An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy Volume 4 Gary North · 2016-07-13 · An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy Volume 4 Gary North Dominion Education Ministries, Inc. Harrisonburg,

INHERITANCE AND DOMINIONAn Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy

Volume 4

Gary North

Dominion Education Ministries, Inc.Harrisonburg, Virginia

copyright, Gary North, 1999, 2003, 2005

This volume is part of a series, An Economic Commentary on theBible. At present, the series includes the following volumes:

*The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (1982, 1987)*Moses and Pharaoh (1985)*The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments

(1986)*Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (1990)*Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (1994)Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Leviticus(Full version of previous book, 1994)*Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers

(1997)Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuter-

onomy (4 vols., 1999, 2003) This edition: October 12, 2005Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew

(2000, 2003)Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke

(2000, 2003)Sacrifice and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Acts (2000,

2003)Cooperation and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Romans

(2001, 2003)Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Corin-

thians (2001)Hierarchy and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Timo-

thy (2003)

An asterisk notes a printed volume. These are also available forviewing on www.freebooks.com. The other volumes are in PDF for-mat, and may be downloaded from www.demischools.org. For fulldetails, send an e-mail to [email protected].

http://www.freebooks.com

http://www.demischools.org

mailto:[email protected]

iii

Table of Contents

Volume 1

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I: Transcendence/Presence (1:1–5)1. The God Who Brings Judgment in History (1:1–5) . . . . . . 21

Part II: Hierarchy/Representation (1:6–4:49)2. A Delayed Inheritance (1:6–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283. Delegated Authority and Social Order (1:9–13) . . . . . . . . . 454. The Face of Man (1:17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555. Bureaucratic Counsel (1:21–23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656. The Skills of Foreign Trade (2:4–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797. Transferring the Inheritance (3:27–28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908. Evangelism Through Law (4:5–8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999. Hear, Fear, and Testify (4:9–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11510. Removing the Inheritance (4:25–28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Part III: Ethics/Boundaries/Dominion (5–26)11. Judicial Continuity (5:1–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14612. Sabbath and Liberation (5:14–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15613. Law and Sanctions (5:32–33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16814. The Wealth of Nations (6:1–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17815. Law and Inheritance (6:4–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19316. Genocide and Inheritance (7:1–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21317. By Law or by Promise? (8:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24018. Miracles, Entropy, and Social Theory (8:2–4) . . . . . . . 25219. Chastening and Inheritance (8:5–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

iv

20. Overcoming Poverty (8:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28321. The Covenantal Ideal of Economic Growth (8:10–18) . 29322. Disinheriting the Heirs (8:19–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32523. Overcoming the Visible Odds (9:1–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34124. Sonship, Servitude, and Inheritance (9:26–29) . . . . . . . 36725. Sonship, Obedience, and Immigration (10:12–16) . . . . 37826. Oath, Sanctions, and Inheritance (10:20–22) . . . . . . . . 49827. Rain and Inheritance (11:10–14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40728. Law, Sanctions, and Inheritance (11:18–21) . . . . . . . . . 420

Volume 2

29. Common Grace and Legitimate Inheritance (12:1–3) . . 43930. Communal Meals and National Incorporation (12:5–10) 46431. The Murderous Gods of Canaan (12:28–30) . . . . . . . . 47832. The Lure of Magic: Something for Nothing (13:1–5) . . 48733. Commerce and Covenant (14:21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51234. Tithes of Celebration (14:22–29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52835. The Charitable Loan (15:1–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55736. Lending and Dominion (15:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57837. Consuming Capital in Good Faith (15:19–22) . . . . . . . 58838. Individual Blessing and National Feasting (16:14–17) . . 59839. Casuistry and Inheritance (16:18–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60740. Israel’s Supreme Court (17:8–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62741. Boundaries on Kingship (17:14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64942. Levitical Inheritance Through Separation (18:1–2) . . . . 67043. Landmarks and Social Cooperation (19:14) . . . . . . . . . 68344. The Penalty for Perjury (19:15–19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69545. A hierarchy of Commitments (20:5–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71446. A Few Good Men (20:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72447. Limits to Empire (20:10–18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73448. Fruit Trees as Covenantal Testimonies (20:19–20) . . . . 756

v

49. Double Portion, Double Burden (21:15–17) . . . . . . . . . 77050. Executing a Rebellious Adult Son (21:18–21) . . . . . . . 78751. Lost and Found (22:1–4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81452. Nature’s Fruits and Roots (22:6–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83253. The Rooftop Railing Law (22:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84054. Laws Prohibiting Mixtures (22:9–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85255. The Fugitive Slave Law (23:15–17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86756. Usury: Yes and No (23:19–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87857. Vows, Contracts, and Productivity (23:21–23) . . . . . . . 89558. Free for the Picking (23:24–25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910

Volume 3

59. Collateral, Servitude, and Dignity (24:6–18) . . . . . . . . 93960. Wages and Oppression (24:14–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96261. Gleaning: Charitable Inefficiency (24:19–22) . . . . . . . . 99162. Unmuzzling the Working Ox (25:4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101263. Levirate Marriage and Family Name (25:5–6) . . . . . . 103164. Just Weights and Justice (25:13–16): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105265. The Firstfruits Offering: A Token Payment (26:1–3) . 109366. Positive Confession and Corporate Sanctions (26:12) . 1101

Part IV: Oath/Sanctions (27–30)67. Landmark and Curse (27:17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111168. Objective Wealth and Historical Progress (28:4–11) . . 112069. Credit as a Tool of Dominion (28:12–13) . . . . . . . . . . 114570. The Covenant of Prosperity (29:9–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . 116071. Captivity and Restoration (30:1–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116672. Life and Dominion (30:19–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1174

Part V: Succession and Inheritance (31–33)73. Courage and Dominion (31:4–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181

vi

74. Law and Liberty (31:9–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119075. A Covenantal Song of Near-Disinheritance (31:16–18) 1202

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206

Volume 4

Appendixes

Appendix A: Modern Economics as a Form of Magic . . . . 1231Appendix B: Individualism, Holism, and Covenantalism . . . 1254Appendix C: Syncretism, Pluralism, and Empire . . . . . . . . 1271Appendix D: The Demographics of American Judaism:

A Study in Disinheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1290Appendix E: Free Market Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316Appendix F: The Economic Re-Education of

Ronald J. Sider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1363Appendix G: Strong Drink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1384Appendix H: Weak Reed: The Politics of Compromise . . . 1392Appendix I: Eschatology, Law, and Pietism . . . . . . . . . . . 1403Appendix J: Categories of the Mosaic Law . . . . . . . . . . . . 1439

Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1451Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477

1231

Appendix A

MODERN ECONOMICS AS A FORM OF MAGIC

Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, andAaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; andit shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them waterout of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beastsdrink (Num. 20:8).

And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rocktwice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregationdrank, and their beasts also (Num. 20:11).

In a previous situation, God had told Moses to strike a rock withhis rod, and water would flow out of it (Ex. 17:6). This procedure hadworked exactly as promised. Now, God’s command was different:speak to a rock. In both cases, the Israelites would get what theywanted for no effort or payment on their part. Moses would pay theprice – a below-market price by anyone’s standards. His words wouldbring them God’s supernatural blessing.

This time, Moses struck the rock twice. He made up a ritual of hisown to substitute for God’s explicit command to him. He hit the rocktwice. The water flowed, just as it had at Marah, but this act of auton-omy, lack of faith in God, and outright defiance against God’s com-mand cost Moses entrance into the Promised Land. “And the LORDspake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctifyme in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring thiscongregation into the land which I have given them” (Num. 20: 12).In what did Moses’ lack of faith consist? He had substituted ritualmagic for covenantal obedience. He had imagined that a ritual – a

Modern Economics as a Form of Magic

1. Gary North, Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), ch. 11.

2. On cross-boundary laws, see Appendix J.

1232

formula of some kind – would enable Israel to gain supernaturalblessings from God.1 Israel would get something for nothing. Thisplan worked for Israel, but Moses paid a heavy price.

God wanted to teach Israel a lesson, namely, that obedience toGod’s revealed word produces blessings in history, no matter how lowthe statistical probabilities of success appear to be. Moses substituteda different lesson: adherence to precise formulas is what producesblessings in history. This is the magician’s worldview.

The Economist’s Worldview

Economics is a highly rationalistic social science, if not the ration-alistic social science. Economists do not recommend invoking super-natural forces as a means of explaining anything or changing anything.Economics is an entirely man-centered discipline. How, then, can it beconsidered magical? Because economists propose a worldview thatinsists that wealth-creation can take place, and does take place, bymeans of techniques and institutional arrangements that supposedlyhave no necessary connection to God’s word. Economic theorysubstitutes formulas for biblical ethics in its explanation of how theworld works.

The economist proposes the magician’s quest: discovering theproper techniques for gaining external blessings apart from externalconformity to the stipulations of God’s specially revealed cross-boundary laws.2 If wealth-creation is governed by social laws andtechniques that are independent of ethics, then man can gain some-

Appendix A

1233

thing valuable apart from the costs of obedience to God. This is alsothe magician’s worldview. The magician seeks an arcane formula orprocedure to invoke, or some other source of power over nature thathe can manipulate to gain his ends, that does not ask him to change hiscommitment to his own self-centered ends. Modern economics is theacademic incarnation of this outlook, an entire worldview that inter-prets most of society’s operations in terms of men’s individual solu-tions to one simple question: “What’s in it for me?”

Post-Scholastic economics has generally asserted that wealth-creation is not a matter of ethics except insofar as a man’s willingnessto conform to certain behavior patterns increases the statistical prob-ability of his gaining voluntary cooperation from others. Wealth-creation is seen as a matter of the efficient application of ethicallyneutral knowledge to the problems of scarcity. For the economist, thephrase, “honesty is the best policy,” is epistemologically meaningfulonly if honesty can be shown statistically to earn a rate of return abovethe rate of interest obtainable by investing in “risk-free” short-termgovernment debt.

Economics and Agnosticism

Ever since the late seventeenth century, economics has rested self-consciously on the methodological assumption of agnosticism regard-ing God. It has sought to avoid any invocation of the authority of reli-gion. Operationally, this agnosticism is atheism. This confessionallyatheistic worldview was first extended into scholarship by the econo-mists. William Letwin’s book, The Origins of Scientific Economics(1963), remains the most detailed study of this development. Hewrites: “Nevertheless there can be no doubt that economic theoryowes its present development to the fact that some men, in thinking


3. William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics (Garden City, New York: An-chor, [1963] 1965), pp. 158–59. This book was published first by M.I.T. Press.

4. Ibid., p. 159.

5. Gary North, Hierarchy and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Timothy(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 2003), Appendix C.

1234

of economic phenomena, forcefully suspended all judgments of theol-ogy, morality, and justice, were willing to consider the economy asnothing more than an intricate mechanism, refraining for the whilefrom asking whether the mechanism worked for good or evil. Thatseparation was made during the seventeenth century. . . . The econo-mist’s view of the world, which the public cannot yet comfortablystomach, was introduced by a remarkable tour de force, an intellectualrevolution brought off in the seventeenth century.”3 He goes on toassert that “the making of economics was the greatest scientificachievement of the seventeenth century.”4 While the development ofNewtonian physics would seem to deserve that honor, there should beno question that scientific economics was the greatest atheisticintellectual achievement of the seventeenth century, retaining this titleuntil Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871). Newton the physicist at leasttipped his academic hat to a deistic unitarian god who sustained suf-ficient order in the cosmos to make applicable men’s knowledge ofmathematics. The economists, then as now, tipped their academic hatsto no god at all.

Adam Smith seems to be an exception. He was a deist of some sort.This is clear from scattered passages in his book, The Theory of MoralSentiments (1759). The book is barely known, rarely read, and neverdiscussed as a contribution to economic thought. Smith made noanalytical use of its vague theology in the Wealth of Nations (1776).5

Appendix A

6. Smith, Wealth of Nations, Cannan edition, p. 423. Theory of Moral Sentiments (Indi-anapolis, Indiana: Liberty/Classics, 1976), pp. 304–5.

7. More precisely, he seeks to obtain more value from a given cost of resource inputs,or a given value from less costly resource inputs.

8. See Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor, On the Economic Theory of Socialism (Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, [1938] 1956), pp. 72–83. This essay first appearedin the Review of Economic Studies in 1937.

1235

His famous “invisible hand”6 was a mental construct, not a god. “Thehand’s going to get you” was not what he had in mind.

Economists since the late nineteenth century have proclaimed theideal of value-free economics: economic science devoid of ethical con-tent. They have to this extent become magicians. The magician seekssomething for nothing by means of ritual formulas. The economistseeks ways for society to attain “more for less”7 by means of insightsgenerated by means of arcane mathematical formulas.

