certainly agree is forbidden), and on new moon festivals which have now been abrogated.  It also talks about changing the definitions of measurements from their established ones, which is again a form of fraud.  But again, openly selling a bushel for X price is different than promising a bushel and actually giving half a bushel.   Its not the same thing.  None of this passage supports government control over prices.

//

“A merchant, in whose hands are false balances, He loves to oppress. And Ephraim said, “Surely I have become rich, I have found wealth for myself; In all my labors they will find in me No iniquity, which would be sin.” Hosea 12:7-8//

I think the reader knows what I’m going to say at this point, but again, this is about fraud, not price controls.  And even if it were about “unjust prices” there’s certainly nothing in this passage that would justify magisterial involvement, but its not even about just prices.

//

“Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are abominable to the LORD.” Proverbs 20:10

 

“A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.” Proverbs 11:1

 

“A just balance and scales belong to the LORD; All the weights of the bag are His concern.”  Proverbs 16:11

 

“Differing weights are an abomination to the LORD, And a false scale is not good.” Proverbs 20:23

//

More condemnations of fraud.  Excellent.  🙂

//

Sadly, many people are so caught up in Americanism they can’t see any other way and call others who advocate such as socialist but which is furthest from the truth.  And it should be pointed out that America or even American ways are not always the right or biblical way.

 

 

Biblical Taxation

Christians have a lot of ideas about civil taxation, where government funds itself by compelling people to pay some portion of their incomes, the value of their sales, or some other means by which people are required, by force of law, to pay some portion of money for the funding of the government.  Most Christians today may dislike high taxes and would personally like them to be lower, but usually they do not see any definable injustice in the way taxes are collected in the United States.  Many would appeal to passages such as “render unto Caesar” and believe that Caesar effectively owns whatever amount of money he asks for.  Furthermore these Christians usually see passages like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as primarily descriptive in nature (ie. explaining that we should obey government and as a side note that government does the things mentioned) rather than primarily prescriptive (seeing passages like Romans 13:3-4 as describing what a righteous government looks like, and commanding that such a thing should be submitted to because it is righteous.)

A minority of Christians take the opposite approach, appealing to the universality of ethics and commands against stealing to say that all compulsory taxation is immoral.  I understand their view but I believe it is an overreaction to the more statist crowd described in the first paragraph.  I believe there is a middle ground between the majority opinion that effectively gives the State immunity from the eighth commandment (as most do today), and the flawed minortiy opinion which denies the State any right to collect money compulsory.

I believe in contrast to both of these views that the Bible does speak directly to this issue.  When I say that the Bible speaks directly to this issue, I do not claim that the Bible tells us precisely how to tax in every situation.  Certainly, for instance, a leader who is facing invasion by a hostile foreign power would need to tax more than a leader during peacetime, all other things being equal.  I also do not claim that the Bible tells us exactly what methods of collection are allowed (ie. an income tax vs a head tax vs a property tax), though there are some who I understand believe the Old Testament commands a head tax.

Nevertheless, there are two passages that I believe clearly have general equity for modern governments, and thus are binding as moral law on all governments.  The first is Romans 13:3-7

³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. ⁷ Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Many people read verses 1-2 in isolation from the rest of the passage and so conclude that Christians are to obey nearly all commands of all governments (most would admit from Acts 5:29 that they need not obey when government commands disobedience to God.)  However if you look more carefully, this passage really cant be commanding submission to just any government you find yourself under.  The passage commands to Christian submit because the rulers are a terror to the wicked, but if you do what is good you will have no fear of him.  The magistrate punishes the wicked and protects the righteous.  That is his role.  And for that reason taxes are to be paid.  So that the rulers can devote themselves to this very thing, that is the reason we pay them taxes.  Contrary to what many think, I don’t think this is a blanket authorization for governments to just pass laws demanding you to pay them money for just any reason.  I’m sure the reader has heard the statist cry before “Romans 13 means that what we advocate is OK”.  But Romans 13 does not teach taxation for things like public schools, infrastructure, social security, military interventionism, an arbitrary and extensive prison system, and many other things that many just take for granted are funded by taxes today.  Rather the Bible advocates a minimal state that suppresses the most heinous violations of the ten commandments (as revealed in the Law of God) and otherwise leaves the people alone.

However, while this passage does not allow taxation for just any purpose, it does speak positively of it for a particular purpose (punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous.)  Thus those who say the government cannot compel the payment of any taxes are also incorrect, because the Bible does prescribe them for one particular purpose.

But how much can government take for that purpose?  Well, if government limited itself to that role, the tax rates would already be very low by comparison.  However, there is another passage that I believe is insightful on this issue: 1 Samuel 8:4-22.

⁴ Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel atRamah ⁵ and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” ⁶ But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. ⁷ And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. ⁸ According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. ⁹ Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”  

¹⁰ So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. ¹¹ He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.¹² And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴ He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. ¹⁵ He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. ¹⁶ He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men^[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. ¹⁷ He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. ¹⁸ And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

¹⁹ But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, ²⁰ that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” ²¹ And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. ²² And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

I have seen even some who understand that Romans 13 is prescriptive in the manner described earlier see this passage as primarily descriptive, and thus not prescribing limits on government directly.  However I would ask the reader that thinks that, in what other situation would we see a prophet of God warning of curses on a nation if it does a particular thing, and see the warnings he gives as optional?  The warnings are clear in this passage, having a government that takes a tenth of everything (equivalent to a 10% wealth tax one time, or a 10% income tax each year, or equivalent) is a sign of tyranny, as is the government forcing people to serve the king either in the army or other capacity.  Thus it seems to me that this passage would set an absolute maximum on taxation at 9% of GDP, and even then that would be pushing very close to the line, trying to see just how much they could get away with rather than following the spirit of the law and taking as little as possible to administer the duties necessary for the State, by a Biblical definition.

