In this message we skip ahead

a little in Deuteronomy .. The

verses. found in the first portion of
Deuteronomy 23 deal largely with
ceremonial laws. Our concern in
this series is to consider the more
practical and abiding aspects of
God's Law. Thus, we move ahead
to consideration of the beginning
of Moses' exposition of the Eighth
Commandment: "Thou shalt not
steal." This exposition, it would
seem, runs from Deut. 23: 15
through 24:7. In most of the
situations presented it is obvious
that the idea of theft lies in the
background of the case laws. In
some cases, however, it
will require some careful
scrutiny to see the connec-
tion. One fact we should
notice at the outset is what
the Eighth Commandment
does not specify. That is, it
does not say what is not to
become enslaved in Israel. We
noted then that this was actually a
form either of indentured servi-
tude in order to payoff a debt, or
governmentally enforced punish-
ment which was to last until the
cost of one's criminal activity was
. paid off. If this law dealt with the
Jewish slave in such circumstances
it would either deter debt repay-
ment or thwart justice. Neither of
these outcomes are acceptable in
biblical Law. But this case law
does not deal with the Jewish
slave. It does not present the case
of any slave that has fled his
master. Rather, it presents a
from another nation, Slavery in
pagan nations was nothing more
than kidnapping and governmen-
lally enduced tyranny. In God's
Law there were laws regUlating
how slaves were to be treated.
Slaves in Israel had funclamental
rights. Biblical slavery is very
humane and divinely regulated.
(This is why in the NewTesta-
ment there is no command to
cease such slavery. Even though
there are numerous references
calling upon masters and slaves to
honor God in their stations.)
Several important principles
relative to theft are established by
this case law. First, this
law provided that refugees
q-I!'orms of from pagan dominion
2J] could find shelter in Israel,
'Th
"'fit a land of true freedom
\!J.., "- under God. The Jew was
1 c:' "'5 to understand that to
llcuicrouont1! ;Z3:w-,;, harbor such a slave was
be stolen. Understanding
this will make our task a
little easier.
Rev. Kenneth L. Gentry,]r. not a form of theft. To
harbor someone's else
1. Theft and Freedom, The
first case law prohibiting theft is
one of those that does not imme-
diately strike us as relating to
theft. But as we consider it more
closely, hopefully we will discover
the connection .. Deut. 23:15-25
commands: "Thou shalt not deliver
unto his master the servant which is
escaped Jrom his master unto thee:
He shall dwell with thee, even among
you, in that place which he shall
choose in one oj thy gates, where it
liketh him best: thou shalt not
oppress him." To properly under-
stand this case law, we must
recognize aright the situation
presented. We should note that:
In the first place, this case law
does not deal with domestic
slavery in Israel. Remember, as
we studied earlier, a Jew could
situation of a foreign slave who
flees to Israel from his foreign
enslavement. Verse 16 clearly
speaks of someone coming into
Israel from outside. In the second
place, this law was unique in all of
ancient culture. Pagan laws in the
Ancient Near East always de-
manded the return of runaway
slaves. The Code of Hammurabi,
for instance, decreed death for one
who would harbor a runaway
slave. As a matter of fact, the
nations surrounding Israel had
extradition treaties with one
another that insured the return of
such runaways. As usual, despite
the secular humanist's disparaging
of the Mosaic Law, God's Law is
distinctively different from its
contemporaries. Thus, the situa-
tion presented is the protection of
the runaway slave who escapes
legitimate property was a
form of theft. But pagan slavery
was illegitimate and immoral and
could not be condoned in biblical
law. Indeed, it was nothing less
than forced kidnapping which
was a form of theft. And even the
term "steal" is used of kidnapping
in some places: "If a man be Jound
stealing any oj his-brethren oj the
children oj Israel, and maketh
merchandise oj him, or selleth him;
then that thieJ shall die; and thou
shalt put evil away Jrom among
you." Second, liberty and freedom
are property rights God grants to
men: Freedom is not owned by
government and granted as a
favor. Thus, freedom rights may
not be "stolen", as it ",ere, from
men. The slave held in foreign
captivity was the victim of tyran-
nical governmental policy. The
February, THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 21
i.1
I
il
government that allowed and
encouraged such slavery was
stealing a God-given right from
men.
Today communism is remark-
able in the totality of its depravity:
it breaks every law of God. One
of the many laws of God that it
breaks is theft. And it breaches
this law on every level. It steals
the rights of men to be free
citizens under God. It prohibits
men from exercising dominion in
the earth with the liberty God
grants. As God-fearing, Christian
citizens, we must resist any trend
in government which would rob
us of God-given rights.
We ought to remember the
freedoms we have been allowed to
keep in our Christian land, and
pray that they not be stolen from
us by tyrants. Third, this law
demonstrates again that the godly
nation is not to become involved
in entangling alliances with pagan
nations. Remember that in Deut.
17: 1 7 the king in Israel was
forbidden to multiply wives to
himself. We saw that this was a
prohibition against establishing
entangling treaties with surround-
ing pagan nations. It was com-
mon practice in those days for
kings to give their daughters to
foreign kings in order to cement a
treaty. Many of Solomon's wives
were gained this way, which
resulted in Solomon's demise.
