Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20:15)¹

The Eighth Commandment is found three times in the Old Testament and five times in the New Testament: Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, and Ephesians 4:28.

Stealing is taking by force, threat, intimidation, coercion, or deception what belongs to someone else. At least forty different synonyms for stealing exist in the English language, but even these varied and descriptive terms do not comprise everything the Eighth Commandment and its statutes cover.

Stealing, arguably the most transgressed of the Commandments, is often at the root of the more serious crimes of violence and murder. It is also one of today’s most overlooked crimes. The United States government not only winks at this sin, it is guilty of legislating and participating in theft in numerous ways.

The Eighth Commandment is one of the building blocks of a viable and productive free society. When theft is not condemned and punished at every level of society, it becomes one of the chief contributors to the collapse of any nation.

Property

Property is inherent to both the Fourth² and Eighth Commandments. The Fourth Commandment’s stipulation concerning six days of labor provides a means of acquiring property, and the Eighth Commandment is predicated upon the right of ownership. Defense of property, even to the point of killing a nighttime thief, is also implicit in the Eighth Commandment:

If a [nighttime, verse 3] thief be found breaking up [caught while breaking in, NASV], and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. (Exodus 22:2)

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace [homestead, NASV], his goods are in peace [undisturbed, NASV]. (Luke 11:21)

And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. (Luke 12:39 ³

Property implies ownership, and ownership entitles the owner to do with his property whatever he wishes, provided it does not violate the rights of others:

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? (Matthew 20:15)

In The World Under God’s Law, Robert Ingram expounded upon ownership:

…the power of ownership must be absolute. It is black and white; I own a thing or I don’t. I may own a part of it, but there is no such thing as a part of ownership. Christians have a commonplace saying that every man’s home is his castle. He is king in his own residence; he may go to any lengths to stop a trespass; soldiers, in the United States, may not be quartered in his home without his consent; and not even a policeman may enter without a proper warrant issued under careful safeguards. If a man really owns his property, he may refuse to sell it, even to a king, as Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to King Ahab. He may dispose of it at his death by will; he may develop it or not as he sees fit, and within the limits of it there isn’t much he can’t do. The same conditions apply to personal property and money.⁴

In The Myth of Social Cost, Professor Steven Cheung provides three distinguishing attributes of a property owner:

A good or an asset is defined to be private property if, and only if, three distinct sets of rights are associated with its ownership. First, the exclusive right to use (or to decide how to use) the good may be viewed as the right to exclude other individuals from its use. Second is the exclusive right to receive income generated by the use of the good. Third, the full right to transfer, or freely ‘alienate,’ its ownership includes the right to enter into contracts and to choose their form.⁵

The Fourth and particularly the Eighth Commandment stand in stark contrast to the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.” In objection to a Christian’s⁶ right to private property, someone may cite Acts 4:

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common…. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

This voluntary communalism was inspired by the Holy Spirit. An immense difference exists between voluntary communalism and state-mandated and controlled communism. Overwhelming scriptural evidence reveals that this incident is not a mandatory precedent for all Christians in every age.

The political environment under which the 1st-century Christians lived may very well have been the reason the Holy Spirit prompted this action. Four chapters later, we are told that “the church which was at Jerusalem … [was] scattered abroad….” (Acts 8:1). Yahweh⁷ knew that, due to imminent persecution, the homes and lands of escaping Christians would no longer be of any value to them. It was much more profitable for the Christians to sell their possessions and share the proceeds than to abandon their properties to be pillaged by their enemies.

Acts 4 is no more a universal standard for Christians than are some of the Apostle Paul’s instructions on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, which were influenced by the impending destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. While Christians should certainly remain open to urgings from the Holy Spirit, the preponderance of scriptural evidence supports private, not communal, property:

…Blessed is the man that feareth YHWH,⁸ that delighteth greatly in his commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. Wealth and riches shall be in his house…. (Psalm 112:1-3)

In Mark 4:25, Yeshua⁹ declared that “he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath” – the exact opposite of Communism’s First Plank.

Wealth and Riches
Labor

Private property is biblically sanctioned, provided it is obtained lawfully and kept in its proper perspective. Labor should be the principal means of obtaining property:

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. (Exodus 20:9)

Wealth gotten by vanity [fraud, NASV] shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase. (Proverbs 13:11)

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)

Paul instructed Christians to work so that they might eat from what they had earned rather than mooching off the fruit of someone else’s labor:

…we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Yeshua Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

King Solomon cautioned his sons against get-rich-quick schemes:

A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent [unpunished, NASV]…. He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him. (Proverbs 28:20-22)

David, Solomon, and Paul warned that the pursuit of wealth should not be an end in itself:

…if riches increase, set not your heart upon them. (Psalm 62:10)

He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch. (Proverbs 11:28)

Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. (Proverbs 23:4)

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

Inheritance

Property can also be lawfully obtained by inheritance:

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers…. (Proverbs 19:14)

A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children…. (Proverbs 13:22)

Yahweh is very specific concerning who is to receive the inheritance:

…he shall acknowledge the son … the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Deuteronomy 21:17)

…If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as YHWH commanded Moses. (Numbers 27:8-11)

The Eighth Commandment condemns inheritance and property taxes as much as any other scheme devised to steal a family’s inheritance. A man’s inheritance belongs to his family and not to some the government, social cause, humane organization, ecological society, library, museum, or even a Christian church or ministry. Churches and ministries that solicit and procure inheritances are stealing from someone’s children, grandchildren, and other relatives. They are no different from the Pharisees and scribes who took what should have been used for aging parents and “dedicated” it to Yahweh instead:

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift [to God, NASV], by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…. (Mark 7:10-13)

Paul was emphatic about familial responsibilities:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Yahweh intends for His people to be so prosperous that they can leave an inheritance – even a house – to their children and grandchildren. Very few fathers today are able to leave a house to even one child, much less provide anything to their grandchildren. How then can churches or ministries justify their requisitions of familial inheritances?

An inheritance is for the express purpose of caring for one’s family. Nowhere does the Bible stipulate that an inheritance should go to anyone but family.

Yahweh’s Property

Ultimately, all property belongs to Yahweh:

…all the earth is mine. (Exodus 19:5)

The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine…. (Leviticus 25:23)

In The Institutes of Divine Law, Rousas John Rushdoony commented on Yahweh’s title to the earth:

The earth is indeed the Lord’s, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s.¹⁰

Yahweh has blessed us with everything we possess and placed us as stewards over it. To keep our property and possessions in their proper perspective, we must humbly acknowledge that it is Yahweh who enables us to acquire everything we own:

But thou shalt remember YHWH thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth…. (Deuteronomy 8:18)

The blessing of YHWH, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it. (Proverbs 10:22)

As stewards of Yahweh’s gifts, Christians should regard wealth and property with a view toward furthering the kingdom of Yahweh:

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)

And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. (Colossians 3:23)

Everything a Christian does should be done for the Lord and His kingdom.

The tithe from the increase from property is particularly for building Yahweh’s kingdom. The tithe is tacit testimony to the fact that Yahweh possesses title to the earth. This is the principle reason why property taxes are so insidious. Our biggest concern regarding property taxes should not be the taxes themselves, but instead their ownership implications.

Property Rights and Dominion

Private property is fundamental to understanding and applying the Eighth Commandment. In Digest of the Divine Law, Howard Rand elaborated upon this principle:

No question is so important and vital to humanity in the establishment of an orderly and peaceful social system than a proper and equitable definition of property rights…. Unless there is vested in the human race a right to own and have possessions there can be no such thing as stealing or covetousness. Any laws against such would be ridiculous; for a man cannot steal that which belongs to no one, nor can he covet that which is not another’s. Without ownership, a man can take and use anything he sees – until one stronger than he undertakes to possess it. Without property rights, properly defined and enforced, the world would be afflicted with chaos and violence.

…Those who advocate the abolition of property rights seem not to realize that to attain such a state of affairs would … reduce men to the level of animals, with the weak in fear of the strong.¹¹

The dominion mandate was given to Adam and his descendants, particularly Christians. Yahweh intends for His subjects to inherit the earth:

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace…. For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off…. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever…. Wait on YHWH, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it. (Psalm 37:11-34)

These promises are conditional. We, as a people, must first return to our God and His laws if we expect Yahweh to fulfill His promises. Inherent in the dominion mandate is the fact that Yahweh expects His people to hold, increase, and protect their property in furtherance of His kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven.

Eighth Commandment Statutes

The Eighth Commandment is explained by its statutes. Each statute expounds upon Yahweh’s intentions for how this Commandment is to be applied.