Equilibrium as Conceptual Magic

Modern economics assures us that a society can create wealth if itimplements production techniques within a framework accuratelydescribed by a series of simultaneous equations. Léon Walras, aFrench economist living in Switzerland, in the 1870’s described themarket order in this way. Oskar Lange in the 1930’s argued thatsocialist central planning could match the efficiency of the free marketby adhering to such mathematical equations in a trial-and-errorprocess.8 These equations presume the economist’s concept of equilib-rium: a condition in which no further economic change is possiblebecause all of the society’s production opportunities have beenmaximized. It is a world without profit or loss, a world without


9. Israel M. Kirzner, Market Theory and the Price System (Princeton, New Jersey: VanNostrand, 1963), pp. 246–49.

10. Roger Leroy Miller, Economics Today, 5th ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1985),p. 49.

11. James D. Gwartney and Richard L. Stroup, Economics: Public and Private Choice,4th ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), p. 186.

12. Ibid., p. 187.

1236

mistakes.9 For this to take place at any point in history, all of the participants

in a free market, or the central planners in a socialist economy, wouldhave to possess perfect knowledge, including perfect knowledge ofthe future. They must be omniscient. Economists do not use suchdecidedly theological terminology when describing equilibrium. If theywere more forthright about the presumptions of equilibrium theory,they would not be taken seriously by anyone outside of theirprofession. Roger Leroy Miller writes: “Equilibrium in any market isdefined as a situation in which the plans of buyers and the plans ofsellers exactly mesh, causing the quantity supplied to equal thequantity demanded.”10 Gwartney and Stroup agree: “When a marketis in equilibrium, there is a balance of forces such that the actions ofbuyers and suppliers are consistent with one another. In addition,when long-run equilibrium is present, the conditions will persist intothe future.”11 How can such a meshing of plans occur? Through per-fect forecasting: “In summary, an output rate can be sustained into thefuture only when the prior choices of decision-makers were based ona correct anticipation of the current price level.”12 The phrase “correctanticipation” has to be interpreted as “perfect foreknowledge,” but theauthors are too scientific to say this. Their peers know what theyreally mean – equilibrium is an impossible condition to fulfill – and theaverage student is not too inquisitive about the relationship between

Appendix A

13. Edwin G. Dolan, Basic Economics, 2nd ed. (Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden, 1980), pp.44–45.

14. Edmund S. Phelps, “equilibrium: an expectational concept,” in The New Palgrave:A Dictionary of Economics, edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman,4 vols. (New York: Macmillan 1987), II, p. 177.

1237

a theory based on human omniscience and details in the real world. Edwin Dolan summarizes the professional economist’s definition

of the condition of economic equilibrium: “The separately formulatedplans of all market participants may turn out to mesh exactly whentested in the marketplace, and no one will have frustrated expectationsor be forced to modify plans. When this happens, the market is said tobe in equilibrium.”13 E. H. Phelps writes in The New Palgrave (1987),the English-speaking economics profession’s dominant dictionary:“Economic equilibrium, at least as the term has traditionally beenused, has always implied an outcome, typically from the application ofsome inputs, that conforms to the expectations of the participants inthe economy.”14 There seems to be perfect agreement here: a kind oftheoretical equilibrium among economists. The definitions mesh.

So does their blandness. This textbook definition of equilibriumseems so subdued and uncontroversial, perhaps even plausible. Theeconomists’ language certainly gives the impression that equilibriumapplies to a real-world phenomenon: “a situation in which the plans ofbuyers and the plans of sellers exactly mesh,” “when a market is inequilibrium,” and “the separately formulated plans of all market par-ticipants may turn out to mesh exactly when tested in the market-place.” We can almost visualize a dedicated student writing down thedefinition of equilibrium on an index card, to be filed away in a cardbox until the night before the final exam, when the card will be re-trieved and the definition filed for 24 hours in a much less reliablestorage device.

Now, for the sake of argument, let me provide a somewhat more


1238

controversial though more complete definition of equilibrium:

Equilibrium is the condition of the world economy which occurswhenever all three billion market participants on earth (not countingtheir non-participating children) have perfectly forecasted the supply-and-demand effects of all of the economic decisions of all of the otherthree billion economic decision-makers, so that their plans meshperfectly without error. This is why there is no incentive for plan-revision. No one has anything more to sell at the existing prices, andeveryone has purchased all that he wants at the existing prices, soprices will not change as a result of anyone’s changing his mind.Equilibrium requires that every market participant forecast perfectlythe economic future, which has therefore ceased to be uncertain. Inshort, equilibrium occurs whenever everyone on earth has previouslyattained what Christian theologians refer to as one of God’s incom-municable attributes: omniscience.

This note card might generate a second reading, even the nightbefore the final exam. Perhaps an A-level student might think tohimself, “This economic condition does not seem altogether plaus-ible.” I would go so far as to suggest that even a few of the B-levelstudents might wonder, at least briefly, whether this definition appliesto the real world. The C-level students will surely do their best tocommit the definition to memory, though without success. The othersdo not bother to use note cards.

Equilibrium as a concept applies only to a never-never land wheremen possess one of the attributes of God. This never-never land is therealm of simultaneous equations and the calculus, not people. Yet timeand time again, we find economists seriously discussing a theoreticalproblem in economics as if this never-never land could conceivablyoccur in the real world. So, to put it as bluntly as I can, almost theentire academic economics profession has been involved in a self-

Appendix A

15. Ludwig von Mises, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920);reprinted in F. A. Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning (London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, [1935] 1963), ch. 3. http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp

16. Lange, Socialism, p. 65.

1239

conscious deception of new students and the general public. Theeconomists have fooled lots of people, especially themselves.

Lange vs. Mises

Let us consider a real-world example of “applied equilibrium”thinking by economists, one which had considerable impact on thehistory of economic thought for half a century. This example comesfrom one of the most important debates in the history of economicthought. Ludwig von Mises argued in a 1920 essay that socialist eco-nomic calculation is impossible because of the absence of marketprices; therefore, socialist planning is inherently irrational.15 OskarLange responded in 1937: “Let us see how economic equilibrium isestablished by trial-and-error in a competitive market.”16 He assertedthe ability of socialist central planners, in the absence of privateownership and private capital markets, to coordinate the economy bymeans of trial-and-error pricing.

So confident was Lange in the real-world applicability of his sol-ution that he began his book with a rhetorical dismissal of Mises thatbecame far more familiar than the details of Lange’s arguments. Soc-ialists are beholden to Mises, he said, because Mises articulated theirrational calculation argument better than anyone else. “Both as anexpression of recognition for the great service rendered by him and asa memento of the prime importance of sound economic accounting,a statue of Professor Mises might occupy an honorable place in the

http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp


17. Ibid., pp. 57–58.

18. Ibid., p. 58.

19. “Oskar Ryszard Lange, 1904–1965,” History of Economic Thought Website, NewSchool of Social Research. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/lange.htm

20. Dolan, Basic Economics, p. 686.

1240

great hall of the Ministry of Socialization or of the Central PlanningBoard of the socialist state.”17 Less familiar is his Marxian follow-up:“[E]ven the sta[u]nchest of bourgeois economists unwittingly servethe proletarian cause.”18

Lange was no vague socialist. He was a Communist. This made himunique on the University of Chicago economics faculty, 1938– 45,which was generally free market-oriented. During World War II, hebroke with the Polish government-in-exile in London, openlyswitching his allegiance to the Lublin Committee, sponsored by theSoviet Union. In 1944, he served as a diplomatic go-between forRoosevelt and Stalin in matters regarding post-war Polish borders andits government.19 He renounced his United States citizenship in 1945to become the Polish ambassador to the United States. In 1947, hereturned to Poland to serve as an economist. In 1957, he was ap-pointed chairman of the Polish Economic Council. Here is the kicker:he did not suggest the implementation of his 1937 solution to Mises’challenge. Instead, he appealed to the new god – the computer – tosolve the problem of coordinating scarce resources. He died in 1965.20

His abandonment in practice of his own suggested solution did notpenetrate the thinking of the myriad of Mises’ critics in the Westernworld, who continued to cite his 1937 essay as if it were gospel truth.In short, “Better to accept a defunct theory by a Communist plannerin a poverty-stricken backward nation than to accept the legitimacy ofa comprehensive theoretical criticism of socialism in general.”

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/lange.htm

Appendix A

21. Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Economics, 13th ed. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1989), p. 837, cited in Mark Skousen, Economics on Trial: Lies, Myths, andRealities (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991), p. 208.

1241

Ironically, it was Poland that first broke loose from Soviet Com-munism’s tyranny. The Solidarity labor movement understood thatCommunism cannot work – yes, even before certain best-sellingWestern economists did. The Poles began their high-risk protestagainst the USSR in 1981. Yet as late as 1989, Nobel Prize-winningeconomist Paul Samuelson wrote in his best-selling economicstextbook: “The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what manyskeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy canfunction and even thrive.”21 That same year, the Soviet Union wentbankrupt in full public view, and the Berlin Wall came down. In 1991,senior Soviet Communists folded up shop, looted (“privatized”) theParty’s funds, and publicly abandoned Communism.

Theory and Reality

The theoretical problem with Lange’s appeal to trial-and-error asa means leading to equilibrium is that for equilibrium to occur, theremust first be omniscience by the person or persons in charge ofresource allocation. There is no need for trials because there is nopossibility of errors by those who possess omniscience. Equilibrium isthe negation of trial and error. Now, to be fair to Lange, he must havehad in mind the argument that trial and error by socialist planners is asefficient – no, more efficient – in reaching equilibrium than the profit-seeking decisions of resource owners. More equitable, too. Or, toparaphrase Orwell, “All equilibrium conditions are equal, but some aremore equal than others.” All we need to assume, as good socialists, is“freedom of choice in consumption and freedom of choice in occu-


22. Lange, Socialism, p. 72.

23. Ibid., p. 81.

24. Knight also taught at the University of Chicago.

25. Robert Heilbroner, “After Communism,” The New Yorker (Sept. 10, 1990), p. 92.

1242

pation,”22 and the central planners can bring equilibrium into existenceas well as entrepreneurs can. In fact, better. “Once the parametricfunction of prices is adopted as an accounting rule, the price structureis established by the objective equilibrium conditions.”23 In short, whatMises and the Austrian school of economists always insisted isimpossible in history – equilibrium conditions – Lange appealed to asthe solution to the problem of socialist economic calculation.

For half a century, this argument was accepted by most economistsas a theoretically valid dismissal of Mises, i.e., Mises’ theory of entre-preneurship in a world of economic uncertainty and subjectively im-puted prices. Lange’s argument was also, by implication, a dismissalof Frank H. Knight’s 1921 classic, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit,which rested on the same theory of entrepreneurship that Misesoffered.24 Lange’s proposed practical solution, which was never adop-ted by any socialist planning agency, was regarded by his academicpeers as having solved the real-world problems raised by Mises. Associalist economist Robert Heilbroner admitted in 1990, the year afterthe Berlin Wall came down, and the year before the Soviet Unioncollapsed: “Fifty years ago, it was felt that Lange had decisively wonthe argument for socialist planning.” It has turned out, Heilbronerbelatedly admitted, that Lange was wrong, and “Mises was right.”25

Fifty years of criticism from a handful of free market economists thatLange’s solution, based on equilibrium conditions, was no solution atall, in no way affected the thinking of the majority of academic

Appendix A

26. Peter G. Klein, “Introduction,” The Fortunes of Liberalism: Essays on Austrian Ec-onomics and the Ideal of Freedom, edited by Peter G. Klein, vol. IV of The CollectedWorks of F. A. Hayek (University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 10.

27. For example, the once-popular “perfect competition” model was used to show whycapitalism fails in practice. But in the perfect competition model, there is no competition,since everyone is omniscient regarding the uses of scarce resources. See Israel Kirzner’scriticisms of E. H. Chamberlin in Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship (Universityof Chicago Press, 1973), chaps. 3, 4.

28. The most widely known response was by Hayek in Economica (1940); reprinted inF. A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (University of Chicago Press, 1949), ch.9. The most detailed criticism was by the little-known economist, T. J. B. Hoff, EconomicCalculation in the Socialist Society (London: William Hodge & Co., 1949). This has beenreprinted by the Liberty Fund in Indianapolis.

1243

economists.26 This is not surprising. Academic economists wereequally committed to equilibrium as a legitimate model with which tocritique free market capitalism,27 and so they refused to pay anyattention to Lange’s critics.28 What finally persuaded them was notMises’ arguments but socialism’s visible irrationality: the bankruptcyof the Soviet-bloc nations.

