1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/3

In this message we continue

studying

in

the section of

Deuteronomy Which gives

application to the Eighth

Commandment: T/lOU

shalt

not

steal. n our last message we dealt

with two forms of theft outlined by

Moses in verses 15-18: The theft

of

freedom and theft from God. In this

message we will be skipping verses

19-20 with only a few brief

comments. This is because earlier

in

Deuteronomy

15

we dealt with the

idea involved in verses

19

and

20.

Although there it was given another

application

under

the fourth

commandment.

The law in tllese verses has a

clear application to both the

Fourth and Eighth

Commandments. The

Fourth Commandment

enforces a rest upon God's

people. By God's mercy, the

poor are given a rest from

financial

burden

; they are

not

obligated to pay interest

on loans of necessity, In

regard to the Eighth

Commandment regarding theft, tlle

demand that we not charge interest

on loans of necessity to fellow .

believers makes it elear that to do

so would be a form of theft in God's

sight. So as not to

be

unduly

redundant, we moveon to verses

21-25

to consider the prohibition

of

theft by word and by deed.

Theft by Word

When thou

shalt

vow

a

vow unto

the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack

to

pay it:

for the

Lord

thy God

will

surely require

it of

thee; and it

would

be

sin in thee.

But

i

thou

shalt

forbear

to vow

it shall be

no sin in thee. T/lat

which is gone out of thy lips

thou

shalt

keep and pelf rm; even a

ree

will

oifeling.

according

as

thou hast

vowed

unto the Lord

thy

God, which thou

hast promised with thy

mouth.

This

is one of those laws that does not

immediately strike us as having

relevance to the Eighth

Commandment. We can perhaps

more readily see the anti-theft

principle involved in verses 15 and

16. There Israel was told that it

was

not

necessary to return a

runaway slave that

had

escaped

from a foreign land to Israel.

People were

not

property as pagan

slave law insisted. Thus, to provide

asylum and freedom for a runaway

foreign slave was

not

a theft of

property. There was no moral

compulsion to return a foreign

slave to his kidnapped status.

We can rather easily discern the

theft-concept involved in verses

19-

20. For there we are told how to

~ e u t e r O n D t n l 1

23;21 25

Rev Kenneth

L

Gentry ]r.

loan money particularly what

not

to do with it

in

the particular

circumstance cited. Also in Deut.

24;7

we have an unmistakable

reference to man-stealing or

kidnapping. This makes Deut.

24;7

easily understood in terms of

the Eighth Commandment. But

how does the idea of theft come to

play in tlns case law currently

before us? [believe that as we

consider it we will discover there is

a very important sense in which

this law deals with theft. The

moral principle enunciated here

prohibits theft by word. Let us

notice the particulars of the case

cited to illustrate the matte r of

theft

by

word. First, let us notice

that in two unambiguous

statements Moses makes it clear

mat his illustration is

not

that of a

standing, mandatory obligation

before God.

In

verse 22 the Law

says, But

if thou

shalt forbear to

vow, it shall

be no

sin

in

mee. The

vow was not required.

In

the KJV

verse 23 reads; even a free-will

offering.

Modem

translations have

something along the lines of; you

have voluntarily vowed. The

situation presented is

of

a voluntary

vow to God.

t

is freely

entered

into

by

the person; God does

not

demand it. But, despite the

vow's

not

being required by God,

and its being voluntarily entered

into by human initiative, since it

has been made, it has become

required. And since it has been

made, God does expect its fmition:

The Lord thy God will surely require

it of thee (v. 21). The

command is clear; That

which is gone out of thy lips

thou

shalt keep and pe/form;

even

a free-will offeling,

according as

thou hast

yawed

unto the

Lord

thy God, which

thou hast promised with thy

mouth

v. 23).

As

material

and

sinful

creatures, we all have

materialistic tendencies within us.