Oxen and Sheep

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. (Exodus 22:1)

Although it almost appears from this verse that Yahweh is partial to sheep thieves, this cannot be so because Deuteronomy 10:17 tells us that Yahweh does not regard one person above another. Because He requires this same impartiality in judgment from His servants, there must be more to this statute than initially meets the eye.

The Bible does not tell us why more is required of an ox thief than a sheep thief, but analyzing this statute from a primitive agronomist perspective provides a few of plausible explanations for what sets oxen apart from sheep. An ox’s lower rate of reproduction was probably one reason why oxen were more highly valued. It also takes longer to bring oxen to maturity than it does sheep, and sheep do not require the training that oxen do. But an even more probable explanation exists.

Both sheep and oxen were eaten and used for clothing, but only oxen were used to till the land, pull carts, and perform other arduous tasks. In other words, oxen were the tractors in Moses’ day. Given a choice between losing a sheep or a tractor, a prudent husbandman would choose the former. Steal a man’s sheep, and he would be out a hide and some meat. Steal a man’s ox – his means of livelihood – and his family’s standard of living would be jeopardized. Theft of a man’s sheep represents only an immediate loss. Theft of a man’s ox represents both an immediate and a future loss.

Modern Applications

Exodus 22:1 is case law that provides precedent against much more than just the theft of livestock. For example, a farmer’s tractor is of greater value to him than the family automobile. This is true not only because the tractor costs more, but because the tractor is his means of livelihood, while the car is only a means of transportation. Therefore, an apprehended tractor thief should be required to pay the equivalent of five tractors, whereas a car thief should pay the equivalent of four cars. If, instead, the victim is a traveling salesman who owns and uses a tractor only for property maintenance, the judgment would be transposed. Purpose, not price, determines an object’s worth and the rate of restitution.

Whether the rate of restitution is four or five times, Yahweh’s judgment for stealing is a deterrent to potential thieves, whereas current American jurisprudence provides little deterrence whatsoever. Under Yahweh’s laws, only the victim is compensated. The State should not receive any remuneration whatsoever. Under man’s laws, however, the victim receives little or no compensation and is further victimized by the very system that is supposed to protect him. After the State slaps the thief’s hand and collects its fines two or three times, the repeat offender may finally be thrown into a prison¹² funded by the victim’s tax-dollars. The offended party is preyed upon first by a low-class thief and then by a high-class thief.

The superiority of Yahweh’s laws is easily seen when contrasting the America’s criminal justice system with Yahweh’s equitable justice system.

Recovered Property

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. (Exodus 22:4)

Verse 1 addresses thieves who have either killed or sold what they stole, while verse 4 addresses thieves who are apprehended with the stolen item still in their possession. In the latter case, the stolen item is restored to the owner, and he is further compensated with the equivalent current value of what was stolen. This additional remuneration covers any loss or inconvenience, and just as important, it punishes the thief.

A man apprehended with the stolen item in his possession might be someone who stole out of necessity, in contrast to a career thief who steals for profit. Solomon addressed the former type of thief:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. (Proverbs 6:30-31)

Because Yahweh’s law makes no mention of a sevenfold reparation, this is not meant to be taken literally. The number seven in the Bible is often used to signify perfection, completion, and fullness. In other words, a thief of necessity, although he may be pitied, must still pay what the law requires, even if it results in bankruptcy and indentureship:

…if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:3)

A thief’s indentureship lasts until he is able to pay the required two, four, or five-fold restitution.

Grazing Rights

If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. (Exodus 22:5)

The King James Version translates the Hebrew word shalach as “shall put in,” whereas the New American Standard Version renders it “lets … loose.” The Keil and Delitzsh Commentary clarifies shalach:

If any one should consume a field or a vineyard, and let loose his beast, so that it fed in another man’s field, he was to give the best of his field and vineyard as restitution. These words do not refer to willful injury, for shilach does not mean to drive in, but simply to let loose, set at liberty; they refer to injury done from carelessness, when anyone neglected to take proper care of a beast that was feeding in his field, and it strayed in consequence, and began grazing in another man’s. Hence simple compensation was all that was demanded; though this was to be made “from the best of his field,”….¹³

The Talmud and its scholars are notorious for reversing or providing unauthorized exceptions to biblical law. Consider the late twelfth-century Talmudic scholar and Rabbi, Moses Maimonides’ exception to Exodus 22:5:

If an animal eats foodstuffs harmful to it, such as wheat, the owner is exempt because it has not benefited.¹⁴

As evidenced by this statute, “thou shalt not steal” entails much more than deliberate theft. It also addresses damage or loss of another person’s property resulting from irresponsibility, carelessness, and negligence. The excuse, “Well, I didn’t mean any harm!” or “It was just an accident.,” does not absolve a person of the loss or damage due to his negligence. Under Yahweh’s law, a person is responsible for damages whether or not they were intentional.

Self-Governed vs. State-Governed

In addition to its prohibition against intentional transgression, the Eighth Commandment is meant to promote honesty, self-control, personal responsibility, and self-government regarding one’s neighbor, his property, and his possessions. Paul taught the Galatian Christians the difference between being self-governed and state-governed:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage…. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself…. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you … that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:1, 13-14, 18-23)

Although Christians who love Yahweh and their fellow man are no longer under the law – that is, required to keep it for righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:25) – everyone else is:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)

Non-believers and intentional lawbreakers are still under the law:

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God…. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)

Such criminals are under the law and should be punished for their transgressions according to Yahweh’s judgments. On the other hand, law-abiding Christians no longer have to be forced to keep it; by threat of the judgments they are no longer under the law. Instead, Christians manifest the law by voluntarily keeping it out of love for Yahweh and their fellow man.

The Eighth Commandment is to be applied in the same fashion. It fosters self-government through Christian responsibility and provides punishment of the thief by the civil government. Self-government is demonstrated in several other Eighth Commandment statutes.

Accidental Damages

If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. (Exodus 22:6)

If a person is burning trash and the wind comes up, resulting in the destruction of a neighbor’s field, haystack, or house, the fire-starter is liable even if the damage was not intentional. He is required to take precautionary measures even against acts of nature. His neighbor is certainly not to be held responsible for his negligence.

Fire is a pollutant; thus, this case law should be applied to any pollutant that has known negative effects upon one’s neighbors. Exodus 22:6 also applies to innumerable other situations, including motor vehicle accidents. Refusing to take responsibility for damages caused by an accident is essentially the same as stealing. It is the same as saying: “I didn’t mean for it to happen, it was an accident, so it doesn’t matter that you were damaged!”

When damages are the consequence of negligence – such as faulty brakes on an automobile – Yahweh’s law requires only replacement costs. The owner of the damaged property is not allowed to sue the person responsible for anything beyond actual damages. According to lex talionis (the law of retribution) damages include physical injury. An added stipulation found in the case laws of Exodus 21 demands the care of an injured person:

…if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished [shall not be put to death]; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. (Exodus 21:18-19, NASV)

In Baba Kamma 8:1, the Jewish Mishnah – the first written compendium of Judaism’s Oral Law, later codified circa 500 AD as a part of the Babylonian Talmud – adds the unbiblical requirement of compensation for the injured person’s pain, suffering, and embarrassment or indignity.

Nowhere does Yahweh’s law provide for the State to levy additional fines or penalties, as is done today in most motor vehicle accidents. Unlike man’s edicts against speeding, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, possessing firearms made illegal by the State, and innumerable other victimless State edicts, no one is liable under Yahweh’s law unless he has caused damage or injury to someone.

When early American laws more closely resembled Yahweh’s laws, they required a crime actually be committed, which in turn required that a damaged party. This law, known as corpus dilecti, is perverted in countless present-day cases in which the State declares itself the damaged party and imposes fines upon people who have not caused damage or injury to anyone.

Under Yahweh’s law, the person at fault is responsible for damages – not an insurance company. Insurance companies contribute to irresponsibility and lawlessness by sheltering people from paying for the full consequences of their actions.

Trusts

If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of YHWH be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn. (Exodus 22:7-13)

Verses 7-13 address theft that occurs while the property of one man (party number one) is in the charge of another man (party number two). These seven verses provide biblical precedent for trusts. The very meaning of the word “trust” implies both responsibility and liability. The following definition of trusts is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:

An obligation upon a person, arising out of a confidence reposed in him, to apply property faithfully and according to such confidence….¹⁵

Like verse 4, verse 7 applies to the thief who is required to pay double restitution because he has been apprehended with the stolen goods still in his possession.