Israel Kirzner has argued that what is lacking in the neoclassicaleconomics of Walras, Marshall, and their disciples is some means ofexplaining how equilibrium can occur, thereby giving life to the ad-vanced textbook world of simultaneous equations. “However, whenprice is described as being above or below equilibrium, it is under-stood that a single price prevails in the market. The uncomfortablequestion, then, is whether we may assume that a single price emergesbefore equilibrium is attained. Surely a single price can be postulatedonly as the result of the process of equilibrium itself. . . . The proce-dure also assumes too much. It takes for granted that the marketalready knows when the demand price of the quantity now availableexceeds the supply price. But disequilibrium occurs precisely because


29. Israel M. Kirzner, Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Ent-repreneurship (University of Chicago Press, 1979), pp. 4–5.

30. The Austrians invoke it occasionally, but only as a mental construct. Mises calledit the evenly rotating economy (E.R.E.). He used it only to prove that the interest rate is auniversal phenomenon. One exception to this refusal to invoke equilibrium is Kirzner’s1963 discussion of perfect competition, which he said is impossible to attain. This appearedin his out-of-print upper division economics textbook, Market Theory and the Price System,pp. 108–109. He never revised this book to reflect better his later studies inentrepreneurship. For a critique of the E.R.E., see Gary North, The Dominion Covenant:Genesis, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), pp. 352–53; Toolsof Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,1990), pp. 1120–21.

31. Walter A. Weisskopf, Alienation and Economics (New York: Dutton, 1971), ch. 4.

1244

market participants do not know what the market-clearing price is.”29

This applies even more forcefully to Lange’s socialist planning board.This line of argumentation, which is Mises’ Austrian argument, under-cuts Walras as well as Lange. The economics profession has not giventhis idea careful consideration in its journals and textbooks. Walraswas the original spinner of invisible clothing for the emperors ofeconomics. Emperors who wear invisible clothes prefer to keep clear-eyed critics away from their parades.

Invoking equilibrium when discussing economic policy-making isan exercise in conceptual magic. Equilibrium rests on the assumptionof the possibility of mankind’s simultaneous omniscience. Yet neo-classical economics, including Keynesianism, invokes the equilibriumconcept continually.30

Economic Theory vs. Ethical Value

Ethical value is publicly stripped of all authority in modern econo-mic theory.31 Those few economists who have argued that value-free

Appendix A

32. Robert Heilbroner is a good example. His popular book on the history of economicthought, The Worldly Philosophers, is a standard text in both history and economicsdepartments. It was assigned by the millions. But his essay on the impossibility of value-free economics was not published in an economics journal. Robert L. Heilbroner,“Economics as a ‘Value-free’ Science,” Social Research, XL (1973), pp. 129–43; reprintedin William L. Marr and Baldev Raj (eds.), How Economists Explain: A Reader inMethodology (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1982). The publisher didnot bother to typeset this volume. It was written on a typewriter.

1245

economic analysis is mythical have had almost no influence on theprofession. If they have had any influence, this topic was not the areain which they established their reputations.32 The one well-respectedAmerican economist who has argued forcefully for the reintroductionof values into economic theory, Kenneth Boulding, has been regardedas somewhat eccentric for promoting the idea that ethics should beincorporated into the tools of analysis.

Meanwhile, the use of high-level mathematics as a tool of theor-etical analysis, especially since the days of Walras, reveals just howcommitted the economics profession is to arcane formulas. There iseven an element of priestly ritual about this procedure. Liberal econo-mist John Kenneth Galbraith, who has spurned mathematics, formulas,and graphs throughout his career, once revealed a little-known side ofthe profession. The editors of the professional journals, which are theavenues of career advancement, play a game regarding the use ofmathematics. “The layman may take comfort from the fact that themost esoteric of this material is not read by other economists or evenby the editors who publish it. In the economics profession the editor-ship of a learned journal not specialized to econometrics or mathe-matical statistics is a position of only moderate prestige. It is accepted,moreover, that the editor must have a certain measure of practicaljudgment. This means that he is usually unable to read the mostprestigious contributions which, nonetheless, he must publish. So it isthe practice of the editor to associate with himself a mathematical


33. John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics Peace and Laughter (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1971), p. 41n.

34. William Jevons, Carl Menger, and Léon Walras. Cf. Karl Pribram, A History ofEconomic Reasoning (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), PartVI.

1246

curate who passes on this part of the work and whose word he takes.A certain embarrassed silence covers the arrangement.”33 Outsidersare unaware of the massive deception that is now endemic within theacademic economics profession.

Value Theory at an Epistemological Impasse

The attempt to create an economic science as devoid of value judg-ments or ethics as physics has led to a theoretical impasse. This im-passe was first discussed in detail in the 1930’s, but it is almost nevermentioned today because it cannot be solved, given the presup-positions of modern economics. Economists in the 1870’s34 began toabandon classical economics’ concept of objective economic value.They substituted individual value preferences for objective value. Alleconomic value is imputed by individuals, modern economics insists.

If this is true, then in order to make any kind of policy recommen-dation, the economist must assume that the value preferences or valuescales of individuals can be compared with each other. To say that apolicy benefits a lot of people assumes that the economist can com-pare the value scales of all of these people, or at least a statisticallyvalid sample of them (but how can we be sure it is valid?), as well asthe value scales of those who are not benefitted by the policy. He mustbe able to total up benefits and costs. He must be able to aggregateindividual value preferences. But this is impossible to do. There can

Appendix A

35. Lionel Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nded. (London: Macmillan, 1935), ch. 6.

36. On his debate with Sir Roy Harrod in 1938, see North, Dominion Covenant, pp. 44–51; Tools of Dominion, Appendix D: “The Epistemological Problem of Social Cost.” Cf.Mark A. Lutz and Kenneth Lux, The Challenge of Humanistic Economics (Menlo Park,California: Benjamin/Cummings, 1979), pp. 83–87. These two authors are as little knownas their publisher.

37. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles(Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962), p. 222. Reprinted by the Mises Institute,Auburn, Alabama, 1993.

1247

be no scientifically valid interpersonal comparison of subjectivevalue. This was Lionel Robbins’ conclusion in 1932,35 and while hepartially recanted in 1938, he did not explain why he had been incor-rect in 1932.36

There is no common scale of values in human action, economic orotherwise. There is no value scale. Scales are physical devices used byphysicists and chemists. An idea of a “scale of values” is at best auseful teaching device. It is not only mythical, it is misleading if it isassociated with actual measurement. It makes economics sound likea physical science. Individual value preferences can be ranked; theycannot be measured.37 As for social value, it has no role to play in ascience that denies that it is possible to make interpersonal compar-isons of subjective utility. The problem, however, is that the conceptof social value plays an enormous role in economics. Indeed, econo-mics as a social science is inconceivable apart from the concept ofsocial value. Economics without a concept of social value would belike physics without a concept of mass.

The quest for a value-free economic science is ultimately the questfor man’s autonomy from God and His law. It is a quest for meaningapart from “thou shalt not.” The socialist economist is less likely toindulge in this quest than the free market economist is, since he


38. Murray N. Rothbard, “Comment: The Myth of Efficiency,” in Mario Rizzo (ed.),Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books,1979), p. 90. Cf. North, Tools of Dominion, pp. 1118–19.

1248

invokes the benefits and legitimacy of social justice despite all socialisteconomies’ declining economic output. There are “higher values” than“mere statistical output,” he insists. The State must redistributeresources in order to benefit the oppressed or whichever the favoredgroup is. Theoretically speaking, a strictly value-free free marketeconomist cannot respond to the socialist by appealing to the freemarket’s measurable efficiency and growth without violating theprinciple of imputed individual value. There can be no scientificallyvalid measure of aggregate economic value, so there is no way tomeasure economic efficiency.38

This admission would undermine all discussions by economists ofgovernment economic policy. Neither the socialist economists nor thefree market economists want to see this happen. To have lots ofpeople understand that economists as scientists must remain mute inall government policy matters is not in the economists’ personal self-interest. They might lose their jobs.

The economist pretends to pull a rabbit (a policy recommendation)out of an empty hat (value-free economics). But he put the rabbit inthe hat before he went on stage. He has definite value preferences. Hiseconomic analysis will reflect this fact. He will defend or attack thisor that government policy in terms of his preferences. He cannot dothis as a scientist, given the impossibility of making interpersonal com-parisons of subjective utility. He does so as a self-interested propa-gandist who pretends to be a neutral scientist for the sake of beingtaken seriously by policy makers and voters. This kind of magic isprestidigitation. It is based on manipulation and illusion. SometimesI think the primary victims of this illusion are the economists them-selves, most of whom seem blissfully unaware of the epistemological

Appendix A

39. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from theFather of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

1249

subterfuge they are promoting.

The Trinity and Imputation of Value

Without the presupposition of an omniscient God who imputesvalue subjectively in terms of a scale of values, a God who can meas-ure value scales and make interpersonal comparisons of men’s subjec-tive utility, there can be no economic science. Modern economicscience rests unofficially on the assumption of collective value scalesand preferences, and also their measurability, even though officiallyeconomists deny their existence. Economists must assume what theyofficially deny.

There must be socially objective value and a socially objective valuescale if there is a legitimate economic evaluation of social policy.There must be a value scale undergirding every evaluation; that iswhat “evaluate” means. God’s judgments are objective in the sense ofbeing both eternal and historical. He brings visible judgments in termsof His law. These judgments are both objectively grounded andsubjectively grounded in the fixed moral character of God: “For I amthe LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not con-sumed” (Mal. 3:6).39 God knows objectively whatever He knowssubjectively, and vice versa. In Him, both subjective value and objec-tive value reside. They reside there personally, for God is personal.

A corollary to the doctrine of God as an imputing agent is this: ifindividual men were not made in God’s image, imputing value in acreaturely fashion, there could be no economic science. Men canimpute value only because God has already done so. An individual can


40. Political philosophy, as distinguished from political science, began its march intoatheism with Machiavelli. But Machiavelli had no explicitly scientific pretensions.

41. F. A. Hayek, “The Results of Human Action but not of Human Design” (1967), inHayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (University of Chicago Press, 1967),ch. 6.

1250

make useful estimates of social costs and benefits only because Godmakes precise calculations of social costs and benefits.

Finally, there is this corollary: if men were not able to impute valuecorporately, even as the Triune God of the Bible imputes value corp-orately, there could be no social theory, including economic theory.There could be no epistemological basis for policy formation.Societies can make judgments corporately because God does. Thedoctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of social theory.

This is all denied by the modern economist. Economics has adoptedthe confession of the magician, not in the sense of invoking thesupernatural, but in the sense of attributing wealth-creation to value-free techniques governed by formulas. The socialist invokes Stateplanning; the free market economist invokes private property. Bothdeny that wealth is the product of obedience to God’s laws. Fromeconomics, the original social science,40 has come the confessionalmodel of all the others: “There is no necessary and sufficient god butman, either individual or collective.”

The right-wing Enlightenment began with the English Whigs’political protests against a State-established church, but the conceptof an evolving autonomous social order was first articulated by theScottish common-sense rationalists in the mid-eighteenth century.They described society as the result of human action but not of humandesign.41 This model later served Erasmus Darwin and his grandson

Appendix A

42. The influence here was David Hume. Hayek, “The Legal and Political Philosophyof David Hume” (1963), ibid., p. 119n.

1251

Charles as the model of biological evolution.42 The Scots’ social model was a kind of secularized Presbyterianism:

a bottom-up appeals court system. It was paralleled by Continentalleft-wing Enlightenment social theory, whose model was secularizedJesuitism: a top-down authoritarian order. Scottish moral philosophyreplaced theology (eighteenth century). Then political economy re-placed moral philosophy (nineteenth century). Finally, economicsreplaced political economy (twentieth century). With each step, econ-omics has moved further away from any concept of a divinely sanc-tioned moral order.

Conclusion

Man lives in a world of imputed meaning, for he is a creature underGod. God imputes original meaning and value to the creation. Man isGod’s subordinate, required by God to think his own thoughts afterHim, in a law-abiding, creaturely manner. But this is both too muchand too little for covenant-breaking man. He wants to be less than theimage of God and more than the agent of God. If he is God’s image,he is responsible to God. He wants autonomy from God; so, hesubordinates himself to nature instead. Rejecting God’s law as a guideto human action, he finds himself entrapped by impersonal forces,which are in turn governed by (or are they merely revealed by?)impersonal formulas. Covenant-breaking man seeks out formulas asthe pathways to wealth and power. Some people prefer astrologicalformulas; others prefer statistical averages. Fate or chance or animpersonal mixture of the two: Which will it be? “Get your bets down,


43. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the NaturalSciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13 (1960), pp. 1–14.Wigner won the Nobel Prize in physics. The essay is on the web.