We tend to think that if

we

do not

objectively steal some tangible good

or money,

then

we are not guilty of

breaking God's Eightb

Commandment

against theft. And it

is obvious that tbere is

no

command

in

the Ten

Commandments that says, Thou

shalt

not break thy

word.

But a proper understanding of

God's Law, and particularly of the

stmcture of Deuteronomy which is

based on the order of

me Ten

Commandments, sbould help us.

For

SUell

will lead us to understand

that our spoken word is a property

in God's sight. We are responsible

for

our

words. And especially if we

use our word to make a promise.

The idea thou shalt not break thy

word is involved in thou

slUJlt not

steal. Once uttered, a promised

vow is an qbligation, even if it was

March/April, 1997 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon * 7


2/3

not demanded

of

you. Second, not

only s th VQW expected

to

be

perform

ed

once uttered, put it is

even

a

matter of

theft iI l God's sight

if

its performance is

unduly

delayed. Verse

21

clearly says,

When

thou

s

halt vow a vow unto the

Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to

pay

it

... " Oftentimes

it

is the case

that

Christians make a vow that

they regret. And frequently either

the dread of its performance or

sheer laziness leads to an evil delay

of

its keeping. Perhaps with the

hope the vow will be forgotten. But

God

does

not

forget

our

vows -

whether

made

to

Him Cas

here)

or

to anyone. Verse 21 goes on

to

say:

-

such

as its non-aggression

treaties made

with

nations

it

later

conquers .

When

we present our

children to the

Lord

in

baptism,

parents

take vowS obligating

themselves to train the children in

the nurture and admonition of the

Lord. Too often this was mere

outward

show. It means absolutely

nothing -- they think When we get

married, we lake so

lemn

vows

obligatingus to uphold our

commitments in

marriage. Too

often even Christians see marriage

as a chain inhibiting their freedom,

and break

lhe

vows. But God's Law

is clear: the Lord thy

God

will surely

re

quire it

oj thee. "Third,

and

what is

more,

our

Lord Jesus interprets the

under oath n

Matt, 26;63ff. May

we say that He sinned in that? (3)

Elsewhere Paul and others allow

themselves to

be put under

.oath.

And the Word

of God

never

condemns them for it .

WhatJesus

is

responding against here is the

Pharisaic misapplication of the law

of

vows

and

oaths. '

The

Pharisees

wo

uld

play

with

words. o

circumvent the truth. They would

find mental reservations and tricks

of

words

apd

phrasing

in

order to

void their oaths. Jesus warned

that even their

common

words

should be their bonds and that they

were sinful for obscuring the tn,lth

in their speech.

This is

why in

verse 20

of

Matthew 5 .He warns

Jar the Lord thy God will surely

require

it

oj

thee; and

it

would be

sin in thee.

With

the decline

in

the vitality

of

Christian

faith

,

there has

been

a decline in

the

sanctity of

vows. Ecclesiastes

5: Iff warns of su

ch:

Keep thy

Joot

when thou goest

to

the house

oj

God,

and

be

more

ready to

Vows Ire solemn

commitmenls. A.nd

vow.s to God

(Ire oj the highest order oj

solemn COflllllitments."

that

our

righteousness

must

exceed that

of

the

Scribes

and

Pharisees. Christians, letus

hold in high regard

our

vows

before the Lord. God expects

it. Let

US not

be thieves

in

word. Let

us

follow our

master, Jesus Christ, and let

our word by

Qur oath, even in

ear,

than

to give the s

acrifice

oj

Jools:

Jar

they consider not that they do

evil.

Be

not

rash

with thy mouth, and

let

not thine heart

be hasty to

utter

any

thing

beJore

God:

Jar

God is in

heaven, and

thou

upon

earth:

therefore

let

thy words

beJew ....

\hen

thou

vow es t a vow unto God, d

r

not

to

p y

it; Jar

he hath no pleasure

in

Jools:

pay

that

which

thou

hast

vowed.