Verses 8-9 address instances when the thief is not apprehended and party number two, in whose care the property was entrusted, is suspect and is accused of the crime. If party number two is found guilty, he is required to pay double to party number one. Because the trust was initiated in this instance by the property owner, it is understood that he shares some of the responsibility or risk. Consequently, the restitution is two-fold rather than the four or five-fold required in verse 1.

If the judges determine party number one’s accusation is false and malicious, party number one is required to pay double to party number two. This is in keeping with Yahweh’s judgment of lex talionis upon false accusers:

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before YHWH, before the priests and the judges … and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

Reinstatement of lex talionis would put an end to most frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits.

In cases where something is stolen while in the care of party number two and the thief is not apprehended and the stolen goods are not recovered, party number two is required to “make restitution unto the owner thereof.” This would be a case of negligence on the part of party number two, and restitution would be the comparable value of what was stolen. In Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus, Gary North commented on such cases:

Restitution in the context of the obligation of the negligent safekeeper is a payment equal to the value of what had been lost. The responsible neighbor did not intend to profit from the theft. Indeed, he voluntarily took on added responsibilities by agreeing to serve as a protector. Negligence on the part of the safekeeper is not the same as criminal intent on the part of the thief; therefore, the penalties are different…. There is no additional penalty payment imposed on the safekeeper, for he had not hoped to profit by the transaction. To make safekeepers responsible for large restitution payments associated with criminal actions would be to break down the covenantal bonds of the community, since too high a risk factor would be transferred to safekeepers.¹⁶

Verses 10-11 and 13 address animals that die of natural causes, incur self-inflicted injuries, or are driven off or eaten by wild predators while in the care of party number two. In such instances, party number two is not held responsible because such damage is beyond his direct control and no one gained from the loss of the animal. These two statutes demonstrate that, while no one is expected to risk life or limb to save a neighbor’s property from wild animals, there is judicial incentive for a caretaker to stop a thief. This indirectly points to the necessity of an armed citizenry.¹⁷

In the case of an animal killed and eaten by a predator, party number two must provide evidence of its death (the hooves or horns for example) to absolve himself of any restitution. A person who has his neighbor’s best interest at heart may choose to take the loss upon himself as Jacob did when serving his father-in-law Laban:

This twenty years have I been with thee…. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it…. (Genesis 31:38-39)

When an animal dies of natural causes, suffers self-inflicted injuries, or is driven off by wild animals, party number two is to take an oath and swear to his innocence in the name of Yahweh. This is, once again, case law. Yahweh’s law does not allow for “pleading the Fifth,” as provided for by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This self-maledictory “oath of Yahweh” is referred to in Hebrews:

For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. (Hebrews 6:16, NASV)

Nehemiah 10 provides an example of an oath of Yahweh:

…their nobles … entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes; and that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons. (Nehemiah 10:29-30)

Those were days when an oath actually meant something, unlike the vast majority of those taken in our modern courts or by presidents, politicians, and bureaucratic government workers who break their oaths of office whenever it is to their advantage. Rushdoony addressed the gravity of oaths:

By taking the oath, a man promised to abide by his word and his obligations even as God is faithful to His word. If he failed, by oath of office, the public official invoked divine judgment and the curse of the law upon himself.¹⁸

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary corroborates the implications of self-maledictory oaths:

An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God…. The term has been variously defined: as, “a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness if he do [sic] not declare the whole truth, so far as he knows it;” … or “religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do [sic] not speak the truth” … or “a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or … to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it;”…. The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it, and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by his laws.¹⁹

British theologian and commentator Adam Clarke commented on the “oath of Yahweh”:

So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever re-acquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.²⁰

The solemnity and consequence of an oath have indeed been lost, not because of the oath’s multiplied use, but because its judgment is no longer enforced. To lie or break an oath made in the name of Yahweh is a transgression of the Third Commandment and is punishable by death.²¹

Borrowed Items

And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good…. (Exodus 22:14-15)

When damage or loss occurs that is beyond the control, influence, or power of either party, only the initiator of the agreement is responsible for damage or loss of property. The person with whom something is put in trust for safekeeping is simply performing a good deed for his neighbor, and therefore is not under the same obligations as the person who borrows something from his neighbor. With a trust, because the person who trusts is the initiator, he suffers the loss when animal dies from natural causes, injures itself, or is run off by predators. But in the case of a borrower, he, as the initiator, suffers the loss. Party number one showed a kindness by loaning his property to party number two rather than charging him rent. If the borrower fails to make good anything that is damaged, lost, or destroyed while in his care, it would be a case of returning evil for good (Proverbs 17:13).

The following incident illustrates the obligation of a borrower:

And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, …Let us go … and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell. And when they came to Jordan, they cut down wood. But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water: and he cried, and said, Alas, master! For it was borrowed. (2 Kings 6:1-5)

The reason for this young man’s alarm at losing the borrowed axe head was probably because he did not have the means to replace it and could have been placed in temporary servitude until it was paid for (Exodus 22:3).

If party number two borrows something from party number one and it is either damaged or dies, party number two is responsible for compensation unless the owner is present when the damage or loss occurred. Because the owner is present as an overseer or supervisor, the loss would be the owner’s. It is understood that the owner would intervene if his property is being used improperly. Scottish minister and commentator Robert Jamieson commented on this exception:

In this supposed condition the exemption of the borrower from all liability was evidently founded on the presumption that no one would use a beast [or tractor, chain saw, etc.] ill in presence of its owner, and that proper care was taken of it by the fact of his presence and sanction.²²

Although not required, good policy would be to meet the owner halfway and pay an equal amount toward repair or replacement.

Rented or Hired Items

…if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire. (Exodus 22:15)

Rental establishments operate on this principal today. Replacement costs are figured into the rental price.

Rushdoony sums up this section of Yahweh’s statutes:

If a man borrows and damages the property of another, he is liable for the damages; he has destroyed or harmed the property of another man and is thereby guilty of theft; restitution is mandatory. If the owner came to assist him voluntarily, as a good neighbor, the damage is the owner’s, because his property was damaged while under his own supervision. This is all the more true if he was working for hire, because his rental of his services, with ox, ass, tractor, or any other equipment, includes the wear and tear, the maintenance and damages, to his working equipment.²³

Strangers, Widows, Orphans, and the Poor

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him…. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:21-24)

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am YHWH your God. (Leviticus 19:33-34)

For YHWH your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)

Yahweh’s law includes special provisions for the disadvantaged:

• The sabbatical year’s voluntary crop is particularly for the poor (Exodus 23:11).
• The corners of the field and the gleanings of the harvest are to be left for the poor, widows, orphans, and strangers (Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19-22).
• Every third year, the tithe is to be distributed to widows, orphans, strangers, and Levites (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).

To take advantage of the weak, the vulnerable, or the defenseless is the same as stealing from them. Yahweh takes special care of the disadvantaged, and He expects us to do the same:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Judicial Equity

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause…. Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger…. (Exodus 23:6-9)

This is commonly known as equal treatment under the law. American jurisprudence was originally designed with this biblical premise in mind. However, judicial equality is seldom found in our contemporary courts. If you are not wealthy, you are not likely to receive the same treatment as those who can afford better lawyers.

Because the same inequity can occur in reverse, we are also warned against being partial to the poor:

Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause. (Exodus 23:3)

Many people have an automatic bias for the underdog, but this emotional proclivity must be governed by justice and equity. Yahweh’s law provides the balance for people who have a tendency to be overly harsh and for those who tend to be excessively lenient. It makes no distinction between the poor and the rich, but instead between the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of their standard of living.

Legislative Equality

Bias against the productive worker is rampant because of laws passed by the United States legislative branch of government. Welfare legislation has made it legal to steal from those who work for a living and give to those who refuse to work. Nowhere does the Bible promote or condone one man or a group of men taking from another man to give to someone else. This is simply theft disguised as philanthropy. Care for the poor is an individual responsibility, not a government responsibility:

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. (Leviticus 25:35)

…thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother…. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. (Deuteronomy 15:7, 11)

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)

The graduated income tax is one of the more egregious ways by which productive workers and entrepreneurs are defrauded. They are taxed at a higher rate simply because they earn more.

This tax is not only an ingenious way to steal more from the productive in society, but it is also the antithesis of Yahweh’s ethics – it is socialism at its worst. Socialism can be summed up as “more from those who have more,” whereas the Bible teaches “more to those who have more” (Mark 4:25). Yahweh rewards the industrious, while unregenerate man penalizes the productive and rewards the slothful.