1252

gentlemen. The window is about to close.”But why do any of these formulas work? Consider mathematics, the

most popular source of power-granting formulas in our day. Menmaster the discipline of mathematics in order to understand andcontrol their world, rarely pausing to contemplate the utter unreas-onableness of the fact that a mental construct that is governed exclu-sively by its own rules of logic nevertheless applies in so manypowerful ways to the operations of the external world.43

Economics allows the use of higher mathematics as a tool of theor-etical analysis only where equilibrium conditions exist, i.e., where oneor more men are presumed to be omniscient. “Ye shall be as gods” isthe applicable phrase here. Every other use of mathematics in econo-mics is either a simplified hypothetical example of price ratios for thesake of teaching or else statistics applied to historical data. Yetmodern economics is overwhelmingly mathematical in its formalpresentations, as a survey of any three professional journals will prove(within a statistically acceptable range or error, of course) to skepticalreaders.

Modern economics, the original strictly humanistic social science,cannot avoid these humanist antinomies. For example, in seekingautonomy from God, modern economists propose a world in whichonly individuals impute value to the creation. But then they find thatthese autonomous imputations cannot be aggregated: no commonmeasure exists. It is impossible to make interpersonal comparisons ofsubjective utility. So, policy-making on a scientific basis must logicallybe abandoned. But the economist does not want to abandon eitherscience or policy-making, especially government policy-making, wherethe power is, or seems to be. So, he refuses to think about the logic

Appendix A

44. Most notable is Armen Alchian: “Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory,”in Alchian, Economic Forces at Work (Indianapolis, Indiana: LibertyPress, 1977), ch. 1.

45. Murray N. Rothbard, “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,”in On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises, edited by MarySennholz (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1956), p. 238.

46. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven, Con-necticut: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 249.

1253

of his position. The economics profession is becoming ever more self-conscious in

its quest for analytical tools that abandon any trace of ethics. Someeconomists are even bothered by the traditional concept of choice.44

They may adopt indifference curves as a way to avoid the morepsychological, and therefore more scientifically suspect, concept ofutility. But if acting man is truly indifferent between two possibleoutcomes, how can he choose? Will he stand motionless, like Buri-dan’s ass, until the threat of deprivation pressures him to take action,at which point he abandons his indifference?45

Economists adopt cost curves, supply curves, all kinds of curves.But a curve is made up of infinitesimal points. Prices and quantitiesare described by curves as changing in infinitesimally small moves.Infinitesimal changes are not aspects of decision-making. But curvesare subject to the calculus, which for the modern economist is surelya more important explanatory tool than human action is.

Economists rest their case for economics as a science on theoreticalconstructs that assume that man is omniscient. But there is no humanchoice in a world in which man knows outcomes; there are onlyresponses.46 Economists invoke complex mathematical formulas intheir quest for knowledge and influence, while abandoning the idea ofrational human choice. Armen Alchian, a free market economist of theChicago School, writes: “The essential point is that individual motiva-

47. Alchian, “Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory,” in Alchian, EconomicForces at Work, p. 27.

1254

tion and foresight, while sufficient, are not necessary” for economictheory to be true.47

Step by step, humanistic economics is abandoning man. Economicssubstitutes a behaviorist concept of man for the decision-maker whoinhabits the real world. Man disappears in the world of simultaneousequations. God is not mocked . . . not at zero price, anyway.

Appendix B

INDIVIDUALISM, HOLISM, AND COVENANTALISM

And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thygold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied. . . (Deut.8:13).

The language of mathematics infuses Moses’ discussion of Israel’sblessings. This language points to objective wealth: the multiplicationof valuable things. This raises a problem for economic theory. How isvalue measured? How is wealth measured? If value is objective, it canbe measured, but modern economic theory officially places the indiv-idual’s subjective valuation – economic imputation – at the heart of itstheory of value. Subjective evaluations cannot be measured, even bythose who make these evaluations. There is no objective value scale,either personally or interpersonally. Yet modern economists have beenobsessed with the intellectual challenge of establishing reliable indexesof national wealth, prices, and corporate social utility. They have per-suaded governments around the world to spend billions of dollars tocollect economic data from private citizens and firms. In fact, this data

Appendix B

1. Murray N. Rothbard, “The Politics of Political Economists: Comment,” QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 74 (Nov. 1960). Rothbard, “Fact-finding is a proper function ofgovernment,” Clichés of Politics, edited by Mark Spangler (Irvington, New York: Foun-dation for Economic Education, 1994). The essay was first published in The Freeman inJune, 1961: “Statistics: Achilles’ Heel of Government.” Cf. Gary North, Sanctions andDominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers (Tyler, Texas: Institute for ChristianEconomics, 1996), ch. 2, section on “Statistics and Government Planning.”

2. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1987), ch. 4. Cf. North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws ofExodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), pp. 1093–1100.

1255

collection has justified the establishment of government economicplanning. Without statistics, government planners could not claim theability to plan the economy.1

Humanist economic theory has been unable to resolve the dichot-omy between subjective value and objective value.2 If value is imputedsubjectively by an individual, it is impossible for another individual tomeasure objectively this value. In fact, it is impossible for the firstindividual to impute cardinal numbers to his own valuation. He canonly establish an ordinal ranking of values: first, second, third, etc. AsRothbard has written, “there is never any possibility of measuringincreases or decreases in happiness or satisfaction. Not only is itimpossible to measure or compare changes in the satisfaction of dif-ferent people; it is not possible to measure changes in the happiness ofany given person. In order for any measurement to be possible, theremust be an eternally fixed objectively given unit with which other unitsmay be compared. There is no such objective unit in the field ofhuman valuation. The individual must determine subjectively forhimself whether he is better or worse off as a result of any change. Hispreference can only be expressed in terms of simple choice, or rank.. . . There is no possible unit of happiness that can be used forpurposes of comparison, and hence of addition or multiplication.Thus, values cannot be measured; values or utilities cannot be added,

Individualism, Holism, and Covenantalism

3. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles(Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962), pp. 15–16. Reprinted by the Mises Institute(Auburn, Alabama) in 1993.

4. Lionel Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nded. (New York: St. Martins, 1935), p. 140.

5. R. F. Harrod, “Scope and Method of Economics,” Economic Journal, XVLIII (1938),pp. 396–97.

6. Lionel Robbins, “Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment,” ibid. (1938),p. 637–39.

7. North, Dominion Covenant, pp. 46–50.

1256

subtracted, or multiplied. They can only be ranked as better orworse.”3

If this is true, then it is scientifically impossible to make interper-sonal comparisons of subjective utility. This was Lionel Robbins’assertion in 1932.4 But if he was correct, then it is impossible foreconomists as scientists to make policy recommendations based on thesuperiority of one outcome to another. Roy Harrod pointed this outin a 1938 essay.5 Robbins then capitulated, announcing that he didaccept the legitimacy of idea of economic policy-making.6 He neverreconciled his two positions.7 So far, neither has anyone else.

This is the problem of epistemological subjectivism and policy-making. It applies to every social science, not just economics. It ismore obvious in economics, however. The economics profession sys-tematically avoids discussing it. Economists dearly love their role aspolicy experts. They do not want to admit to their students, let aloneto the general public, that the foundations of modern economics makesuch a role scientifically fraudulent.

Welfare Economics, Ethics, and Subjectivism

Appendix B

8. Murray N. Rothbard, “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,”in Mary Sennholz (ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig vonMises (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1956), p. 234.

9. Ibid., p. 244.

10. Ibid., p. 247.

11. Ibid., p. 248.

1257

Whether we use the language of multiplication or the language ofsocial utility, we are dealing with collectives. If we use such termin-ology to assert an increase in social wealth, we are aggregating indivi-dual utilities. But this procedure is illegitimate if economic value isexclusively subjective. Thus, we cannot move scientifically from theindividual to the group on the basis of economic analysis. Conclusion:there is no such thing as scientific welfare economics.

Rothbard attempted to make this move in a 1956 essay. First, hedenied the existence of total utility. “We must conclude then that thereis no such thing as total utility; all utilities are marginal.”8 Second, heannounced: “The problem of ‘welfare economics’ has always been tofind some way to circumvent this restriction on economics, and tomake ethical, and particularly political, statements directly.”9 Third,he stated that all ethical issues are imported from outside the disciplineof economics.10 Fourth, he asserted that all economic advising deniesthe ethical neutrality dictum.11 Then how can an economist make anystatement regarding social welfare? Only on one basis: if any changeincreases at least one person’s utility and has not reduced any otherperson’s utility. This is Pareto’s unanimity rule.

There is one overwhelming objection to this rule: the existence ofenvy. If one person is made richer by some change in the economy,and another person resents this outcome, the benefit to the first personmay be offset by the negative feelings of the second. Rothbard in 1956


12. Ibid., p. 250.

13. Idem.

14. Rothbard, “Freedom, Inequality and the Division of Labor,” Modern Age (Summer1971); reprinted in Kenneth Templeton (ed.), The Politicalization of Society (Indianapolis,Indiana: LibertyPress, 1978), pp. 83–126. The essay was also reprinted as a monograph bythe Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama. It is on-line: http://www.mises.org/fipandol.asp

1258

acknowledged this as a theoretical problem, but then he dismissed it.Envy is strictly internal; it does not lead to action, and only actioncounts. “How do we know that this hypothetical envious one loses inutility because of the exchanges of others? Consulting his verbalopinions does not suffice, for his proclaimed envy might be a joke ora literary game or a deliberate lie.”12 Conclusion: “We are led inexor-ably, then, to the conclusion that the processes of the free marketalways lead to a gain in social utility. And we can say this withabsolute validity as economists, without engaging in ethical judg-ments.”13 So, there is an aggregate called social utility after all. Wecan postulate an increase in social utility whenever we can identify avoluntary exchange: two people are better off, and no one else isworse off, just so long as there is no such thing as envy. Rothbardimported an aggregate into his analysis, as all welfare economistsmust, and with welfare economics comes ethics – the end of value-freeeconomics.

Unfortunately for the acceptability of this thesis, Rothbard laterwrote a classic essay in 1971 on the importance of envy in society,especially as the basis of socialism.14 By moving envy out of the realmof the merely hypothetical into the realm of the politically significant,Rothbard undermined his reconstruction of welfare economics. Envydoes exist after all in the world of demonstrated preferences; it is amajor foundation of socialism. Therefore, the economist who usessome version of Pareto’s analysis – at least two market participants

http://www.mises.org/fipandol.asp

Appendix B

15. Economist Aaron Levine has referred to Kirzner as “Rabbi Dr. Israel Kirzner, Tal-mudist extraordinaire. . . .” Levine, Free Enterprise and Jewish Law: Aspects of JewishBusiness Ethics (New York: KTAV, 1980), p. xi.

16. Israel M. Kirzner, “Welfare Economics: A Modern Austrian Perspective,” in WalterBlock and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (eds.), Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honorof Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, 1988), p. 79.

1259

are better off, while no one is worse off – in order to prove anincrease in social utility yet without invoking ethics, is deludinghimself. He has imported ethics into economic analysis the momentthe issue of envy is introduced. He has assumed that envy is ethicallyillegitimate and therefore cannot legitimately be used to criticize thatlibertarian version of welfare economics which supposedly enables aneconomist to assert an increase of social utility based on the existenceof voluntary exchanges. Ethics, in short, becomes determinative in“value-free” economic science. This hostility to envy as a legitimateaspect of economic analysis rests on an ethical foundation.

Kirzner on Welfare Economics

Three decades later, Israel Kirzner – a disciple of Mises and also arabbi of Orthodox Judaism15 – profusely praised Rothbard’s 1956essay for its rejection of aggregates. “To attempt to aggregate utilityis not merely to violate the tenets of methodological individualism andsubjectivism (by treating the sensations of different individuals asbeing able to be added up); it is also to engage in an entirely mean-ingless exercise: economic analysis has nothing to say about sensa-tions, it deals strictly with choices and their interpersonal implica-tions.”16

Kirzner rejects the idea of “Pareto optimality” because “a Pareto-optimal move is considered to advance the well-being of society –


17. Idem.

18. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Menlo Park, Califor-nia: Institute for Humane Studies, 1970), p. 13.

19. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, p. 739.

20. Ibid., p. 740.

21. Rothbard, “The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar,” in Leland B. Yeager (ed.), In Searchof a Monetary Constitution (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962),p. 121.

