One of my FB friends, Mark Ketchum, made some comments that got me thinking about the nature of God’s law and how it works into human law. The ObamaCare situation is right in front of everyone and is a pretty hot topic. Politics is always a game of lies, smoke and mirrors: Tea Party folks are supposed to be on the rampage, but I have not seen the riots yet. While on the other hand, Obama has just won another significant battle whilst moving toward instituting his one-world-order. I’m not really interested in any of the rhetoric. This post will be short one which I hope will spark some discussion about the nature of God’s law relative to the nature of human law.
God’s law tells us not to steal. One’s not supposed to take other people’s property. Er… if it ain’t yers, keep yer hands off it. The Eighth Commandment is simply fundamental; civilization could not function without this command. (Small pockets of civilization could for a time, but not large-scale and not for too long.) This commandment, being one of the Big Ten, really should weigh quite heavily in our thinking. This divine command, though fundamental, is not the only law in the Bible that informs private property and the sharing of goods.
I think that the gleaning laws should also guide our modern legislation. For example, Leviticus 19:9-10 says, “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.” Don’t miss the point that God is commanding that those who have take care of those who do not. God doesn’t leave this care of the needy to those who love their neighbor enough to offer them food. Rather, God commanded private business owners, from their own produce, to care for those in their local community who needed help.
I’m aware that local gleaning laws are a world away from Federal programs, but my politically conservative friends cannot pretend that the Bible doesn’t have some precedence for social-safety-net type legislation. So, how should these laws be reflected in our own time and in our own nations, states, provinces, counties, and cities? At what point does wealth redistribution (taking money via taxation and giving it to other people who did not earn it) become theft?
One final thought: the gleaning laws teach us a few important things. 1) The producer/owner gave directly to the needy. Such is not the case with modern social programs, in which the government takes money to fund programs that, in turn and to whatever degree, help the needy. 2) The gleaning laws necessitate quite limited local care of the needy. These laws did not impose large-scale redistribution of products or money. 3) The needy gleaner had to go and glean. He didn’t just anonymously apply through a state agency on the computer; the gleaner had to go into the fields or vineyards and glean.
Anyway, what are your thoughts?
I’ll be the first to comment. It sounds as if you are describing a perfect scenario where the government and the people ascribe to God’s law and perfect reason…. well at least the government where the people have to fall in line whether they believe in God or His law at all.
Our country is not like that. Our country no longer cares about God’s law and is trying to perfect a human version of a law they once read about in a book called the Bible. We take parts of the Bible that are morally acceptable… thou shalt not steal, murder, commit adultery (even this one is debatable), etc… and derive that they are important because they infringe upon the rights of others… not because God says “no!”
Since we are no longer a Christian nation… if we ever were… I do not expect our government to ever follow Scripture and God’s word. Which is why I only vote for a Christian candidate so I can at least get a little bit of God into the main part of government.
Thanks for the thoughts, Mark. You’re quite right that our Country is not a Christian one. God’s Law is blithely dismissed in the public square because it has long been dismissed by the Church. (My guess is that most American Christians have never heard the 10 Commandments read in public worship.) When God’s Law is dismissed, something else will ALWAYS be substituted. God’s Law is just, but all men are liars, fallen and evil. Who should we want legislating!?! We Christians should be very vocal about the glories of God’s Law and it’s applicability in modern life. We can start in our own lives, homes, and churches, but we should still aim to be unabashedly Christian in the public square, too.
Good point about the gleaner having to actually go and glean himself, unlike those on welfare, who just wait for their check in the mail. It is the job of the church to provide for the poor in their church community, and the individual can, of their own free will (if we have free will
give to those needy persons in their vacinity. It is definitely not the government’s job to provide for the poor, nor to force the individual to give up part of their personal earnings to do so.
Grace, thanks for the comment. I appreciate it. Part of the gleaning law is precisely that the government was to force private business owners to give up some of their personal earnings to support the poor.
I guess what I was getting at is that God is sovereign. He created us, of course he can command us to follow the gleaning law. The government, on the other hand is not sovereign, and it is not the government’s job to inflict upon us the curse of paying for welfare that is given to illegal aliens, lazy people, etc. The government is to be protecting life and liberty, following the Constitution, and upholding God’s law.
I don’t recall Christ compelling anyone to be charitable. I don’t recall Christ petitioning the Roman government for more taxation or safety nets for the poor. He encouraged loving thy neighbor. His commandment was to love thy neighbor as thyself, but it was not really love thy neighbor at great expense., It was not Make thy neighbor legally responsible for the poor. Coerced Charity is not charity.
Ted, very good. Charity (in the sense of love) is not forced. Taking care of physical needs, however, can be forced. The vineyard owner might not have wanted to leave grapes around for gleaners, but was commanded to by God’s Law. That Law was enforced in various ways, in which coercive measures were certainly present. This seems to indicate (at least to me at this point) that there is a place for the use of force to compel those who have to take care of those who have not. (Bear in mind the last observations in my post, as they will guide how I’m thinking about this.)
There is certainly a lot to think about in regard to this!
God in His wonderful Law here is talking about something to eat – a necessity for physical life. Much of what is considered “health care” now is not necessary, neither is much of it truly even healthy! American hospitals do not deny life saving services to those who are poor. Costs are written off or raised in general on others to compensate. In this way, in health care, there is still gleaning.
The Oregon Health Plan however pays not only for essential health services of some of low income, but also for one-third of all abortions in the state. A qualifying woman with proof that she is pregnant immediately is accepted on OHP ahead of a women with cancer. She can either get prenatal and birthing care or she can get an abortion! The same woman (who has a food stamp card) may also have a cell phone with monthly minutes, courtesy of a tax on our phone bills. Some of these same women have enough for cigarettes.