Usury

If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. (Exodus 22:25)

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee…. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus 25:35-37)

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that YHWH thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to…. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20)

As their governor, Nehemiah was incensed with the Judahites who charged usury to their brethren:

And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. …I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. …I pray you, let us leave off this usury. (Nehemiah 5:6-10)

In Proverbs 28:8, King Solomon warned, “He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.” In Ezekiel 18:3-13, usurers, along with murderers, idolaters, and adulterers are all condemned.

Because they have fallen out of common usage, the terms “usurer” and “usury” need to be defined. In the Old Testament, “usurer” is translated from nashah and “usury” is translated from neshek, a derivative of nashak:

nashah … to lend … on security or interest.²⁴

neshek … interest on a debt.²⁵

neshek … interest, usury….²⁶

nashak … to strike with a sting (as a serpent); figuratively, to oppress with interest on a loan.²⁷

nashak … bite….²⁸

In the New Testament, the word “usury” is translated from tokos:

tokos … interest on money loaned….²⁹

tokos … interest of money, usury (because it multiplies money, and as it were ‘breeds’…)….³⁰

Usury and interest are the same thing. Consider the admonition in Ezekiel 18 in the New American Standard Version:

…if a man is righteous … he does not lend money on interest…. (Ezekiel 18:5-8)

The righteous man does not lend money on interest because the righteous man does not steal. Not everyone, including some pronomians, agree with this premise. Gary North, for example, writes that “Usury laws are the destroyers of civilization, for they impede the free flow of capital.”³¹ Laws prohibiting usury may impede the free flow of capital, but then so do laws against stealing in general.

Any rate of interest is usury, and usury is just an ingenious way of stealing. With a stroke of a pen, it creates the illusion of money by which people are exploited and economically enslaved:

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)

In cowboy terms: “Debt doubles the weight on your horse and puts another in control of the reins.” All debt enslaves, but when usury is involved, the weight of slavery is compounded many times over:

…Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! How long? And to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties [plunder, NASV] unto them? (Habakkuk 2:6-7)

The ancient Babylonians used thick clay tablets to engrave their usurious loan contracts. Borrowers were literally laden with weight. Today, the weight is worse because most people are so laden with usury their entire lives that upon their deaths many pass on outstanding debts to their children and grandchildren.

Verse 7 warns that usurers rise up and bite. The word “bite” is translated from the verb form of neshek, which means “interest on debt.” Debt is bad enough, but interest-encumbered debt will rise up and devour you. At the least, it will take a bite out of your bank account and, ultimately, your children’s inheritance.

Usury diverts a nation’s wealth to the ungodly. The professional usurer plays no productive part in a nation’s economy. Instead, he hampers the productivity of others for his own gain, while producing nothing of value himself. True producers earn by the sweat of their brow; usurers earn by someone else’s sweat.

Equity demands that in any business relationship all parties share equally, or at least proportionally, in both profit and risk. But in a usurious relationship, the borrower shoulders all the risk and the usurer assumes none:

The Usurer loveth the borrower as the Ivy loveth the Oak: The Ivy loveth the Oak to grow up by it, so the Usurer loveth the borrower to grow rich by him. The Ivy claspeth the Oak like a lover, but it claspeth out all the juice and sap, that the Oak cannot thrive after. So the Usurer lendeth like a friend, but he covenanteth like an enemy, for he claspeth the borrower with such bands, that ever after he diminisheth, as fast as the other increaseth.³²

Arguments Condoning Usury
Usury Pertains Only to Excessive Interest

Who gets to decide at what rate usury becomes exorbitant or excessive? Bouvier defined usury as the “excess over the legal rate….,” but who determines the legal rate?

According to John Morris, in Days of Praise, Christians are prohibited from charging only high interest:

In financial matters, we must not lend money at high interest….³³

Both Webster’s Dictionary and Bouvier’s Law Dictionary define usury as exorbitant and excessive interest:

1. the practice of lending money at an exorbitant interest rate. 2. an exorbitant amount or rate of interest.³⁴

The excess over the legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money.³⁵

Whose morality are we going to follow – Webster and Bouvier’s, or Yahweh’s?

“Legal” is anything that man has legitimized; “lawful” is that which Yahweh permits. The Bible makes no distinction regarding exorbitant, excessive, or high interest. All interest is unlawful. Had Bouvier used the word “lawful” instead of “legal,” the excess over the lawful rate charged to a borrower would be any interest whatsoever.

Nehemiah considered a meager one percent usury exorbitant (Nehemiah 5:1-13). No doubt he would have considered even a hundredth of one percent to be excessive, as it should be to anyone desiring to return to Yahweh’s morality and the ethical treatment of their brethren.

Typically man’s legislation is for the purpose of making illegal what Yahweh made lawful and making legal what Yahweh made unlawful. Bouvier actually admitted to this regarding usury:

Originally, the word was applied to all interest reserved for the use of money; and in the early ages taking such interest was not allowed.³⁶

The 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language admitted that what was originally unlawful became legal:

1. Formerly, interest; or a premium paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money…. 2. In present usage, illegal interest; a premium or compensation paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money borrowed or retained, beyond the rate of interest established by [man’s] law.³⁷

Has Yahweh’s morality changed? Or has man simply attempted to usurp Yahweh’s place as King, Judge, and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22)? Because Yahweh has not changed (Malachi 3:6), neither has His morality, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

Contrast the fickle nature of man’s legislation to the unfailing permanence of Yahweh’s laws. Under man’s law, the rate of usury may arbitrarily change at any time, and what is not usury today may very well be usury tomorrow. Under Yahweh’s law, any interest is usury and is perpetually condemned as theft. Whereas man’s legislation is ever-changing and predisposed to transient whims, Yahweh’s law is fixed. Praise Yahweh for His consistent, immutable standard!

The Easton’s Bible Dictionary provides the biblical definition of usury:

Usury: the sum paid for the use of money, hence interest; not, as in the modern sense, exorbitant interest. The Jews [Israelites] were forbidden to exact usury (Lev 25:36, 37), only, however, in their dealings with each other (Deut 23:19, 20). The violation of this law was viewed as a great crime (Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Jer 15:10). After the Return [from Babylon], and later, this law was much neglected (Neh 5:7, 10).³⁸

Usury Pertains Only to Personal Loans to the Poor

Some people argue that charging interest is considered usury only when someone personally charges interest to a poor man. In other words, charging interest for business ventures is not usury. Gary North and Dan Vender Lugt made the following respective claims:

Is usury wrong? It depends. Are you taking it from poverty-stricken borrowers or from entrepreneurs who need money to finance a project? In the Bible, “usury” is forbidden on loans to poverty-stricken fellow believers. It has nothing to do with business loans. There is no interest-rate ceiling ever mentioned in the Bible. Either no interest must be charged (charity loans), or no limit is placed on voluntary contracts (profit-seeking ventures).”³⁹

Although the Old Testament law forbade the wealthy Israelites to loan money to the needy at interest, interest-bearing loans were permitted when made upon a business basis….⁴⁰

These statements have no basis in the Bible, and doctrine cannot be established upon biblical silence. As North himself is fond of saying, this is simply “baptized humanism.” In his book Tools of Dominion, North related the following exchange between S.C. Mooney and himself:

I have always argued that business loans were (and are) loans of a completely different ethical and judicial character, and therefore lenders can legitimately ask for an interest payment. But I had also said that no loan beyond seven years is valid. He [Mooney] quite properly called me to account. If Rushdoony and I appeal to Deuteronomy 15 in order to defend the seven-year (or six-year) maximum on all loans, yet Deuteronomy 15 is also the basis of our arguing that morally compulsory charity loans – zero-interest loans – are unique, then we are mixing our judicial categories. He asked: “Why do they not hold that only debts of ‘poor’ brethren are to be cancelled, and [thus] infer from this that it is lawful for one to continue to exact the debts of the ‘rich’?...”⁴¹

Unfortunately, instead of discarding his argument for the unscriptural differentiation between charity and profit-seeking loans, North discarded the sabbatical-year restrictions altogether.

The idea that usury is acceptable for entrepreneurs and business loans is born from greed, “smorgasbord Bible study,” and the Talmud.

Greed is often at the root of justifying usurious business deals. The Bible teaches that it is a righteous thing to lend:

…the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. (Psalm 37:21)

A good man sheweth favour, and lendeth…. (Psalm 112:5)

In Luke 6:35, Yeshua taught that we should “lend, hoping for nothing again,” and He did not restrict His statement to charity loans. This makes the entire question of usurious business loans superfluous. We are not to expect even the principal in return, let alone any interest.