1260

considered as a whole.”17 He is correct; this is exactly what Paretooptimality implies. But Rothbard’s essay rested on Pareto optimality:two people being better off and no one else (except the envious, whowere dismissed by definition) worse off. Kirzner completely misses thefundamental point – a highly non-individualistic point – of Rothbard’sessay: social utility is an aggregate, and this aggregate can be said toincrease only because of Pareto optimality. In the essay followingKirzner’s, I set forth these challenges to Rothbard:

If the economist cannot make interpersonal comparisons of sub-jective utility . . . as Rothbard insists, then how can he be certain that“the free market maximizes social utility”?18 What is “social utility”in an epistemological world devoid of interpersonal aggregates? If “in human action there are no quantitative constants,”19 andtherefore no index number is legitimate,20 then how can we say thatmonetary inflation produces price inflation? What is price inflationwithout an index number? What is an index number without inter-personal aggregation? If we cannot define “social utility,” or price inflation, then how canwe know that “money, in contrast to all other useful commoditiesemployed in production or consumption, does not confer a socialbenefit when its supply increases”?21 How can we legitimately say

Appendix B

22. Gary North, “Why Murray Rothbard Will Never Win the Nobel Prize!” in Man, Ec-onomy, and Liberty, p. 105.

23. Kirzner, “Welfare Economics,” p. 80.

24. Ibid., p. 81.

1261

anything about the aggregate entity, “social benefit”?22

Kirzner understands that these aggregates are illegitimate from thepoint of view of methodological subjectivism, and he has refrainedfrom arguing publicly as an economist for any social policy throughouthis career. He has seen that, in terms of pure subjectivism in eco-nomics, to discuss the concept of social choice is “to engage in ametaphor.”23 “To choose, presupposes an integrated framework ofends and means; without such a presumed framework allocativechoice is hardly a coherent notion at all.”24 Such a statement identifiesKirzner as a very precise follower of Mises and a less precise followerof Moses. Without the concept of aggregate, corporate social cursesand blessings, there can be no national covenant between God and Hispeople. Without the idea of a series of corporate covenants therecould be neither Judaism nor Christianity. The covenants of Israelwere judicially objective. To demonstrate this objectivity, Godprovided objective economic blessings that were visible to anyonewho looked at the evidence.

And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed afterthem, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out ofEgypt; To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier thanthou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, asit is this day. Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart,that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath:there is none else (Deut. 4:37–39).


1262

And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee intothe land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, andto Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wellsdigged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thouplantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full (Deut. 6:10–11).

The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hathsworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORDthy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall seethat thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraidof thee. And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruitof thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thyground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to givethee. The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven togive the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work ofthine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt notborrow (Deut. 28:9–12).

The consistent methodological subjectivist refuses to see with hisown eyes. He does not acknowledge the scientific relevance of eithercorporate blessings or corporate cursings. This was Israel’s problemin Isaiah’s day. “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whomshall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understandnot; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this peoplefat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see withtheir eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And heanswered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and thehouses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the LORDhave removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in themidst of the land” (Isa. 6:8–12). Such blindness is judicial blindness.

Appendix B

25. Chapter 21.

1263

God blinds men so that they cannot see with their own eyes. Judicialblindness is a mark of His covenantal curse. Men interpret what theysee in terms of what they believe, and what covenant-breakers believeis that God does not bring corporate, objective, measurable, covenant-al sanctions in history.

Kirzner rejects classical economics in the name of subjectivism. Hetherefore rejects biblical economics in the name of subjectivism. Formethodological subjectivism, there is no such thing as national wealth,economically speaking, for there is no collective. If nation A is devas-tated by a plague, leaving behind only one alcoholic survivor who nowowns the contents of every liquor store in the nation, while nation Bhas not suffered such a plague, there is no way for a subjectivist econ-omist to say which nation is now better off. The alcoholic is clearly ahappy man. Who is to say scientifically that the collective joy of nationB, which avoided the plague, is greater than the collective joy ofnation A, i.e., the drunk who is feeling no pain? There is no such thingas collective joy, says the methodological subjectivist. In Kirzner’swords, “economic analysis has nothing to say about sensations.” Con-trast this with Moses’ economic analysis: “And thou say in thine heart,My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. Butthou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth theepower to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which hesware unto thy fathers, as it is this day” (Deut. 8:17– 18).25 Mosesspoke this to the assembled nation, not to a private individual.

Moses was raising the question that fascinated Adam Smith: theorigin of the wealth of nations. Kirzner dismisses this whole questionas epistemologically misguided. “During the period of classical econo-mics it was, of course, taken for granted that a society was econom-ically successful strictly insofar as it succeeded in achieving increased


26. Kirzner, “Welfare Economics,” p. 78.

27. The phrase “radical subjectivism” is Ludwig Lachmann’s. He claimed in 1982 thatradical subjectivism “inspired the Austrian revival of the 1970s. . . .” Ludwig M.Lachmann, “Ludwig von Mises and the Extension of Subjectivism,” in Israel M. Kirzner(ed.), Method, Process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises(Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1982), p. 37. Lachmann was beingsimultaneously overly modest and overly arrogant. It was his lectures in defense of radicalsubjectivism at the 1974 South Royalton, Vermont, conference (which I attended) that splitthe Austrian movement into the Rothbardian and Lachmanian camps. Radical subjectivismwas surely an aspect of the revival of Austrian economics, for it split the movement intotwo irreconcilable factions. Radical subjectivism was hardly basis of Austrianism’s revival.Lachmann also invoked the economics of “Shackle, the master subjectivist” (p. 38). ButShackle was never an Austrian School economist. Lachmann pretended otherwise. SeeLachmann, “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the KaleidicSociety,” Journal of Economic Literature, XIV (March 1976). In the history of economicthought, G. L. S. Shackle is the most consistent defender of Kant’s noumenalism as aneconomic methodology. I regard Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship as Lachmanian.

1264

wealth. Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of theWealth of Nations expressed this approach to the economics of wel-fare simply and typically. It was taken for granted that a given per-centage increase in a nation’s physical wealth (with wealth often seenas consisting of bushels of ‘corn’) meant a similar percentage increasein the nation’s well-being. From this perspective a physical measureof a nation’s wealth provides an index of that nation’s economicsuccess, regardless of its distribution. A bushel of wheat is a bushel ofwheat. Clearly this notion of welfare offends the principles of meth-odological individualism and subjectivism; it was swept away by themarginalist (subjectivist) revolution of the late nineteenth century.”26

But Smith’s perception of objective national wealth was closer to thecovenantal wisdom of the Bible than radical subjectivism is.27

By stripping all traces of objective value theory out of economics,radical subjectivism produces an intellectual world of sustained inco-herence. A handful of academic economists have trained themselves

Appendix B

28. In short, says the economist, “Your facts cannot be sustained by economic theory.”

29. Richard Kroner, Kant’s Weltanschauung (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,[1914] 1956).

30. Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and EconomicEvolution (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1957), p. 1.

1265

to dismiss the visibly obvious as epistemologically irrelevant.28 Theiracademic peers do not go along with them, but they also do not offerrefutations of this epistemological nihilism that are based onepistemological subjectivism/individualism.

Dualism: Objective vs. Subjective Economics

I am not speaking here of Kant’s dualism between the realm ofman’s mind and the realm of physical causation.29 Mises, as a goodKantian, acknowledged the legitimacy of this dualism.30 I am speakinghere of the dualism between aggregative, objective value theory andindividualistic, subjective value theory.

The epistemological problem with all forms of welfare economicsand all forms of economic policy-making is the problem of reconcilingaggregative values or preferences, whose existence is denied by ext-reme economic individualists, yet also invoked by them at some point,and subjective values, which are dismissed as morally peripheral bymethodological holists, but which are also invoked by them at somepoint. This topic is avoided like the plague within the economics prof-ession, since there has never been a widely agreed-upon humanisticsolution to this dualism.

The methodological individualist moves epistemologically towardcomplete indeterminacy. There is no explainable continuity betweenthe external world and the world of subjective evaluation. The mom-


31. Lachmann writes: “The human mind can, it is true, transcend the present momentin imagination and memory, but the moment-in-being remains nevertheless always self-contained and solitary. . . . It follows that it is impossible to compare human actions under-taken at different moments in time.” Ludwig M. Lachmann, Capital, Expectations, and theMarket Process (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), p. 83.

32. Ludwig Lachmann, “An Austrian Stocktaking: Unsettled Questions and TentativeAnswers,” in Louis Spadaro (ed.), New Directions in Austrian Economics (Kansas City,Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1978), p. 7. This book might well have been titledKaleidic Developments in Austrian Economics, or perhaps The Epistemological Breakdownof Austrian Economics.

33. Ludwig Lachmann, Capital and Its Structure (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrewsand McMeel, 1977), p. 37.

34. Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nos-trand, 1956), p. 39.

35. Israel M. Kirzner, An Essay on Capital (New York: Augustus Kelly, 1966), p. 120.

1266

entary subjective states of the individual are said to lose contact withthe external world and even with his own previous subjective states.31

This epistemological indeterminacy was named by the radical sub-jectivist economist, Ludwig Lachmann: kaleidic perceptualism. Heself-consciously invoked as his image of society the child’s toy, thekaleidoscope.32 A kaleidoscope is a tube that uses mirrors to produceever-changing, unrepeatable, visually fascinating, and conceptuallymeaningless patterns out of shifting, colored pieces of glass.

For Lachmann, and also for Kirzner, it is illegitimate to speak ofnational economic growth or per capita economic growth.33 Yet Misesargued to the contrary: “Saving, capital accumulation, is the agencythat has transformed step by step the awkward search for food on thepart of savage cave dwellers into modern ways of industry.”34 For theradical subjectivist, it is illogical to argue that an increase in per capitacapital leads to greater per capita wealth. Per capita capital is “awholly artificial construct,” says Kirzner.35 Yet Mises argued: “There

Appendix B

36. Mises, Anti-Capitalist Mentality, p. 5.

1267

is but one means available to improve the material conditions ofmankind: to accelerate the growth of capital accumulated as againstthe growth in population. The greater the amount of capital investedper head of the worker, the more and the better goods can beproduced and consumed.”36 Mises’ original radical subjectivism hasrun aground on the shoals of a far more radical subjectivism. Theresult of pure subjectivism is the end of meaning, not just for econo-mics but for human thought in general. It destroys continuity: throughtime and between individuals.

In contrast, the methodological holist moves toward central plan-ning. The concept of social goods and social evils implies a singleplanning mind and a single standard of good and evil. This is whatalienates the individualists. They want to preserve human freedom; theholist wants to improve the human condition systematically, meaningthrough central planning and coercion. The individualist does not trustthe State; the holist does not trust the free market. The individualistrejects State compulsion; the holist rejects social and even personalindeterminacy, which radical subjectivists such as Lachmann preachwith fervor. The individualist wants the consumer to be sovereign; theholist wants the voter or bureaucrat to be sovereign. The individualistdefends the sovereignty of individual plans; the holist defends thesovereignty of the State’s plan.

The individualist proclaims faith in the rationality of the market andits ability to improve the human condition. He then denies the epistem-ological legitimacy of any objective unit of measurement that wouldallow an outside observer to assess such improvement. In contrast, theholist proclaims faith in the rationality of the State and its ability toimprove the human condition. He then denies the appropriateness ofany unit of measurement that points to the failure of central planning


37. Kirzner’s entrepreneurial “ah, ha,” alertness, or hunch is the premier example ofthis flight to the noumenal in search of explanations. He calls entrepreneurial alertness “theinstant of an entrepreneurial leap of faith. . . .” Kirzner, Perception, Opportunity, andProfit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship (University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.163. This moment of discovery is beyond the constraints of logical cause and effect. “Oncethe entrepreneurial element in human action is perceived, one can no longer interpret thedecision as merely calculative – capable in principle of being yielded by mechanicalmanipulation of the ‘data’ or already completely implied in these data.” Kirzner,Competition and Entrepreneurship (University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 35. He speaksof the entrepreneur’s “propensity to sense what prices are realistically available to him” (p.40). The essence of this sense is that it is beyond calculation, i.e., beyond Kant’sphenomenal realm.