I know of a friend’s rebellious daughter who was enabled to live with her unemployed boyfriend and go to community college because of government paid housing, tuition and food stamps.
US and state government mandates seem to end up a mess – are not only theft, but not really loving to our neighbor so as to help them discover truth to live by and the glories of God’s Laws!
? Is modern civil government and an increasingly profane society (such as the US) really equivalent here to the Jehovah-centered government of Israel?
As Christians in general have become self-cenetered and more in love with the world we have slowly abdicated this precious command. Civil authority has been petitioned and gradually taken our place, but it cannot possibly do the work personally, frugally, or wisely! Nor is glory given to God as it is done, with an invitation of reconciliation to Him. Indeed, government “ministers” are often forbidden from doing so!
My son has been working for our county’s mental health service for about a month. After a brief conversation about the Lord, a man who Christopher took to an appointment in Portland showed enthusiasm for attending ” . . . your church!”. Even though it was the man’s own idea, Christopher was told he would not be allowed to pick him up or have anything to do with him while at church if the man could get to the service another way.
In light of these kinds of things, I think it is the spiritual leaders of the Church and of households who must exhort the elect to obey this command which leads to joys and opportunities. God promises to provide the resources we need for every good work! Unless we are willing to sumbit ourselves to the authority of Scripture and church discipling/discipline . . . we miss out!
As most saints have failed to provide “gleaning” opportunities locally, it is being forced from us through taxation in a manner that grieves and angers us as we witness the waste! No joy in seeing God at work in us and in our neighbors. Perhaps this is our most sad penalty and discipline.
There is certainly a lot to think about in regard to this!
God in His wonderful Law here is talking about something to eat – a necessity for physical life. Much of what is considered “health care” now is not necessary, neither is much of it truly even healthy! American hospitals do not deny life saving services to those who are poor. Costs are written off or raised in general on others to compensate. In this way, in health care, there is still gleaning.
The Oregon Health Plan however pays not only for essential health services of some of low income, but also for one-third of all abortions in the state. A qualifying woman with proof that she is pregnant immediately is accepted on OHP ahead of a women with cancer. She can either get prenatal and birthing care or she can get an abortion! The same woman (who has a food stamp card) may also have a cell phone with monthly minutes, courtesy of a tax on our phone bills. Some of these same women have enough for cigarettes.
I know of a friend’s rebellious daughter who was enabled to live with her unemployed boyfriend and go to community college because of government paid housing, tuition and food stamps.
US and state government mandates seem to end up a mess – are not only theft, but not really loving to our neighbor so as to help them discover truth to live by and the glories of God’s Laws!
? Is modern civil government and an increasingly profane society (such as the US) really equivalent here to the Jehovah-centered government of Israel?
As Christians in general have become self-cenetered and more in love with the world we have slowly abdicated this precious command. Civil authority has been petitioned and gradually taken our place, but it cannot possibly do the work personally, frugally, or wisely! Nor is glory given to God as it is done, with an invitation for reconciliation to Him. Indeed, government “ministers” are often forbidden from doing so!
My son has been working for our county’s mental health service for about a month. After a brief conversation about the Lord, a man who Christopher took to an appointment in the city showed enthusiasm for attending ” . . . your church!”. Even though it was the man’s own idea, Christopher was told he would not be allowed to pick him up or have anything to do with him while at church if the man got to the service another way.
In light of these kinds of things, I think it is the spiritual leaders of the Church and households who must exhort and lead the elect to obey this command. Growth, opportunities and joys would result. God promises to provide the resources we need for every good work! Unless we are willing to sumbit ourselves to the authority of Scripture and discipling/discipline we miss out!
As most saints have failed to provide “gleaning” opportunities locally, it is being coerced from us through taxation in a manner that grieves and angers us as we witness the waste! No joy in seeing God at work in us and in our neighbors. Perhaps this is our most sad penalty and discipline.
Is there a lengthy echo in here?!
Thanks for the thoughts, Vivian. This was my favorite line: “Much of what is considered “health care” now is not necessary, neither is much of it truly even healthy!”
Tim,
One would strain himself in out-theonomizing Gary North. Here are some of his thoughts on the gleaning law from Leviticus: An Economic Commentary:
In making this demand, the gleaning law placed decisive
limits (boundaries) on both the poor rural resident and the
State. It limited the moral demands that the poor could make
on economically successful people in the community. The poor
had no comparable moral claim against the successful nonagricultural
businessman. This law also limited the demands
that the State could make on the community in the name of the
poor. Biblical law specified that the man with landed wealth
should share his wealth with the deserving poor, but not the
poor in general. The deserving poor were those who were
willing to work hard, but who could not find work in the normal
labor markets. In short, the gleaning law had conditions attached
to it. The idea of morally compulsory, non-conditional charity
was foreign to the laws of the Mosaic Covenant.
It would have been difficult for a judge or a jury to identify
which individuals in the community had the legal right to bring charges against the landowner as the legal victims of his refusal to honor the gleaning laws. The text specifies no negative institutional sanction that had to be imposed on a landowner who refused to honor the gleaning laws. God is indirectly revealed
as the agent who would bring negative sanctions against a landowner
who refused to honor the gleaning laws. The State was not authorized by the text to bring these sanctions. This implies that the sanctions were individual rather than corporate. God did not threaten the community with negative sanctions. But without the threat of God’s negative sanctions against the whole covenanted community, there was no justification for civil sanctions.
Civil sanctions were imposed in Israel in order to substitute the State’s subordinate wrath for God’s more direct wrath against the community. Furthermore, in case of a violation of the gleaning law, there would have been no easy way to determine legitimate restitution. Where there are no civil sanctions, there is no crime. God would curse the owner directly, but the society was not at risk. Thus, civil sanctions were inappropriate.