It is true that Exodus 22 and Leviticus 25 specifically condemn charging interest to the poor. But this needs to be kept in perspective. The borrower will almost always be poorer than the lender. More importantly, at the time when Moses codified the statutes against usury, business loans would have been a rare exception and, therefore, an extraneous concern at that time. This fact is corroborated by The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary:

Because the Israelites were not a commercial people, money was not often loaned for the purpose of business, but rather to aid the struggling poor.⁴²

Although the poor were singled out in some passages, this did not legitimize usurious loans to the rich. Consistency demands that if usurious loans to entrepreneurs or the rich are acceptable because certain passages cite the poor, the same criterion must be applied to other passages that also specifically cite the poor. This would mean, according to Exodus 23:6, we are allowed to pervert justice against the rich, and, according to Deuteronomy 24:14, we are permitted to oppress a wealthy hired servant. Just because Exodus 22:22 specifically forbids afflicting widows and orphans, does this mean we are permitted to afflict women and children whose husbands and fathers are still living? In all these instances, it is understood that although the poor, the widows, and the orphans are specifically mentioned because they are the most likely to be exploited, the law applies to everyone.

The sum of Yahweh’s Word (Psalm 119:160, NASV) must be considered on this issue. Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Proverbs 28:28; Psalm 15:1-5; and Ezekiel 18:8,13 condemn usury outright without any mention of the poor. Their prohibition is universal, with no regard for a person’s monetary standing.

Nashak is defined as “to strike with a sting (as a serpent); figuratively, to oppress with interest on a loan,”⁴³ regardless of the fiscal standing of the borrower or the purpose of the loan. Any usurer has the potential to bite or sting his debtor. The warning in Habakkuk 2 is to anyone that “ladeth himself” with usurious contracts by which the lender may rise up and “bite” him.

People who gain from usurious contracts – both lenders and borrowers – always do so at the expense of someone who is poorer. Because interest does not come from any available money supply, and is instead created out of thin air,⁴⁴ someone unable to keep up with his loan payments has to be divested of his collateral to pay the illusory interest. North attempts to shade this inescapable problem with usury by proclaiming a collective risk that is not supported by Scripture:

The risk that a particular borrower will not repay his loan must be shared among all borrowers within any particular class of borrowers.⁴⁵

The same problem that North identified as the principle problem with fractional reserve banking is intrinsic in usury as well, irrespective of the type of loan:

Fractional reserve banking … creates credit money – money which is backed only by faith.⁴⁶

Fractional reserve banking is prohibited in the Bible [because] … it violates the prohibition against false weights and measures because it creates money….⁴⁷

North also wrote the following about fractional reserve banking:

…the evil of fractional reserve banking … is condemned by the Bible [for] borrowing with collateral that you do not have and lending what you do not have (i.e., issuing receipts for commodities not held in reserve).⁴⁸

The evil of usury is condemned by the Bible for a nearly identical reason: demanding payment in part for interest that does not exist and is therefore not held in reserve.

The position that usury is permissible for business loans pits Scripture against Scripture. Yahweh allows Israelites to charge usury to non-Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:19-20), irrespective of their monetary status. This also dictates that usurious loans are not to be made by one Israelite to another Israelite, regardless of their monetary status. Even a non-usurious business loan between Christian Israelites⁴⁹ would result in the deliberate oppression and enslavement of one’s brother (Proverbs 22:7) – how much more so a usurious loan. North admitted that a usurious loan to a foreigner is a means of subduing him:

…it was legal to take interest from the foreigner who was living outside the land. It was a means of subduing him…. It was (and is) a means of dominion.⁵⁰

North cannot have it both ways. If a usurious business loan is a means of subduing a foreigner, then it is also a means of subduing a fellow countryman or brother in Christ until the loan is paid off.

To condone usurious business loans is an example of calling “evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20-24). Sanction for usurious business loans does not come from the Bible, but from the Babylonian Talmud, the Jews’ religious book of faith:

L.[oans] with interest are strictly forbidden in the Bible. Later, however, permission was given to receive interest under certain conditions, if the transaction was for business purposes.⁵¹

…it was in the amoraic period in Babylonia that the prohibitory laws against interest proved to be no longer compatible with the economic needs of the community; and ever since the necessity of finding legal subterfuges to evade those laws has persisted…. The Talmudic evasions of the prohibitions against interest served as precedents for the legalization of transactions involving interest. Thus it was deduced from the evasions reported in the Talmud that it would be permissible for a lender to lend 100 units to a businessman for him to use in his business…. In time, a standard form of legalization of interest was established, known as hetter iskah, meaning the permission to form a partnership. A deed, known as shetar iskah, was drawn up and attested by two witnesses, stipulating that the lender would supply a certain sum of money to the borrower for a joint venture…. In the course of centuries this form of legalizing interest has become so well established that nowadays all interest transactions are freely carried out, even in compliance with Jewish law, by simply adding to the note or contract concerned the words al-pi hetter iskah. The prohibition on interest has lost all practical significance in business transactions, and is now relegated to the realm of friendly and charitable loans….⁵²

In A History of England, Goldwin Smith summed up this form of theft:

In the Middle Ages the lending of money at interest was called usury, and usury was called a sin. It was “a false and abominable contract, under colour and cover of good and lawful trading,” which “ruins the honour and soul of the agent, and seeps away the goods and property of him who appears to be accommodated.” Christians were forbidden to lend money. The Jews were quite willing to do it.⁵³

How things have changed! Following Jewish tradition, even some pronomian Christians are now promoting and involved in charging usury to their brethren.

Usury Pertains Only to the Old Covenant

Some people argue that the statute prohibiting and condemning usury is no longer applicable under the New Covenant, citing the parable of the talents:

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come…. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him … that he might know how much every man had gained by trading…. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (Luke 19:12-24)

North claimed this parable proves “there is no biblical rule against interest-bearing loans”⁵⁴ and that “this parable of God’s kingdom acknowledges that interest-taking is legitimate.” In business ventures.⁵⁵

Did Yeshua change Yahweh’s law regarding usury under the New Covenant, as some Christians claim? Put bluntly: God forbid! If we are counting on Yeshua’s blood-atoning sacrifice as a propitiation for our sins, we had better hope He did not. Had Yeshua changed this or any other of Yahweh’s laws, He would have been promoting disobedience to Yahweh’s moral nature as codified in His laws and, therefore, He could not be the sinless sacrifice necessary for Him to be our Savior.

Even if the Old Covenant had already come to a close – which it had not – Yeshua did not come to destroy the law or the morality of Yahweh:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

To have changed Yahweh’s law concerning usury would have been the same as breaking Yahweh’s law, thereby making Yeshua, at the very best, the least in the Kingdom. Yeshua came to do the will of His Father (John 5:30, 6:38), not to abrogate it.

With this in mind, let us reconsider the parable of the talents from the paradigm that Yeshua could not and did not change Yahweh’s law on usury but instead upheld it. Note first that, in addition to accusing the nobleman (who represented Yeshua) of being an austere or hard man, the wicked servant also accused him of taking up what he had not laid down and reaping what he had not sown. In other words, the servant had accused his master of being a thief. On this point, North agreed:

He accuses the master of being a thief, or at least an unscrupulous exploiter.⁵⁶

Immediately following these false accusations, the master responded:

…Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22-23)

The master declared the wicked servant would be judged by his own standard. Because this wicked servant considered his master a thief, the very least he could have done was steal for his master in the easiest possible way, by putting his money in a bank that paid usury.

The Geneva Bible notes on Luke 19:23 concur:

(e) To the bankers and money changers. Usury or loaning money at interest is strictly forbidden by the Bible, (Exo 22:25-27; Deu 23:19-20). Even a rate as low as one per cent interest was disallowed, (Neh 5:11). This servant had already told two lies. First he said that the master was an austere or harsh man. This is a lie for the Lord is merciful and gracious. Next he called his master a thief because he reaped where he did not sow. Finally the master said to him that why did you not add insult to injury and loan the money out at interest so you could call your master a “usurer” too! If the servant had done this, his master would have been responsible for his servant’s actions and guilty of usury. (Geneva Bible Notes [1599])

Yeshua did not alter the law on usury; He validated it. He identified usury for exactly what it is – theft, plain and simple. This parable puts an end to the hypothesis that usurious business loans are permissible .

Christian Usurers

The word “bank” in Luke 19:23 is translated from the Greek word trapezan. It is the same Greek word translated “tables” in Matthew 21:12 when Yeshua overthrew the tables of the money changers or bankers and chased them with a scourge out of the Temple.