Some would appeal to examples like Joseph taxing 20% and not being condemned for it to allow a Christian magistrate to take more than 10% without necessarily being a thief.  Without exhaustively getting into this argument I will simply say two things about it.  1: Joseph had access to a unique form of divine revelation from which he discerned that what he did was wise for his circumstance and for the benefit of his people.  No Christian magistrate has access to this kind of specific data, instead he has access to the Word of God, which teaches a normative principle that tax rates of 10% or higher are tyranny, and he should go with the revelation he has.  2: Even if Joseph is precedent for raising above 10%, this would be only in the most extraordinary circumstances.  Ordinarily rulers would still need to look to 1 Samuel 8 and see that for them to take 10% of income would be tyrannical.

Thus the Christian view of taxation as it pertains to western liberal democracies is that it should be dramatically reduced and the role of government cut back dramatically.  To do anything else is, in the way the Bible presents things, tyrannical.

Libertarianism and its problems

Today a writer by the name of Laurence Vance had an article published on LewRockwell.com arguing that Christians are inconsistent for supporting the criminalization of prostitution, denying that there is any scriptural justification, and saying that Christians who support its criminalization are hypocritical for refusing to support the criminalization of other sins.  You can find that original article here.  You shoud probably go ahead and read that first.  Now that you’ve hopefully done that, for my comments.

Laurence Vance comes what is called a libertarian perspective, which means he believes that laws should only exist to protect people from either physical aggression against person or property or threats thereof.  And by extension as a Christian, he believes the Bible teaches this view.

There are two interesting things about the libertarian perspective that made it worth critiquing.  For one, it is internally consistent.  Unlike the “conservative” (Republican) and “liberal” (Democrat) systems, the libertarian system is internally consistent and purposely so.  The second reason is that it offers a way out of the culture war, suggesting the government need not pick a side.

There is some thought provoking commentary about sin in the article as well and how it relates to crime.  Vance correctly identifies the problem with making every sin a criminal matter.  He is also correct that arbitrary distinctions between the two are not good.

However, I would dissent from the idea that the Bible never teaches that prostitution should be a criminal matter.  Considering Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (ESV)

²⁸ “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Now there’s a whole nother discussion about why this is talking about fornication and not rape, but I’ll sum up by saying rape is described as “like murder” earlier in the same chapter, and thus would be a death penalty according to the law.  By contrast if two unmarried people sleep together, the punishment was that they had to get married.

So if a prostitute were to meet her first “client” and they were both virgins, they would have to marry each other. But if one or the other was pledged to be married (which I would assume is comparable to engagement) or married, the penalty would be death for both involved.  In neither case is the act of prostitution legal.

And since this is an enforcement of the moral law, I see no reason why this should not be applied in the same form by Christian civil government.  Not all sins should be criminalized it is true, but prostitution, fornication, and adultery are sins which are also crimes in the mind of God, sins so serious that they not only deprive one of heaven (as all sins do) but that also require the civil authorities to take action here and now.

Now, if we take God’s civil laws as the standard for what sins fall under government jurisdiction, this does have conclusions that are unacceptable to most conservative Republicans, and so I think Vance is right to say they are hypocritical.  For instance blapshemy and homosexual sexual activity would be illegal, but there isn’t anything making drug use criminal, so that would be a sin (akin to drunkenness) that was not a crime.  So I would actually say that criminalizing the former two is simply applying God’s law as he intended, while criminalizing the latter is trying to make every sin a crime.  Furthermore it would mean that homosexual contact (punishable by death on the testimony of two or three) and the preaching of false gods (also punishable by death) are more serious crimes than armed robbery (punishable by double restitution and arguably perhaps flogging).  Most Christians today do not believe that either of the former two things should be criminal offenses at all, and yet would put the latter perpetrator in prison for years.  This is not a just situation.

But back to libertarianism, the major problem with trying to make it work Biblically is that it requires an unbiblical assumption that the New Testament is the only rule of faith for Christians.  You see this problem throughout Vance’s article “there is nothing in the New Testament that says.”  God does not have to repeat himself in the New Testament before his words are binding on Christians, instead what he says should be presumed continuous unless taken away.  Deuteronomy 4 forbids us to add to or subtract from what he has revealed, so we must follow all of it except for the ceremonial law, which the New Testament teaches is no longer binding on Christians as a complete unit.  Perhaps there could be further discussion on what is an is not ceremonial, but that is for another post.

For those who say it was totally just to punish certain things in the Old Testament but not now they must explain what has changed.  Surely it must be something other than the character of God, for that always remains the same.

Should Christians support the criminalization of prostitution?  Yes, not only because it is a sin but because God has taught that it should be a crime.

First blog post

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.