This law nullifies the mutual
treaties shared by Israel's sur-
rounding neighbors. Such
"community" treaties were not
binding upon Israel. Israel was
not to engage in such treaties that
guaranteed slave trade and slave
extradition between rrations. The
rationale behind this law principle
is extremely important: To
become involved in an entangling
alliance with pagan enemies puts
the godly nation in a situation
where it must breach covenant
with God. Such is intolerable.
Fourth, this law demonstrates the
propriety of our nation's granting
political asylum to those who
escape to our country from
communistic slavery. God would
not allow us to send them back
into slavery (unless, of course,
they were criminals and rebels,
such as those that Castro sent to
our shores a few years ago.) If we
would do so, we would be guilty
of stealing freedom from the
refugees.
2. Theft and Religion. The next
case law is presented in two parts.
Verse 17 reads: "There shall be no
whore of the daughters of Israel, nor
a sodomite of the sons of Israel."
Unfortunately the KJV has not
properly translated a few of the
important terms in verse 17. A
better translation would read:
"None of the daughters of Israel
shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall
any of the sons of Israel buy a cult
prostitute." The references to the
abominable practices mentioned
in verse 17 are to pagan fertility
cult practices common in nations
surrounding Israel. Prominent
fertility goddesses worshiped by
temple prostitution in that era
were Ishtar and Astarte. Israel
was forbidden to tolerate the
debauchery and idolatry of the
fertility cults in the nations
surrounding them. (InCidentally, .
the Roman Catholic Church
adopted paganism into the
Church when it tried to reach out
to worshipers ofIshtar, the
goddess of fertility. They re-
named Resurrection Sunday
Easter, and began celebrating it by
use of eggs and rabbits which
were representative of fertility.)
22 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t February, 1997
The reason the law flatly states
"there shall be none" who practice
such activity is because God's Law
meted out capital punishment for
both idolatry and prostitution.
And the fertility cults were guilty
of both crimes. Thus, it was to
literally be the case (if God's laws
of capital punishment were
enforced) that there would be
none who practice such.
Though not obvious at first
glance, there is a connection
between the preceding law
regarding the fugitive slave and
this one .. In the preceding law
God was commanding that they
should not allow freedom to be
stolen, even in the situation of a
foreign slave seeking refuge. In
the second law He was command-
ing that they should not let the
glory of God in worship be stolen
by cult prostitution, even if
committed by an Israelite. In the
one case, mercy is given even to a
foreign slave of pagan descent. In;
the other case, Israel was not to
tolerate misdirected religious
devotion, even by her own
citizens. Israel demanded a king
in 1 Samuel 9 in order to be like
other nations. But.she must never
demand to worship her God like
the other nations did! A very
important principle arises from
this: Even though someone may
be doing some activity out of an
alleged religiOUS devotion --even
if that one be a member of the
covenant! -- that does not justify
that action. God has a holy glory
that he will not share with another
Isaiah 42:8 says. He has ordained
the way in which we are to
approach him. We cannot create
our own approaches to God. We
may not simply worship God in
spirit; we must also worship Him
in truth Gohn 4:24). If we attempt
to do so we are stealing from
Him, by robbing Him of His
glory. We would then be wor-
shiping God on our terms, rather
than on His. Although the particu_
lars of the situation presented
might sound extreme to our
modeI'n ears, it may not be as
extreme as we might initially
think. For instance, in "Dear
Abby" there was a ktter from a
lady who claimed to be a good
Christian. She pointed out that in
order to support her children as a
good Christian should, she found
'it necessary to be a topless dancer.
This occupation provided her
with good pay and good hours.
In her typical pagan fashion, Abby
snpported her right to be consid-
ered a fine Christian. Worse than
this, in 1971 there was a book
published which was Wlitten by
Pauline Tabor entitled Pauline's.
In depression Pauline, who
claimed to be a Christian, became
a prostitute and even ran a brothel
for 40 years after that. In her
memoirs she condemned the
Church for excommunicating her.
She argued "we are no different
than the rest of God's children."
(Cited in Rushdoony, Institutes of
Biblical Law, n:l02.) She even
wrote: "The most sOlll-shattering
snub came a week or so after I
had opened my first house on
Smallhouse Road. All!ily life I
had been a faithful churchgoer,
from Sunday school classes as a
child to adult worship and the
teaching of Sunday school. I was
a good friend of the minister and '
his wife, and an admirer of his
sermonizing on the ne,ed for
Christian tolerance and forgive-
ness. One day I met the pastor
and his wife on the street .... They
looked the other way.... I hurried
home and wept bitterly.... I still
have my faith, but I cannot
tolerate the hypocritical attitudes
of so many of the churches and
the pastors who rarely practice
what they preach." In one place
she even pointed out that she had
strict standards for her customers
and her prostitntes. But then she
indicted the church for having
strict standards -- standards
directly based on God's Law!