Because most Christians are not bankers, they think they may now breathe a sigh of relief. But can they? Usurers are more common than non-usurers among modern Christians. I am not referring to Christians in debt to usurers, something that can usually be classified as foolish but not sinful. If a Christian has money in an interest-bearing savings or checking account, he is a usurer. Today’s bankers are thieves, and anyone who has an interest-bearing account is an accomplice to their crimes.

Because individuals who “house” their money in banks are paid a rate of interest to do so, and because their “housed” money is then used by the bankers to charge a greater rate of interest to someone else, both the banker and the depositor are partners in theft:

Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul…. (Proverbs 29:24)

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (Romans 2:21)

Investors in Savings and U.S. Treasury bonds, along with pawnshop owners, car dealerships, and other business owners who finance items and charge interest through banks or any other means are all involved in usury.

This is a difficult fact for most people to accept. Many Christians will respond, “But I live on the interest I collect!” A prostitute could say the same thing. It comes down to two questions: Who are you going to trust for your needs – thieves or Yahweh? And is mammon your god or is Yahweh?

The heathen, out of natural reason and understanding, were able to render an account that an usurer is a three-fold thief…. But we that are Christians hold them in such honor and esteem that in a manner we adore and worship them; no regard is had, what scorn and derision thereby we procure to the name of a Christian and to Christ Himself. (Martin Luther⁵⁷)

Pledges

If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. (Exodus 22:26-27)

A pledge (known today as collateral) is a promise or a token to repay something borrowed. The English word “pledge” is translated from chabal and is defined by Strong’s Concordance:

…a primitive root; to wind tightly (as a rope), i.e. to bind; specifically, by a pledge….⁵⁸

Although the Bible does not condemn pledges, it does put restrictions on certain items taken in pledge. The borrower in Exodus 22 is obviously a poor man who has only his outer raiment or coat to offer as a pledge. The lender must return his coat before nightfall. Otherwise, the lender would be exploiting the borrower instead of coming to his aid:

They cause the naked to lodge without clothing, that they have no covering in the cold. They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for want of a shelter. They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor. They cause him to go naked without clothing, and they take away the sheaf from the hungry. (Job 24:7-10)

Returning a man’s coat also generates good rapport between the lender and the borrower, and gives the borrower added incentive to meet his obligation as quickly as possible:

And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge: In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before YHWH thy God. (Deuteronomy 24:12-13)

North provided two more plausible reasons for this statute:

First, the borrower has to come back every evening to get it back. This is an inconvenience. He will have an added incentive to repay the loan early. Second, since the garment is in the possession of the lender during the day, it cannot be used as collateral with another lender. One piece of collateral can be used for only one loan at a time, if the lender demands collateral.⁵⁹

North correctly pointed out that fractional reserve banking violates this statute:

Modern banking is based on the flagrant flouting of the prohibition against multiple indebtedness. For every asset a bank owns, there are many claims – legal claims – against that asset. The bank keeps fewer reserves on hand to meet demands of lenders to the bank – depositors – than the bank has promised to deliver on demand….

Depositors believe that their money is available on demand. The banks have promised them that it is available on demand. But it isn’t. If every depositor came to the bank one day and began to withdraw his money, the bank would go bankrupt…. The day men lose faith in the solvency of the bank – in the bank’s ability to repay those few depositors who demand their money – a bank run ensues. Everyone wants his money at once. The bank defaults. It has run out of “raiment.”⁶⁰

Forbidden Pledges and Other Conditions

Under no circumstance is a widow’s garment to be taken in pledge:

Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge. (Deuteronomy 24:17)

Other objects are also forbidden as pledges:

No man shall take the nether [handmill, NASV] or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. (Deuteronomy 24:6)

In biblical times, hand mills and millstones were the means for grinding grain and were vital to a man’s daily subsistence and survival. The Bible Knowledge Commentary elaborated on millstones as collateral:

Millstones were used daily in homes to grind grain in preparing meals. To take both or one of these as collateral for a debt would in effect deprive a man of his daily bread (livelihood) and therefore contradict the spirit of generosity which should have motivated the lender in the first place.⁶¹

This statute is case law, as seen in Job’s disdain for those who would take a widow’s ox in pledge:

They drive away the ass of the fatherless, they take the widow’s ox for a pledge. (Job 24:3)

To require a man’s millstone or ox as a pledge essentially required the borrower to put his life in hock. Nothing can be taken in pledge that could jeopardize a man’s subsistence or livelihood.

It is also unlawful for a lender to enter a man’s house to secure a pledge:

When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand abroad [outside], and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee. (Deuteronomy 24:10-11)

Until recently, it was demeaning for someone to find himself in such a financial plight that he would be forced to borrow. Deuteronomy 24:10-11 preserves what dignity the borrower has left. It is degrading enough that when a man finds himself in such a financial predicament that he must humble himself and borrow from his neighbor. Yahweh protects the borrower from further humiliation by forbidding the lender from entering his home for the pledge. No matter how humble a man’s home, it is still his castle and as such is to be protected from all unwanted or uninvited intruders.

Governments, not just individuals, transgress this Eighth Commandment statute. Governments, after all, are simply a group of individuals imposing their will upon others. Therefore, this statute would also apply to the local sheriff who dispossesses a man of his home or property because he is unable to pay an unlawful property tax.⁶² Of course, because both the property tax and the dispossession are unlawful, government agents are unlikely to be concerned about breaking this statute any more than Yahweh’s other statutes.

Nothing in the Bible says a person must take a pledge. Exodus 22:26 begins “If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge….” The lender can always choose to simply trust the borrower to do what is ethical, without requiring leverage or coercing him.

Yeshua taught the highest standard concerning lenders:

Give to every man that asketh of thee … lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest…. (Luke 6:30-35)

This magnanimous approach to lending is not to be taken advantage of by borrowers:

The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. (Psalm 37:21)

A Christian has no moral obligation to lend anything to covenant-breakers or those who are poverty-stricken as a consequence of their own slothfulness or wickedness:

A good man sheweth favour, and lendeth: he will guide his affairs with discretion. (Psalm 112:5)

Surety

Surety occurs when a third party or person assumes the obligation of a borrower in part or in whole. The Bible depicts the person who provides a pledge or becomes surety on behalf of someone else as a fool:

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Do this now, my son, deliver thyself…. Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler. (Proverbs 6:1-5)

He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure. (Proverbs 11:15)

A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend. (Proverbs 17:18)

Surety contracts are folly for both parties because trust is being placed in a finite man who cannot guarantee he will be alive to uphold his part of the bargain even one day later. Martin Luther commented upon the person who becomes surety for another man:

…his own life and property are never for a single moment any more secure or certain than those of the man for whom he becomes surety.⁶³

Like usurious contracts, becoming surety demands that a person guarantee his future, a presumption the Bible identifies as arrogance:

Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. (Proverbs 27:1)

It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 1:7)

Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. (James 4:13-16)

Labor Laws
Wage Security

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates. (Deuteronomy 24:14)

The word “oppress,” translated from the Hebrew word ashoq, is better rendered “defraud” as it is in Leviticus 19:

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him…. (Leviticus 19:13)

This statute is found several times throughout the Old and New Testaments alike:

Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work. (Jeremiah 22:13)

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against … those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith YHWH of hosts. (Malachi 3:5)

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you…. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. (James 5:1-4)

Yeshua affirmed this statute:

…the labourer is worthy of his hire. (Luke 10:7)

Although not immediately apparent, this same Eighth Commandment principle is found in Deuteronomy 25:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Paul elaborated upon this statute when he wrote to the Corinthian Christians:

Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? … For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10)

Paul explained this further when he combined Deuteronomy 25:4 and Yeshua’s statement in Luke 10:

…the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, the labourer is worthy of his reward [wages, NASV]. (1 Timothy 5:18)

A workman is worthy of not only a wage but a commensurate wage:

…every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. (1 Corinthians 3:8)

This statute also requires that service providers stand behind their work whether they are in the construction industry, the medical profession, or any other contracted vocation. The contractor has the right to expect exactly what he pays for – anything less amounts to fraud.

Minimum Wage

Minimum wage laws were first introduced nationally in the United States in 1938, France in 1950, and in the United Kingdom in 1999.⁶⁴

Who is responsible for setting the minimum hourly or daily wage – the employer, the employee, or the government? Yeshua answers this question in Matthew 20:1-15 in His parable of the laborers in the vineyard. In this parable, the householder is depicted as paying a denarius – the common day’s wage in Judea at that time – to those he hired at all hours of the day. Because the householder in this parable represents Yeshua, we know the wages were just and equitable.