1268

to deliver the goods. Denying the relevance of socialism’s objectivefailure, he proclaims his faith in intangible socialist goods that providedignity and meaning in socialism’s world of stagnant or decliningeconomic output. Both the individualist and the holist seekjustification in a hypothetical realm of the spirit – Kant’s noumenalrealm – which lies outside the domain of objective measurement, i.e.,Kant’s phenomenal realm. In search of meaning, members of bothschools of economic thought flee to the zone of man’s indeterminatesubjective freedom: Kant’s noumenal realm. The holist seeks justifi-cation for his views in terms of the collective “quality of life,” whichcannot be scientifically measured. The individualist seeks justificationfor his views in terms of the individually perceived productivity of theentrepreneurial flash of insight, which cannot be measured, taught, oreven described scientifically.37

Resolution: Methodological Covenantalism

The methodological covenantalist finds the solution to these inher-ent and permanent dualisms in the concept of a sovereign, omniscientGod. God has a plan. He matches ends and means. He issues a decree

Appendix B

38. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1987), ch. 1.

1269

for history, and this decree will be fulfilled. “And all the inhabitants ofthe earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will inthe army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and nonecan stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan. 4: 35).The presupposition of a sovereign God replaces the presupposition ofsovereign man.

To the extent that men think God’s thought after Him, they adoptGod’s standards – His hierarchy of legitimate ends – with respect totheir lives. God enables people to coordinate their plans throughhuman action because His decree and plan are above theirs. “A man’sheart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps” (Prov. 16:9). “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers ofwater: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1). In Joseph’swords to his brothers, who had sold him into slavery, “But as for you,ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring topass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:20). God’slaw-order provides the framework of productive coordination, in eco-nomics as in other areas of life. His sanctions in history provide boththe incentives and disincentives that confirm His covenant law.

The methodological individualist does not begin with the methodo-logical covenantalist’s presupposition of an omniscient God. Such aGod would thwart the individualist’s autonomy. Neither does themethodological holist begin with God; he begins with some substitutesource of planning and accurate information, most commonly theState. The idea of cosmic personalism is foreign to humanistic econo-mics.38 Economics since the late seventeenth century has been self-


39. William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics (Cambridge, Massachusetts:M.I.T. Press, 1963).

1270

consciously agnostic,39 i.e., militantly atheistic with a thin veneer ofhumility for academic propriety’s sake. The result is epistemologicalchaos, which is concealed from public view, even from the occasion-ally inquisitive eyes of graduate students, by a kind of embarrassedsilence. Should anyone enquire about this epistemological dualism, hewill be assured that such matters are irrelevant to what economists do.And what do economists do? Economics. Then what is economics?Whatever economists do. (These definitions were offered,respectively, by Jacob Viner and Frank Knight.)

Conclusion

The Bible’s objective language of national wealth underminesmethodological individualism. But rarely do methodological individ-ualists pursue their position to its logical conclusion. The language ofstatistical averages and price indexes is common to most methodo-logical individualists.

Because biblical cosmic personalism is true, there can be a resolu-tion to the philosophical problem of the seeming contradiction bet-ween subjective and objective knowledge. In economics, this con-tradiction is seen most clearly in the debates over objective and sub-jective value. The Bible’s objective value theory is grounded in theobjective Person of God – His declarations, standards, and evalua-tions. God’s subjective declaration of value to His objective creation– “it is good” – and His objective declarations of blessings andcursings in history indicate that subjectivism and objectivism arecorrelative. They are grounded in the objective character of God’ssubjective declarations. The mind of man is capable of making objec-

Appendix B

1271

tive evaluations of external conditions because his mind reflects God’smind. He is made in God’s image. His evaluations becomeprogressively accurate as they approach God’s evaluations as a limit.He thinks God’s thought after Him.

There is corporate wealth. Men can subjectively perceive objectivedifferences between rich and poor nations, rich and poor corporations,and rich and poor governments. I can remember being challengedverbally by Mises in 1971 to defend my statement that we can makeobjectively meaningful comparisons between subjectively perceivedhuman conditions. I said, “It is better to be rich and healthy than it isto be poor and sick.” He said, “Yes, that’s so.” This was not a greatphilosophical exchange, but it got to the point. That point was notnoumenal.

1272

Appendix C

SYNCRETISM, PLURALISM, AND EMPIRE

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as ironbreaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breakethall these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thousawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, thekingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength ofthe iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so thekingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thousawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves withthe seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even asiron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall theGod of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: andthe kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break inpieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountainwithout hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, theclay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to theking what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, andthe interpretation thereof sure (Dan. 2:40–45).

Daniel’s prophecy to Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar foretold the riseof a series of empires. The last worldwide political empire would beRome’s. It would break apart. It would be replaced by a new empire,a new world order: the church, the stone cut from the mountain madewithout hands. There is no political empire capable of replacing thechurch as the basis of an integrated world order. Every self-pro-claimed new world order will fail.

In our day, we have seen two rival claimants to the throne of

Appendix C

1273

empire, each claiming to be a builder of a New World Order: interna-tional Communism and Western humanism. Communism visibly col-lapsed in August of 1991 in the failed coup by the ousted leaders ofthe old Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Today, Westernhumanists believe that they are capable of putting together an interna-tional order based on free trade, central banking, currency manipu-lation, and international bureaucratic agencies with the power to con-trol the legal framework of international production. This ideal, likethe ideal of Communism, will smash on the rocks of economic effi-ciency. This ideal is built on faith in political controls, which todaymeans faith in central banking, taxation, and computers.

A Common Pantheon

The strategy of the ancient empires was syncretism: the fusion ofcompeting religious faiths. It still is, but today it is called pluralism.The idols of the conquered cities could be brought into the pantheonof the empire’s gods. This was Rome’s strategy. Local idols lost theirexclusivity when they entered the empire’s pantheon. Rome sought tomaintain the regional authority of the gods of the classical city-stateby incorporating them into the Roman pantheon. By honoring thegeographical significance of local deities, Rome sought to subordinatethem all to the pantheon itself, i.e., to the empire. The Romanpantheon (“all gods”), manifested politically by the genius and laterthe divinity of the emperor, universalized the implied divinity of theclassical city-state.

It was the exclusivity and universalism of the God of the Bible thatidentified Jews and Christians as politically untrustworthy and evenrevolutionary subjects. They refused to worship either the genius orthe divinity of the Roman emperor. They would not acknowledge the

Syncretism, Pluralism, and Empire

1. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order andUltimacy (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978), p. 124.

1274

authority of the Roman empire’s pantheon of gods. They would notacknowledge the God of the Bible as just one more regional godamong many. The God of the Bible, they insisted, was above the crea-tion and outside it. This confession was revolutionary in ancientRome. Rushdoony explains why: “The essence of the ancient city-state, polis, and empire was that it constituted the continuous unity ofthe gods and men, of the divine and the human, and the unity of allbeing. There was thus no possible independence in society for anyconstituent aspect. Every element of society was a part of the all-absorbing one. Against this, Christianity asserted the absolute divisionof the human and the divine. Even in the incarnation of Christ, thehuman and the divine were in union without confusion, as Chalcedon[451 A.D.] so powerfully defined it. Thus, divinity was withdrawnfrom human society and returned to the heavens and to God. Nohuman order or institution could claim divinity and thereby claim torepresent total and final order. By de-divinizing the world, Christianityplaced all created orders, including church and state, under God.”1

The Roman Empire could not coexist with Christianity. The Romanauthorities recognized this fact over two centuries before theChristians did. While Christians were honest, hard-working, peace-loving citizens, they were necessarily the enemies of pagan Rome.Their God would not submit; He ordered His people not to submit.The Christians sought peace through religious pluralism, but Romesought dominion through syncretism: the absorption of all religionsinto the religion of empire. Syncretism is the enemy of orthodoxy.Political pluralism – the equal authority (little or none) in civil law ofall supernatural gods – is a grand illusion. But Christian believersgenerally have not yet recognized in political pluralism the syncretism

Appendix C

2. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1989).

1275

that underlies it and the humanistic empire which is pluralism’s long-term goal.2

Christians under Roman rule called for religious toleration – theright not to worship the emperor as a condition of citizenship or evenresident alien status – but Rome’s authorities knew better. They rec-ognized what early Christians refused to acknowledge, namely, thatthe God of the Bible recognizes no other gods, rejects syncretism, andtherefore calls for the subordination of culture to Him and His Bible-revealed law. Rome recognized early that pluralism is a politicallyconvenient short-term illusion and a long-run impossibility. Therewould either be a judicially impotent Christian establishment under theauthority of a political priesthood or else covenant religion wouldgovern the nation’s political oath of allegiance. The result of this earlyrecognition was Rome’s intermittent persecution of Christians foralmost three centuries, followed by the fall of Rome and theinheritance of Rome’s infrastructure – roads, laws, and customs – byChristians in the fourth century. Rome’s syncretism failed as surely asthe Christians’ early pluralism failed.

Tertullian’s Apology

In the late second or early third century, Tertullian (145–220), theintellectual founder of Latin Christianity, wrote his famous Apology,a defense of Christianity as a pietistic religion of heart and hearthwhich should have been acceptable to Rome’s power religion. It was


3. Tertullian, Apology, ch. I, opening words. Reprinted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, [1870] 1978), III, p. 17.

4. Idem.

5. Ibid., p. 40.

1276

addressed to “Rulers of the Roman Empire. . . .”3 It was a critique ofRome’s demand that Christians must worship the divinity of theemperor for the sake of the prosperity of the empire.

He attributed to ignorance the rulers’ hostility to Christianity. “Sowe maintain that they are both ignorant while they hate us, and hateus unrighteously while they continue in ignorance, the one thing beingthe result of the other either way of it.”4 In Chapter 25, he pointed outthat the complex pantheon of Rome in his day had not been thereligion of the early Romans. “But how utterly foolish it is to attributethe greatness of the Roman name to religious merits, since it was afterRome became an empire, or call it still a kingdom, that the religion sheprofesses made its chief progress! Is it the case now? Has its religionbeen the source of the prosperity of Rome?” On the contrary, heargued: “Indeed, how could religion make a people great who haveowed their greatness to their irreligion? For, if I am not mistaken,kingdoms and empires are acquired by wars, and are extended byvictories. More than that, you cannot have wars and victories withoutthe taking, and often the destruction, of cities. That is a thing in whichthe gods have their share of calamity. Houses and temples suffer alike;there is indiscriminate slaughter of priests and citizens; the hand ofrapine is laid equally upon sacred and on common treasure. Thus thesacrileges of the Romans are as numerous as their trophies.”5 The sac-redness of Rome’s pantheon of gods is an illusion; the gods of Romeare idols. “But divinities unconscious are with impunity dishonored,

Appendix C

6. Idem.

7. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, andInstitutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1864]1955), Book III, ch. VI.

8. Ibid., III:XV.

9. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven,Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1984), p. 64.

1277

just as in vain they are adored.”6

If this was calculated to persuade Rome’s rulers, it was an apolo-getic failure. Tertullian did not understand, or pretended not to under-stand, the inherently political nature of classical religion. The gods ofRome were thoroughly political in Tertullian’s era. This is not surpris-ing. In classical religion, the gods of allied cities, as well as allied fam-ilies and clans within a city, had always been political. They hadalways been creations for the sake of politics.7 Peace treaties betweenwarring cities were treaties between their gods.8 While the ancientsbelieved that the gods did bring sanctions, positive and negative, inhistory, they also believed that these sanctions were applied to mem-bers of oath-bound, custom-bound, and ritual-bound groups: families,clans, and city-states. The heart of Roman religion was its publicpiety.9 Jews and Christians remained aloof from these public ceremon-ies, not because the rituals were public, but because they formallyinvoked idols. On the other hand, they were persecuted, not becausethey refused to believe in the power of idols, but because they refusedto participate in acts of public piety. The judicial issue for Rome wasthe oath – formal invocation – not personal belief. The public oathaffirmed men’s obedience to representatives of the gods of the pan-theon – representatives who were, above all, political agents of theemperor.

In Chapter 28, Tertullian called for religious toleration generally,


10. Ibid., p. 41.

11. Idem.

12. Gary North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985).

13. Ibid., pp. 41-42.

1278

affirming strict voluntarism in worship. Christians cannot in goodconscience “offer sacrifice to the well-being of the emperor.” Yet forthis refusal, he complained, they have been illegitimately condemnedas treasonous. Roman religion was itself sacrilegious, he said, “for youdo homage with a greater dread and an intense reverence to Caesar,than Olympian Jove himself.”10 Of course they did; the Olympian Jovewas a political construct. Caesar was the earthly manifestation ofRome’s political power, and classical religion was power religion.Tertullian sought to condemn Rome’s rulers for “showing impiety toyour gods, inasmuch as you show a greater reverence to a humansovereignty than you do to them.”11 His strategy was naive; the heartof all power religion, from Pharaoh to the latest political messiah, isthe honoring of human sovereignty.12

In Chapter 29, he argued that the gods of Rome did not protectCaesar; rather, Caesar protected the gods. “This, then, is the groundon which we are charged with treason against the imperial majesty, towit, that we do not put the emperors under their own possessions; thatwe do not offer a mere mock service on their behalf, as not believingtheir safety rests in leaden hands.”13 This was also a naive argument,yet one still revered by most Christian defenders of modern politicalpluralism. To pray publicly for Caesar in the name of the pantheon ofRome’s gods was to acknowledge that Caesar was the commonreference point, the common spokesman, for the inherently politicalgods of classical culture.