Better

is. t

that

thou shouldest not vOw,

than that thou

shouldest

vow

and lOt

pay

. Vows are

solemn

commitmentS. And vows to God are

of

the

highest

order

of

solenm

commitments. When we join a

church or

become communicants,

we

take

vowsCsuch as

we

in

the

PCA administer) promising to

attend

church and support it. But

there are those

who

absolutely .

consider such vows non-binding.

They infrequentl

y,

seldom,

or

even

never

come

to

worship God They

view sUch solemn vows as the

Soviet

Union

views

solemn

treaties -

laW

even more vigorously than we

might expect. In Matthew Jesus

says that He came not

to

destroy

the Law but to fill

it

up, that is, to

properly interpret

it.

He

then

teaches

in

Matt. 5:33-

37

:

Again y

e

have

heard that

it

hath been

said

by

them

oj old

time, Thou shalt

n

ot

Jorswear thyself, but

shalt

perform

unto the Lord thine oaths: But

I

say

unto

you, swear not

at

all;

neither

by

heaven;

Jor it

is

God's throne:

Nor by

the

earth;forit

is his Jootstool: neither

by

Jerusal

e

m; Jar

it

is

the

city

oj

the

great King ... But let

your

communication be, Yea , yea; Nay,

nay:

Jar

whatsoever

is

more

than

these

cometh

oj evil." Here

we must

understand

that He was

not

fo r

bidding

vows and oaths. This

is

obvious for several reasons: (1)

Vows and oaths are a part of God's

moral Law

which

He

had jus

t said

He

had

not come to destroy. (2)

Later during His trial He is

brough

t

18 t THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon,t March/April, 1997

common,

everyday speech.

Theft by Deed

In

the Middle Ages

Roman]

esuit

priests created

an

ethical principle .

that stated

that

"the ends justify the

means." That is, they taught that

if

you

had

good end in

mind,

then it

did not

matter

what

means you

might

employ in

the securing

of

that good end. They sought

to

justify the

poor in

their stealing

food from the rich: .What they

did

was

undermine

biblical moralily

and

e t h i ~

By their influence and

error they set the stage for secular

humanism

s

situation

ethics."

Situation ethics says that there are

no fundamental moral laws that

govern

us

.

We

are only to be

governed

by

the situation we are in.

There is

no

absolute right

and

wrong. Our circumstances

determine the rightness or

wrongness

of our

actions. Situation


3/3

ethics is extremely widespread

today, even among Christians who

seek to justifY themselves in sin. Bu t

the second case law we will

consider in this message deals very

pointedly with situation ethics, as

well as with property rights a

nd

compassion. Of

CQurse,

by the very

fact that it is a law, it deals a fatal

blow to any suppos ed Christian

situation ethics. Because as Joseph

Fletcher, the

fa

ther oftnodern .

situation ethics,

has

stated: Law

ethics is the enemy.

Nevertheless, even beyond that

truth, this law directly confronts

situation ethics. But it does so in a

very important and humane way.

Let us look carefully at the law in

verses 24 and 25: When thou comest

into

thy neighbor

's

Vineyard, then

thou

mayest eat

grape

s thy fill

at

thine

own

.

pleasure; but thou

sh

alt 11 t put any

il1

thy

vessel. When thou comest into

the .

standing corn

of

thy neighbor, then

.

thou mayest

pluck the ears

with

thine '

hand; but thou

shalt

not

move

a

sickle

unto thy neighbor's

standing corn.

L

et

us notice several important

implications from this passage.

First, contrary to communism and

socialism, this law allows for private

property rights. Clearly the

man

in

view has ownership

of

his field

and

its produce - conU-ary to

communism. His economic rights

are protected by implication, the

field is said to be

thy

neighbor'S

field. He is also protected

by

direct

statement: Of the grapes in the

man's vineyard, the passer-by

is

warned tllOu

shalt

not put any in thy

vessel. Of the com in his field, the

stranger is cautioned: thou shalt not

move

a skkle

unto thy

neighbor's

standing

com.