Some people might think that verse 15 (“Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”) establishes the employer alone as the person responsible for setting the wage, but this is incorrect. Verse 13 is the biblical standard for wage-setting: “But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, … didst not thou agree with me for a penny?”

The word “agree” is translated from the Greek word sunefoóneesás, from which our English word “symphony” is derived. Sunefoóneesás is defined by Strong’s Concordance:

…to be harmonious, i.e. (figuratively) to accord (be suitable, concur) or stipulate (by compact).⁶⁵

Both employer and employee are less likely to be taken advantage of if each of them is involved in setting the wage. When government gets involved in setting minimum wage, it is inevitable that the employer will be put at a disadvantage because some tasks simply do not warrant the minimum wage set by government bureaucrats. Rushdoony expounded upon the socialist idea of equal pay and, in so doing, also provided insight concerning minimum wage:

Because work is a debt contracted by an employer, the extent of that debt depends on the nature and extent of the services. An ox gets his feed and his care; a laborer is worthy of his hire; the nature of the services determines the extent of the debt. Thus, a ditch-digger does not command the pay of an engineer; the debt contracted for his services is an obviously lower one in virtually any market-place or society. There can be no equality of pay because there is no equality of debt. There can be no “fair price” for a particular kind of service, because the value of the service varies in the nature of the debt it contracts in terms of the need for the service.⁶⁶

Because some employers cannot afford the minimum wage set by the government, the reduced number of employees they hire contributes to unemployment and limits productivity. Minimum wage also contributes to the cost of conducting business because the government forces business owners through the Federal Unemployment Tax Act to pay those who have become unemployed. Those who are habitually unemployed are usually those at the lowest pay scale and who have the least amount of skills.

Minimum wage also harms the poorest and least educated in society, the very people it is designed to help. These people are unlikely to be hired even at minimum wage; and by the government’s current law, they are prevented from negotiating a lower salary. In his book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, John Stossel, author and anchor of the ABC news program 20/20, commented on the fact that minimum wage harms those it purportedly assists:

Just as price controls discourage production, wage controls discourage hiring. The poorest workers are hurt most. When you fix wages above the market rate, the rate freely set by the give-and-take of supply and demand, you temporarily help experienced workers by giving them an artificial raise. But you also take away all incentive to hire an “entry-level” worker.⁶⁷

No biblical precedent exists for minimum wage. A wise employer knows that if he treats his employees well, they are likely to be more productive. A judicious employer knows that fairness and equity should govern his wage offer:

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

Employees should respond in kind to their employers:

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service [serve them all the more, NASV]…. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

Prompt Payment

…the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. (Leviticus 19:14)

At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto YHWH, and it be sin unto thee. (Deuteronomy 24:15)

Wages are to be paid promptly at the specified and contracted time. In Moses’ day, it was the practice for employers to pay every day. Today, if an employee agrees to a weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly paycheck and is not put at a disadvantage by so doing, his employer would not be required to pay every night. If an employee needs an immediate or more frequent paycheck because of an emergency, the employer should give his employee an advance against his wages or pay him early.
This statute also curbs an abusive power sometimes exhibited by the wealthy. It has become standard practice for some large corporations to violate this statute and delay payment to their accounts payable as long as possible in order to collect interest on their money. In such instances, smaller contracting companies are sometimes forced to borrow money to meet their own obligations while waiting to be paid. Some companies are even forced out of business by such covetous practices.

Businesses with delayed-payment policies are twofold thieves: they are both usurers and tardy paymasters.

The judgment upon these businesses should be fivefold restitution (Exodus 22:1), to be paid on the day following the originally agreed upon date for payment. If this judgment were enforced, late wages and payments would all but disappear. This same judgment (four or fivefold restitution) should also be applied to tardy court settlements.

Severance Pay

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith YHWH thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)

A faithful employee should not be sent away empty-handed. He should be given a bonus according to the bounty that his employer gained as a result of his service.

Lost and Found Items

Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. (Deuteronomy 22:1-4)

The phrase “hide thyself from them” is translated “pay no attention to” in the New American Standard Version. This lost and found statute is the same concept presented by Paul in Philippians 2:4, “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

There is no place in Yahweh’s law for either the “losers, weepers; finders, keepers” concept or the adage “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” which is legally known as adverse possession. Both concepts rival Deuteronomy 22:1-4 and thus constitute theft of another person’s property.

Any indifference toward our brother and his property is a violation of the Eighth Commandment. We are our brother’s keeper and our neighbor’s guardian, and our duties as such extend to our neighbor’s lost or endangered property.

Yahweh does not permit us to prosper from someone else’s misfortune. When we recover someone’s lost property, we must hold it in ward or trust as if the owner himself had entrusted it to our care. We must make every effort at our disposal to restore it to its rightful owner. If the lost property is livestock, we are to care for it, if we are able, until the owner has been located and the livestock restored. To do otherwise is to be a thief. Any costs incurred by the keeper – such as feed costs or storage fees – should be reimbursed by the owner when he reclaims his property. These costs are essentially expenditures he would have borne himself had he not lost his property.

According to verse two, we must conduct ourselves in the same way toward total strangers. We are to do the same for even an enemy:

If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. (Exodus 23:4-5)

…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? (Matthew 5:44-47)

Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not…. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:14-21)

The requirement to help someone with his lost or distressed livestock would equally apply to someone whose automobile is broken down alongside the road. For a man to refrain from assisting a neighbor, stranger, or even an enemy could be identified as theft by negligence, abandonment, or desertion.

Bystanders and Eyewitnesses

In principle, Deuteronomy 22:1-4 includes our duty toward the life and well-being of our brother and neighbor. This “bystander duty,” which includes rendering assistance against criminals, is alluded to later in Deuteronomy 22:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

The unstated implication is that if a woman cries out, any man within earshot is to come to her rescue. Rushdoony commented upon this bystander obligation:

If the bystander has an obligation to render aid “with all lost things” of another man, he has an even more pressing obligation to help rescue the man. Thus, this principle of responsibility appears in Deuteronomy 22:24. A woman assaulted in a city is presumed to have given consent if she does not raise a cry, the origin of the hue and cry common law. At her cry, every man within sound of her voice has a duty to render immediate aid….⁶⁸

An eyewitness to a crime has an obligation – a debt if you will – both to the victim and to society in general. He is duty-bound to intervene and do whatever is necessary to stop the perpetrator. When Moses witnessed a fellow Israelite being unjustifiably beaten, he fulfilled his obligation and intervened by taking the law into his own hands (Exodus 2:11-12).

Imagine how many crimes would be averted if thieves, rapists, murderers, and potential criminals knew that every Christian man within sight or earshot of a crime stands ready to do whatever is necessary to stop wrongdoers in their crimes. How much more so, if every law-abiding, able-bodied man were also required to carry a firearm for his own, his family’s, and his neighbor’s protection?⁶⁹ In itself, this would almost eliminate the need for a hired police force. It is impossible for police to prevent a crime, unless an officer just happens to be at the right place at the right time. Their presence in a community is more for investigation and resolution of the crime than for preventing it. In fact, the Supreme Court in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, Petitioner v. Jessica Gonzales, No. 04-278, ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens. It has been demonstrated in cities like Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), where every household is required by law to possess a firearm, that crime is all but eliminated.

Tragically, America’s federal and state governments have practically stripped its citizens of their inherent right to self protection and their responsibility of intervention, with the exception of those who petition and jump through the government’s hoops to secure a concealed weapon permit. Keep in mind that one of the definitions for a permit or license is “the permission to do what the government otherwise considers illegal,” making a criminal out of anyone who wishes to fulfill his biblical responsibilities.

Yahweh has so much as commanded us to be armed for protection against and the apprehension of criminals:

Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye YHWH. (Psalm 149:6-9)

Armed citizens are much more likely to intervene and arrest lawbreakers than are those who are unarmed. The right of a citizen to arrest a criminal probably originated from Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and Psalm 149:6-9.

Misprision is a legal term meaning to “do nothing toward the apprehension of a criminal.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary provides the following explanation as part of its definition for misprision:

Misprision of felony is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon…. Misprision of treason is the concealment of treason by being merely passive…. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed, to inform a magistrate [at the very least]. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision. …The passive omission to do one’s duty – to stand by and make no attempt to apprehend the offender or give information to the police. The least degree of assent makes the person a principal in treason, or in felonies a principal or accessory.⁷⁰

Any passive witness to a crime is a false witness in that he is false to the victim. By his failure to act or speak out, a passive witness is consenting to and, in a sense, participating in the crime. The same is true concerning protection, rescue, and care of a neighbor’s property.