Appendix C

14. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press,1973), p. 5.

1279

The syncretism of Rome’s religion was the theological justificationfor the administration of Rome’s political empire: a hierarchy ofsanctified power from Caesar to the lowest officials in the otherwiseautonomous city-states that made up the empire. This hierarchy ofpower was sacred, a matter of formal ritual.

The source of law in society is its god.14 Caesar was the source oflaw in the name of the gods of the pantheon. There was no operationalhierarchy above him; there was a political and military hierarchy belowhim. This much Tertullian understood. This was the heart of hisargument against the seriousness of Roman religion. But to maintainwidespread faith in the legitimacy of any social order, the authoritiesmust foster faith in a sacred – though not necessarily supernatural –law-order, i.e., laws to which non-political and cosmic sanctions areattached. Civil authorities seek to instill the fear of the society’s godsin the hearts of the subjects of the sacred political order. This is whyTertullian was unquestionably treasonous, for he was underminingmen’s faith in the higher order which the authorities insistedundergirded Rome’s legitimacy. Tertullian was challenging the civilcovenant of Rome, an overwhelmingly political social order. Hechallenged Rome’s gods, the authority of Rome’s rulers to commandallegiance to the primary representative of these gods, Rome’s law,Rome’s sanctions against treasonous Christians, and ultimatelyRome’s succession in history. There was no more revolutionary actthan this. Taking up weapons was a minor infraction compared to this.

In vain did Tertullian cry out for toleration, just as modern Chris-tian defenders of political pluralism cry out vainly. “Why, then, are wenot permitted an equal liberty and impunity for our doctrines as they


15. Tertullian, Apology, ch. XLVI, Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, p. 50.

16. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row,1953), p. 128.

17. W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 254.

18. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of aConflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, [1965] 1981),p. 292.

1280

have, with whom, in respect of what we teach, we are compared?”15

The answer should have been obvious: they – the tolerated religions– publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of the covenant of Rome’spower religion. Christianity could not acknowledge such legitimacyand remain faithful to God.

Tertullian had mystical tendencies, and he spent the end of his lifeas a member of a cult, the Montanists, which had been founded halfa century earlier by a tongues-speaking, self-styled prophet, Montan-us, and two women who were also said to be prophetesses. Theytaught the imminent bodily return of Christ.16 After Christ’s bodilyreturn, they taught, He would set up an earthly kingdom.17 Tertullian’sApology was governed by an outlook hostile to time, dominion, andpolitical involvement. His political pluralism was an outworking of histheological pietism, a pietism which eventually led him into a premil-lennial cult that called for asceticism, suffering, and martyrdom priorto the imminent Second Coming.18 His political pluralism wasconsistent with his later theology: a call, not for the victory of Chris-tianity in history, but merely for peace until such time as Christ returnsto set up a millennial kingdom. For Tertullian, history offered littlehope. Yet even so, his limited critique of Rome in the name of politicalpluralism and toleration went too far for Rome’s hierarchs.

Appendix C

19. Apology, ch. XLII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, p. 49.

20. Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 171.

21. John Holland Smith, The Death of Classical Paganism (New York: Charles Scrib-ner’s Sons, 1976), p. 93.

22. Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, pp. 173–74.

1281

Julian the Apostate

The Roman authorities understood the implications of the rivalreligion which Tertullian preached. They were unimpressed with hisarguments that Christians were the best citizens of Rome because theygave alms freely and paid their taxes.19 The Christians were by far themost dangerous citizens of Rome, as the last pagan emperor Julian(361–63) fully understood. The victorious Christians designated himposthumously as “Julian the Apostate.” This name has stuck, even intextbooks written by his spiritual heirs. A secret convert from Chris-tianity to occult mysteries at age 20, Julian took steps to weaken theChristians immediately after he attained the office of Emperor. Julianwas the first Renaissance ruler, a lover of Greek antiquity.20 Heconcealed his conversion to paganism throughout his adult life until hegained uncontested political power in 361. This is understandable,given the fact that his late cousin, the Arian Emperor Constantius, hadordered the murder of Julian’s father and mother in the year Constan-tine died, 337, when Julian was five years old.21 There was greatresentment in Julian.

One of his earliest acts as emperor was to establish pagan reviewboards governing the appointment of all teachers. Teachers henceforthwould have to teach classical religion along with traditional rhetoric.22

Christians, however, were forbidden by Julian to teach such texts. Heunderstood the social authority of formal education. He dismissed the


23. Cited in Smith, Death of Classical Paganism, p. 109.

24. Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 175.

25. Idem.

26. Marsden, Soul of the American University, op. cit.

27. Only in the summer of 1995 did the United States Department of Education allowa non-regional accrediting organization begin to offer accreditation to colleges. The regionalassociations are all secular. The new association is equally secular, but its recommendedcurriculum is more traditional, rather like late-nineteenth-century pagan college education.

1282

Christians in his work, Against the Galileans: “It seems to me thatyou yourselves must be aware of the very different effect of yourwritings on the intellect compared to ours, and that from studyingyours no man could achieve excellence or even ordinary humangoodness, whereas from studying ours every man can become betterthan before.”23 As is true today, the possession of a formal educationwas basic to social advancement.24 Christians had long understoodthis, and those seeking social advancement had capitulated to therequirement of mastering rhetoric, but in a watered-down, minimal-paganism form. Wilken writes: “For two centuries Christianintellectuals had been forging a link between Christianity and theclassical tradition, and with one swift stroke Julian sought to severthat link. . . . Christian parents, especially the wealthy, insisted thattheir sons receive the rhetorical education, and it now appeared asthough Julian were limiting this to pagans.”25 The more things change,the more things stay the same.26 What Julian attempted, the UnitedStates Department of Education has achieved.27 So have other similarpolitically appointed and coercive review boards throughout theworld.

In a very real sense, Julian’s edict launched a dilemma that hasfaced the Western church since the eleventh century. If the knowledge

Appendix C

28. James D. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (University of ChicagoPress, 1987), pp. 171–78.

29. This was the dilemma of Regent University’s law school, which received provisionalaccreditation by the ABA on the basis of its dean’s public commitment to an as-yetundeveloped, updated version of James Madison’s pre-Darwinian, eighteenth-centurypolitical pluralism, and which in 1993 fired the dean and promised to adopt a more main-stream curriculum. “Titus Breaks His Silence,” World (Feb. 5, 1994). The dean wasHerbert Titus, who wrote an appendix in R. J. Rushdoony’s book, Law and Society, vol.2 of Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, California: Ross House, 1982).

1283

of pagan texts is the legitimate basis of a gentleman’s education – anassumption acknowledged by the Christian West until the Darwinianeducational reforms of late nineteenth century – then why shouldChristians seek to become gentlemen? Why should they not contentthemselves with the study of the Scriptures and commentaries on theScriptures, just as Jewish scholars in the West contented themselvesfor eighteen centuries with the study of the Talmud? One answer:because Christians do not want to live in ghettos, having seen whatghetto living did to the Jews prior to about 1850. On the other hand,won’t exposure to classical learning undermine Christians’ commit-ment to the truths of Scripture, just as secular education has under-mined modern Judaism? We see this continuing debate in Christians’rival commitment to two forms of higher education: (1) the Christianliberal arts college, which has unquestionably gone increasingly hum-anistic and liberal;28 and (2) the fundamentalist Bible college, whichdoes not seek academic accreditation from State-licensed, monopolis-tic, humanistic accreditation organizations, nor would receive it ifsought. This is the dilemma of the hypothetical but non-existent Chris-tian law school that would teach biblical law and which thereforecould not receive academic accreditation from the humanistic Ameri-can Bar Association (ABA), which is mandatory for a school’sgraduates to gain access to the State-licensed monopoly of pleadingthe law for money.29 Darwinism has replaced classicism in the modern


1284

curriculum, and college graduates are not so much gentlemen as bur-eaucrats, but the dilemma is in principle the same.

The solution is the biblical covenant, which provides Christianswith revelational standards of evaluation that are to govern both theform and the content of education, but Christians have never believedthis strongly enough to establish biblical guidelines for education. Theanswer, in short, is theocracy – “God rules through God’s rules” – butthis suggestion is as abhorrent to modern pietistic Christians as it wasto Julian.

Modernism’s Gods

Modernism’s gods are the lineal descendants of the gods of theHellenistic world, which were influence, wealth, and sophistication.They are gods of a systematically secular civilization: politics, econo-mics, and formal education. Their confessional demands are not soclearly stated as the traditional gods of Canaan were. They offer somany benefits and seem to demand very few formal sacrifices. Theyoffer the universally pursued fruits of the division of labor in everyfield. They invite into their company all those who are willing toendure intellectual separation from the communities in which theywere born. They demand this separation, initially, only in those areasof life that produce wealth and social advantages. They rigidly segre-gate the realm of formal worship from the world of economic prod-uctivity and civil service. They relegate the confessional world ofrevealed religion to the fringes of culture. They condescendingly allowthe regularly scheduled formal worship of these culturally banishedgods, but these schedules are limited by custom, and sometimes arebanned by law (e.g., tax-funded anything in the United States).

Modernism’s gods are like the gods of classical humanism, for they

Appendix C

30. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the NaturalSciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, XIII (1960), pp. 1–14.Wigner won the Nobel Prize in physics. This essay is on the web.

1285

are part of the creation. Modernism denies judicial significance to any-thing outside the space-time continuum. Modernism’s gods are godsof man’s professed autonomy. Unlike the gods of classical humanism,they are universal gods that honor no geographical boundaries. Theyare idols of the mind and spirit. They offer power, wealth, and prestigeto those who are willing to submit to their impersonal laws. Theyserve as the foundations of empire: man’s empire. They claim theallegiance of all who would be successful.

Because they are impersonal gods, their various priesthoods cancomfort the worshippers of personal gods by assuring them that thehonoring of modernism’s gods in no way dishonors the religion of anytraditional god. The priests of modernism thereby proclaim the univer-sal reign of humanism’s kingdom, a reign unaffected by the competingclaims of the worshippers of traditional deities.

Behind the competing dogmas of the great religions is the agreed-upon god of numerical relationships. Also above competing claimsby the priests of the gods of revelation is the transfiguring promise ofcompound economic growth. The traditional priest takes your moneyand gives you assurances of eternal peace. The banker takes yourmoney and gives you three to five percent, compounded. The many-colored robes of a hundred priestly orders cannot compete with thedazzling white smocks of the scientific priesthood. Or so it seems.

It takes a highly sophisticated skeptic to perceive that the relevanceof numerical relationships cannot be explained logically,30 that com-pound economic growth cannot continue indefinitely in a finite


31. Gary North, “The Theology of the Exponential Curve,” The Freeman (May 1970).Reprinted in Gary North, An Introduction to Christian Economics (Nutley, New Jersey:Craig Press, 1973), ch. 8.

32. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of ChicagoPress, 1993).

33. Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide: The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy andthe Protocols of the Elders of Zion (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); Albert Lee, HenryFord and the Jews (New York: Stein & Day, 1980); Sheldon Marcus, Father Caughlin: TheTumultuous Life of the Priest of the Little Flower (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), pp.146–79. Primary sources include Maj.-Gen. Count Cherep-Spiridovich, The Secret WorldGovernment or “The Hidden Hand” (New York: Anti-Bolshevist Pub. Assn., 1926); JohnBeaty, The Iron Curtain Over America (Dallas: Wilkenson, 1951); William Guy Carr, RedFog Over America, 2nd ed. (Toronto: National Federation of Christian Laymen, 1957);Carr, Pawns in the Game, 4th ed. (Los Angeles: St. George Press, 1962); Olivia MarieO’Grady, The Beasts of the Apocalypse (Benicia, California: O’Grady Publications, 1959);Wilmot Roberston, The Dispossed Majority, rev. ed. (Cape Canaveral, Florida: HowardAllen, 1972), ch. 15. Most of these anti-Semitic books are out of print. They were alwayslittle-known, privately published, and consigned to the far-right fringe of Americanconservatism.

1286

world,31 and that science places man on a meaningless treadmill ofdiscovery in which every truth will be superseded, in which there is nolong-term security of belief.