The man

who

planted the crops owns tl1em. They

may not be harvested by another.

Thus, the passer-by may not fill a

vessel to haul off grapes, or bring a

sickle to cut quantities of

com

.

Biblical Law is fundamentally

capitalistic. But Biblical economics

is a capitalism

impr

egnated

by

Christian values and concerns.

Notice that: Second, the godly field

owner is to have a good-neighborly

concern

and

compassion for others.

The illustration presented

is of

a

passer-by on a trip.

Under

God's

moral law, such a traveler has the

moral right to

quench

his hunger

while traveling

down th

e road. (We

must remember that there were no

motels on every corner and travel

was laborious and even dangerous

back then.) To do so was not

tantamount to theft. God's Law

took the difficult circumstances into

accounl. It requires compassion

and neighborliness

on

our part

toward those in need. Furthermore,

God's people must recognize where

their

produce

comes from. Their

production was a direct result of

God's mercy ,illd compassion

toward them. Deuteronomy 28:3-

5,8,

11

states: Blessed shalt thou

be

in the

city

.and

blessed shalt thou.

be in

.

field. Blessed shall

be the fruit of

thy body,

mid

the fruit of thy ground,

and the fruit of

thy

cattle, the inc rease

of thy kine, and the J10cks of thy sheep.

Blessed shall be thy

basket

and thy

store....

The

Lord

shall command the

blessing

upon thee in

thy storehouses,

and in

all

that thou settest

thine

hand

unto

;

and

he s

hall bless

thee

in

the

land

whkh the Lord thy

God

giveth

thee

...

And the

Lord

shall make

thee

plenteous in

goods,

in thefruit of thy

body,

and in

the fruit of

tlly cattle

,

and

in the fruit of

thy ground, in

the

land

which the

Lord

swore unto thy fathers

to

give thee.

All that God's people

have, they must recognize comes

from God. Theologically they must

understand that evelY

good

and

pelfect

gift

cometh

from

above

Oms.

1:17). They

must

recognize that

th

ey have nothing but

what they

received l Cor. 4:7).

Consequently, even though they

have private property rights

protected by God's Law , they still

have fundamental moral obligations

before God to

do

good to

th

eir

neighbors. Thus, this law protected

both the property rights

of

the

farmer, while at the same time gave

moral protections to

the hungry

traveller.

It

should be noted that no

civil sanctions

or

punishments are

meted out

to

the farmer who

refuses

o

be merciful. Su

ch

was

not a matter of stale

concern

. t

was a matter

of

religious

concern

.

For men to justify plundering the

wealthy as a pattern

of

life for the

po

or, is for them

to

a

ttempt

to call

evil good and

good

evil.

God

warns

against such in Isaiah 5:20. The

poor have no civil right to the

goods of the wealthy. However, the

wealthy do have a moral obligation

to do good with the wealth God has

given them as a trust. To not do so

is a form, not of material theft,

but

moral theft.

Conclusion

The world in whicb man dwells

has two dimensions: the material

dimension and the spiritual

dimension. God's Law has two

dimensions: material and spiritual.

Not only does God's

Law

prohibit

the theft

of

material goods, but also

theft

in

the spiritua l realm. When

we make vows either to and before

God, we are obligated to keep

them. fwe do not

then

are we

robbing God through words. Not

only so, but we must understand

that in the spiritual re

ahn

are moral

obligations that move us , even

when

there are no civil obligations

that may do so. The state should

not be allowed to force us to assist

the poor. That simply is

not

the

task of state government. God is

He who forces us to

do good

with

he wealth that He gives. The poor

may not steal from the rich. But

neither may the rich spiritually steal

from the poor

by

neglect

of

compassion and du t

y.

March/April 997 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 9

Documents

1997 Issue 3 - Theft by Word and Deed - Counsel of Chalcedon