Boundary Markers

Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that YHWH thy God giveth thee to possess it. (Deuteronomy 19:14)

Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:17)

King Solomon also addressed this Eighth Commandment statute in Proberbs 22:28 and 23:10.

This statute was especially relevant in the days when no boundary fences existed. Adam Clarke commented upon its significance at that time in history:

Before the extensive use of fences, landed property was marked out by stones or posts, set up so as to ascertain the divisions of family estates. It was easy to remove one of these landmarks, and set it in a different place; and thus the dishonest man enlarged his own estate by contracting that of his neighbour. The termini or landmarks among the Romans were held very sacred, and were at last deified.⁷¹

The Romans, in fact, made moving a boundary marker a capital crime. John Calvin commented upon the sacredness of landmarks:

…That everyone’s property may be secure, it is necessary that the landmarks, set up for the division of fields, should remain untouched, as if they were sacred.⁷²

The English theologian Matthew Henry provided interesting commentary on landmarks as well:

Here is an implicit direction given to the first planters of Canaan to fix land-marks, according to the distribution of the land to the several tribes and families by lot. Note, it is the will of God that every one should know his own, and that all good means should be used to prevent encroachments and the doing and suffering of wrong. …It forbids … the invading of any man’s right, and taking to ourselves that which is not our own, by any fraudulent arts or practices, as by forging, concealing, destroying, or altering deeds and writings (which are our land-marks, to which appeals are made), or by shifting hedges, meer-stones, and boundaries. Though the land-marks were set by the hand of man, yet he was a thief and a robber by the law of God that removed them.⁷³

Eminent Domain

Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. (Micah 2:1-2)

Eminent domain – the government’s so-called right to seize property for the “betterment” of the people as a whole – is one way by which the government moves boundary markers and steals from its citizens. Bouvier defines eminent domain, in part, as follows:

The superior right of property subsisting in a sovereignty, by which private property may in certain cases be taken or its use controlled for the public benefit, without regard to the wishes of the owner…. The right of every government to appropriate otherwise than by taxation and its police authority … private property for public use.⁷⁴

Because there is no exception clause in Deuteronomy 19:14, no individual or collective body of individuals has the authority to steal land by moving the boundary markers, regardless of the reason. Rushdoony concurs:

Eminent domain is a divine right. It belongs to God alone. The “right” of the state to eminent domain has no place in Biblical law.⁷⁵

Eminent domain is thus an attribute of ultimate sovereignty, and therefore it is an attribute of divinity…. The right of eminent domain, then, is a divine right and power. Moreover, there are no degrees of divinity: divinity is a total concept. A deity is either divine, or he is not; he is either a god, or he is not. Thus, when the state lays claim to divinity, it lays claim to total power. The right of eminent domain ostensibly limits the state to the confiscation of properties necessary to the common good, or to the public welfare. But the state is the judge of the common good and public welfare, and so the power of eminent domain expands steadily towards the total possession by the state of all properties within the state. The state, being viewed as the higher or supreme power, and the possessor of eminent domain, is seen as the natural guardian and agency of the public welfare. In terms of this presupposition, private ownership is seen as hostile to the common good, whereas state ownership advances the public welfare…. The right of eminent domain, therefore, by associating a “necessary common use” or good with the state, makes the state into a benevolent god whose control and ownership are necessary to the welfare of man.⁷⁶

Eminent domain is just an impressive term for legalized plunder. Because only Yahweh is sovereign, only He holds eminent domain to all land (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23). Any government claiming domain is breaking not only the Eighth Commandment when it enforces that claim, but also the Second Commandment⁷⁷ by putting itself in the place of God.

Amassing Property

And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years…. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family…. And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour’s hand…. The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine. …that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession. (Leviticus 25:8-28)

The law regarding the year of Jubilee makes it impossible for property to be permanently amassed in the hands of any one person or family. Houses and lands are not to be accumulated in the hands of an elite few:

Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (Isaiah 5:8)

Land was to be divided exclusively among the tribes of Israel and then further divided among the families of each tribe, thereby establishing an equality among the families of Israel:

And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. (Numbers 33:54)

When land grants remain in the hands of the original owner’s family, it automatically regulates, controls, and even checks foreign immigration. North elaborated on Yahweh’s land-tenure system:

This land tenure system kept those outside a particular tribe from becoming permanent owners of rural land throughout Israel. This restricted the intermarriage of the tribes (Num. 36)…. This system also kept strangers in the land – gentile alien residents – from ever becoming landowners rather than leaseholders….⁷⁸

When Ezra returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, he found that many of his fellow Judahites had taken foreign wives. His concern was threefold: religious, ethnic, and territorial:

…the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations…. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves…. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons … that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:1-12)

The same problems exist in America. The more integrated and multicultural we have become, the more pluralistic we have become and, consequently, the less Christian. From a strictly religious perspective, integration and miscegenation,⁷⁹ or race mixing, should be just as much a concern today as it was for Ezra. However, religion was only one of his concerns. Ezra was just as worried about the pollution of Israelite genes as he was about the adulteration of their religion.

Ezra was also concerned because he knew that if these mixed marriages were allowed to continue, Israel’s land inheritance would be in peril. The boundary markers would have been overturned and lost altogether to the mixed multitude born of those integrated relationships. This would have occurred even if the parents of these mixed children or the children themselves were believers in Yahweh. Israel would still have been dispossessed of her land. Rushdoony concurred:

…Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-28). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or mirror, and image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.

Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.⁸⁰

Today in America and other predominately Celto-Saxon countries (Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples), contemporary Israel’s⁸¹ land and religion are being stolen. She is again losing her spiritual and geographical heritage to foreign immigrants and the children born of mixed races.

Monopolies

The principle of Isaiah 5:8 also applies to the often misunderstood monopoly. It is not a monopoly for someone to develop and market a product that no one else has yet produced. Neither are Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target monopolies. The fact that these three companies are fierce competitors establishes that none of them is a monopoly. If any one of them were a monopoly, the other two would not exist. A part of the definition of a monopoly requires that it have no competitors:

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices…. 5. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.⁸²

However, there is more to what makes a company a monopoly then simply no competitors. The following explanation should help us identify true monopolies:

Being a single seller, by itself, is not good, nor evil – it depends on how one obtained that single-seller status. Did one obtain a monopoly by economic competition in the marketplace, or did one obtain it by political pull, i.e., lobbying? If such status is gained by competition in the free-market then the “monopoly” – the successful business – is good. If such status is gained by using the government, or Mafia, to force one’s competition out of business, then the monopoly is evil. As all political intervention (limitation by force) in the marketplace is outlawed under capitalism, a harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible. If one considers a monopoly by definition as intrinsically evil, then only “businesses” that obtain their market share by having their competition outlawed (as the U.S. Post Office does) can be called a monopoly.

…Observe what is evil here: the act of using the government to outlaw one’s competition. It does not matter whether the government uses its power to outlaw competition to “protect” a single business, or to benefit a group of one hundred companies from a single superior competitor. Whenever the government outlaws an individual from entering and competing in any given industry it is evil and wrong. The criterion of judgment is: is competition (the freedom to produce and trade) outlawed in some respect (that is, regulated) or not?

…The sole source of harmful monopolies is the government, which is the only agency that has the power to outlaw (i.e., regulate) competition. As evidence, witness the United States Post Office, which makes it illegal for anyone to charge less than 34¢ [42¢ today] for first class mail…. Other examples include the East India Company of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Pacific Railroads of the 19th century, and the AMA’s monopoly over the prescription of medicine in the 20th [and 21st] century.⁸³

There is no such thing as a lawful monopoly. Legal monopolies, however, exist by the permission and sometimes the provision of the government. When the government legalizes a monopoly, it discriminates against, restricts, and even prohibits others from making a lawful living by the same means, thereby stealing from them.

Monopolies, at least in principle, are condemned by Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 19:14, and Isaiah 5:8.

Just Weights and Measures

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am YHWH your God…. (Leviticus 19:35-36)

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which YHWH thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto YHWH thy God. (Deuteronomy 25:13-16)

This statute demands equitable commerce in meteyard (inches, feet, yards, mileage, acreage, etc.), weight (ounces, pounds, tons, etc.), and measure (any dry or liquid capacity measurement, such as bushels or gallons).

Paul summed up this statute:

That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all…. (1 Thessalonians 4:6)

During the early American gold rush days, a practice known as “salting a mine” was a classic example of fraud. In order to get a better price for an inferior mine, the current owner would shoot gold flakes into the walls of his mine with a shotgun, giving the impression that the mine had immense potential.

Although we no longer use the old-fashioned scales that were easily manipulated to