Brothers and sisters, there are
professing Christians today who
justify evil actions before God,
even adultery. More often than
not, they simply shrug their
shoulders and say, "God will
forgive me." They have a warped
perception about God's forgive-
ness. They have accepted the
secular humanistic notion of
"forgive and forget", "let bygones
be bygones", or "easy forgivism",
They do not understand the
biblical notion of repentance.
They are tryi.ng, as it were, to steal
forgiveness from God by plotted
action. They have stolen from
God the right to determine what is
an acceptable situation for g ~ n t ~
ing forgiveness. They have
established their own law instead
of God's. Others have even said
that such things as adultery,
reading of pornography, abortion,
and sO forth, have helped them
maintain their marriages. And
they have said this as Christians!
They are no better than the] ews
who would start temple prostitu-
tion as a means of worshiping
God, The second portion of the
law deals with giving to the
Church, Verse 18 says: "Thou
shalt not bling the hire of a whore, or
the price of a dog, into the house of
the Lord thy Godfor any, vow: for
even both these are qbomination
unto the Lord thy God." First, we
must notice the fundamental
teaching here.' And that is that
even though God commands us to
tithe to Him and ordains free-will
offerings as a means of worship, '
He will not tolerate or accept gifts
earned in criminal or immoral
activities. God does not accept, as
it were, "dirty money." Obliga-
tions paid to God -- here particu-
larly vowed obligations .- are to
be given in heartfelt gratitude for
His holy and gracious rule over
us. We do not express heartfelt
gratitude to our Most Holy God
by continuing in sin and giving a
portion of the wages of sin to
Him! We cannot buy the favor of
God by giving Him a portion of
"dirty money." And how often
have we seen Jolks that had just
that sOrt of idea in mind in giving
to the Church. This law shows
that God will never accept the
wages of such sinners as accept-
able gifts, Such sinners were not
simply sinners before the Law, --
as we ourselves are! They were'
outlaws, representatives of an
alien law-order. Sinners are
commanded to bring an offering
to God; but enemies are not.
The Roman Catholic Church has
been notorious for seeking income
from any source. It has been
reported in published articles and
books that most mafia members
are devout Roman Catholics who
give to the Church. The Roman
Catholic Church raises money by
entertaining pagans with gambling
and bingo games. Such is despi-
cable! To avoid all appearance of
evil, our denomination insists that
only money voluntarily given to
the Church is to be sought by the
Church. We do not sponsor
God's Acre Yard Sales or even
youth car washes, as a church
activity. Although these are not
evil in and of themselves --unlike
February, 1997,fTHE CbUNSEL of ChalcedOJi t 23
the mafia and gambling activities
mentioned earlier --, they do not
reflect the fundamental rationale
of giving to the Kingdom of God:
love of God. Second, were God's
Law to accept money gained in
immoral practices, this would give
tacit approval to those activities.
For the Church to accept money
stolen by immoral or criminal
activity would be for the Church
to accept the activity as legitimate.
Such'must never be the case in the
Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This prOvides us with a basic
principle that should be held in
the civil order. Contrary to this
biblical Law, the Internal Revenue
Service taxes crime. To tax an
enterprise is to give legitimacy to
it. To tax crime gives a certain
legitimacy and legal standing to it.
Tax income supports the law
order of the nation. In our
current tax laws in America, crime
is actually taxed and becomes a
finanCial supporter of the law
order of our land! Third another
prlncipie that may be froin
this law is the principle of exclu"
sive citizenship. Since God's Law
order would not accept criminally
gained tithes and offerings.... And
since to do so would be a tacit
approval of criminal activity ... .In
biblical Law the criminal is
considered an outlaw. He is not
allowed, to S1.\pport the law-system
by giving On the case of the
Church) or paying taxes (in the
case of civil government). Thus, in
biblical Law the criminal, in effect,
loses citizenship rights. Our
government may not tax foreign
citizens in foreign lands. They are
not our citizens; they have not the
protections of our rights. like-
wise is it the case, that criminals
should lose their civil rights
privileges. They will, of course,
maintain their human rights. But
they should lose their civil rights.
Conclusion
Th,ese two case laws are
important for establishing a
fundamental, biblical Law order.
The truths contained in them are
to direc,t us in our personai lives,
in our own self-government. God
does nqt accept immoral or
criminal activity, or its fruits. The
truths contained in them are to
direct us in our spiritual lives, in
our government.
Our vows obligations are to
be paid to God from a position of
trust the truths con-
tained in them are to direct us in .
our civil lives, in our political
government. God's Law does not
accept criminals as full rights-
bearing Citizens. n
24 l' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon l' February, 1997
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAlD
BULK RATE
Permit No.
1553
Greenville, SC
29602
THE
PAULINE
DOCTRINE
OF MALE
HEADSHIP;
THE APOSTLE VERSUS
BIBUCAL'FEMINISTS
by Dr. Jaines Bordwine
The common historical and tMological
nmning through Paul's r.marks
The relation of the economical Trinity to
human hierarchiallsm
The authority of men in the home, the
church, and society
The of physical distinctions
between men and women
The silence of women In the church
The exclusion of women (rom ordained
office
The"Christ-church" model for marriage
The mistake of Eve
The onty ministry assigned to women in
the New Testament