The reality of the permanent conflict between God and the gods ofmodernism can be seen in the outcome of their respective historicalsanctions. Jews, as the original covenant people, regard themselves asheirs of the covenant. If any people should be immune to the lure offalse gods, Jews believe, they are that people. Yet the worship of thegods of modernism has made great inroads in the Jewish community.They have trusted the modern State, only to be repeatedly betrayed byit.32 They have trusted the economy, only to be blamed as malefactorsand conspirators because of their economic success.33 They havetrusted education, only to have lost their confessional identity. Thephrase, “I’m a Jew,” today masks an absence of any agreed-upontheological or judicial content.

Appendix C

34. The “positive confession” movement is the most obvious example.

1287

Over time, one begins to perceive that Jews are over-representedin the ranks of mathematicians, bankers, scientists, Hollywood celeb-rities, and in other fields. Meanwhile, there do not seem to be manyrabbis who still defend the infallibility of the five books of Moses. Infact, the relationship seems to be inverse: the fewer the number ofTorah-affirming rabbis, the more Jews who are visible in leadershippositions inside the priesthoods of modernism.

Pietism and Politics

“Fewer Torah-affirming rabbis, more successful Jews.” Because ofthe visible success of the Jewish minority in the West, this observationis easy to make. But the same inverse relationship seems to operate inChristian fundamentalist circles, although in the opposite form: “MoreBible-believing ministers, fewer successful Christians.” There are reas-ons for this. Many fundamentalist Christians conclude that success inthis world is a spiritual trap to be avoided, a goal to be shunned. “Poli-tics is dirty. Riches are a trap. Too much education is a bad thing.”Premillennial dispensationalism has called into question the time avail-able to Christians to pursue projects that rely on long-term com-pounding for success. As Rev. J. Vernon McGee put it in the early1950’s, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” In recent years,this success-rejecting presupposition has been called into question insome charismatic circles.34 They are a minority.

Meanwhile, as American fundamentalist Christians have becomepolitically active since 1976, they have steadily abandoned their com-mitment to dispensationalism. This is especially true of fundamen-


35. I predicted this in my essay, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New ChristianRight,” Christianity and Civilization, 1 (1982), pp. 1–40

1288

talism’s national leaders.35 They rarely speak about eschatology anymore, and when they do, what they say about the future is at oddswith what their multi-million dollar organizations are doing. Aneschatology that confidently preaches inevitable failure in history forChristians is inconsistent with Christian political mobilization. Thegoal of politics is to win, not lose. Also, the rise of the independentChristian education movement since 1965 has been accompanied bythe idea that Christian education should be better than secular educa-tion, which places a new degree of responsibility on Christians todevelop superior curriculum materials. While fundamentalists haveproven incapable of doing this, especially for students above the ageof 15, they at least have understood that the task is necessary. Butafter three centuries of having to choose between right-wing Enlight-enment humanism and left-wing Enlightenment humanism, ProtestantChristians are not in a position to offer a well-developed alternative.Fundamentalists have generally chosen right-wing humanism – AdamSmith, James Madison – but they have at best baptized it in the nameof vague biblical principles. They have not shown exegetically how theBible leads to right-wing humanism’s policy conclusions.

Calvinists and Lutherans never adopted such a comprehensiveworld-rejecting outlook, where at least middle-class success has beenassumed to be normative, but they have also been deeply compro-mised by humanist education, especially at the collegiate level.Calvinist and Lutheran leaders and churches have gone theologicallyliberal and then politically liberal with far greater regularity than fun-damentalist leaders and churches have.

The gods of the modern world, being universal in their claims,imitate the universalism of the kingdom of God. They undergird the

Appendix C

36. William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976).

37. Malachi Martin, The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Church(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987). For a representative primary source, see A NewCatechism: Catholic Faith for Adults (New York: Herder & Herder, 1967). It was releasedby the bishops of the Netherlands in 1966.

38. Hunter, Evangelicalism.

39. Joel A. Carpenter, “Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protes-tantism, 1929–1942,” Church History, 49 (1980), p. 65.

1289

kingdom of man. Their proffered blessings are not uniquely tied to theland as the gods of the ancient world were. These gods are notplacated by sacred offerings of the field. They are placated only byconfession and conformity: the affirmation of their autonomous juris-diction within an ever-expanding realm of law – civil, private, or both.Their priestly agents offer positive sanctions to those who conformcovenantally: the traditional human goals of health, wealth, power,fame, and security, as well as the great lure of the twentieth century,low-cost entertainment. The last goal has become necessary to offsetthe side effect of the first five: boredom.

America’s mainline Protestant denominations have suffered thesame fate confessionally during the same period.36 Catholicism resistedthe trend until the mid-1960’s, but this resistance collapsed almostovernight, 1965–75.37 The evangelicals are also succumbing.38 Onlyfundamentalists, charismatics, and a handful of Calvinists and Luther-ans, especially those committed to Christian education through highschool, are maintaining their resistance by proclaiming late eighteenth-century right-wing Enlightenment humanism as an ideal. Churchgrowth is taking place in those American churches that are resistingthe liberal humanist tide. This has been true ever since the mid-1920’s,39 the very period in which liberal Protestant church growth


40. Robert Handy, “The American Religious Depression, 1925–1935,” ibid., 29 (1960),pp. 3–16.

1290

peaked in the United States.40

Conclusion

The ancient empires adopted syncretism as a way to hold togetherthe political order. Just as the syncretistic gods of the families andclans in Greece and Rome entered into the common pantheon of thecity-state, becoming political gods, so did the gods of conquered city-states enter into the pantheon of the Roman Empire. The welcomingof these gods into the Roman pantheon undermined the ritual-theol-ogical foundations of the Roman Republic. Empires in the ancientworld required the subordination of local gods to the political order.

This is in principle no different in modern pluralism. What haschanged is the local character of the participating gods. They havebecome universalistic, mimicking the God of the Bible. The modernpantheon is not filled with idols. Pluralism acknowledges all religionsas equal, just an syncretism acknowledged all idols as equal. But inboth cases, this equality was the equality of subordination to the godof politics. This god is the supreme god of every political empire.

The anti-Christian leaders of the modern world are now campaign-ing for the creation of a New World Order. This is another move inthe direction of empire. It will not come to pass. Babel always falls.

1. See, for example, Alan M. Dershowitz, The Vanishing American Jew: In Search ofJewish Identity for the Next Century (Boston: Little, Brown, 1997).

2. “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is ableto graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, andwert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, whichbe the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” (Rom. 11:23–24). Cf.Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan:Eerdmans, [1864] 1950), p. 365; Robert Haldane, An Exposition of the Epistle to theRomans (Mac Dill Air Force Base, Florida: MacDonald Pub. Co., [1839] 1958), pp.632–33; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:

1291

Appendix D

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF AMERICAN JUDAISM: A STUDY IN DISINHERITANCE

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part ishappened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Andso all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out ofSion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Forthis is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins(Rom. 11:25–27).

Jews worry a lot about their corporate future. The continuingrecurrence of this fear has been unique to Jews. Members of no otherethnic group have gone into print so often to proclaim the possibilitythat they might disappear as a separate people.1 As Otto Scott, of Irishdescent, once remarked: “Can you imagine an Irishman worrying inpublic about this possibility?” Yet, eschatologically speaking, thisJewish fear is legitimate. Paul in Romans 11 teaches that the Jews willeventually disappear as a separate covenantal confessional group andbe welcomed into the church.2 They will, alongside many other ethnic

The Demographics of American Judaism

Eerdmans, 1965), II, pp. 65–103. Gary North, Cooperation and Dominion: An EconomicCommentary on Romans, 2nd electronic edition (Harrisonburg, Virginia: DominionEducational Ministries, Inc., 2003), ch. 8.

1292

groups, retain their cultural accents and dialects, but the grammar oftheir confession will be Trinitarian. They will cease to be Jews.Nevertheless, until this happens, Jews will successfully maintain theirseparate covenantal identity as a people. The question is: Which Jews?The answer is: Jews who both understand and apply the covenantalprinciple of inheritance and disinheritance.

Judaism, in the sense of adherence to the teachings of the Talmud,is a minority religion even in the State of Israel. A minority religion’sgreatest threat is not genocide. It is intermarriage. Genocide is not acomparable threat, as the early church learned in the Roman Empire.It is never complete because it is always geographically and temporallybounded: this group of adherents in this region persecuted by thisState for this period of time. Genocide reinforces the sense of solidar-ity among the targeted victims, especially first-generation refugees.Genocide creates a reaction: among the victors, who eventually growweary of the bloodshed and grow embarrassed by the world’s reac-tion, and among the victims, who adopt social strategies of survival.Threats strengthen the will to resist. Seduction weakens it.

The Sociology of Seduction

Seduction is the Jews’ problem – seduction in the broadest sense,but also in the narrowest. The seduction that threatens a confessionalreligion more than any other is marital seduction: the confessionallymixed marriage. God warned Israel about this: “For thou shalt wor-ship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealousGod: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and

Appendix D

3. Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, 2vols., 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1962); Jacob Neusner, FromPolitics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (New York: KTAV, [1973] 1978).

1293

they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods,and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of theirdaughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after theirgods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods” (Ex. 34:14–16). Moses did not warn the daughters not to marry Canaanite hus-bands; he warned the men not to marry Canaanite wives. Women wereseen as the seducers of covenant religion.

Judaism had its origin in the triumph of the Pharisees after the fallof Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple removed the Sadduceesfrom power.3 Judaism has always viewed seduction as asymmetricalcovenantally: wives have the upper hand in mixed marriages. Judaismhas been structured to take advantage of this aspect of the mixedmarriage. It defines a Jew as someone born of a Jewish mother. Themother’s love of her children, which is the most powerful and univ-ersal social force there is, is harnessed to the judicial definition of whatconstitutes a Jew. A Jewish woman may be seduced away from herparents’ plans, but she is not automatically disinherited. She is heldless responsible than her brothers in this area of life. She does not bearthe mark of the Jewish covenant: circumcision. Her flesh does nottestify against her marriage vow, as it does with a maritally seducedJewish male. She abandons less than he does. Her status as a Jew istransmitted to her children, if they confess the faith. This gives her agreat incentive to rear her children as Jews, if possible. Her husband,whose faith was sufficiently weak to permit him to marry someoneoutside his faith, is not in a strong position to oppose her.

This asymmetric condition is reflected in the statistics of religioustraining among the children of mixed marriages: Jews with others. In1971, 86 percent of the children of Jewish mothers and gentile fathers


4. This was the finding of the National Jewish Population Study of 1970–71, reportedby U. O. Schmelz and Sergio Dellapergola, “Basic Trends in American JewishDemography,” in Steven Bayme (ed.), Facing the Future: Essays On Contemporary JewishLife (n.p.: KTAV Publishing House and American Jewish Committee, 1989), p. 92.

5. Gary North, Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), ch. 22.

1294

were reared as Jews, while only 17 percent of the children of Jewishfathers and gentile mothers were reared as Jews.4 In the mutual seduc-tion of a mixed marriage, American Jewish women have retained theupper hand.

This is why the negative sanction of disinheritance of sons hasalways been crucial for the survival of Judaism. Jewish daughters haveseldom inherited, so the threat of disinheritance has not been equallygreat. The Mosaic law allowed daughters to inherit rural land onlywhen there was no son (Num. 36).5 So, Judaism’s threat of dis-inheritance has been aimed at keeping sons in line. Jewish daughtershave always had less to lose and more to gain than their brothers whenentering into mixed marriages. Because Jewish women did not inheritmoney, and because their children could inherit their mothers’ judicialstatus, the gentiles’ seduction of Jewish women has never been thesame degree of threat to the survival of Judaism. It is the seduction ofsons that has been the primary threat. To defend against this, Judaismimposed harsh sanctions. When it ceased to impose them, it began amarch into self-annihilation through seduction.

But who is the chief seducer? Not Christianity or any other con-fessional supernatural religion. Christianity cannot adopt mixed mar-riages as tools of evangelism; such marriages are forbidden. Theybreak the covenant, which is necessarily confessional. For the human-ist, however, marriage is not seen as a covenant based on a mutualoath before God. It is seen as a cultural institution based on a break-able oath before the State, and the State is seen as religiously neutral.

Appendix D

6. Schmelz and Dellapergola, “Basic Trends,” in Bayme, op. cit., p. 91.

1295

The humanist therefore sees no confessional problem with mixedmarriages, for marriage is not perceived as a covenant that is based ona shared confession of faith. He encourages confessionally mixed mar-riages as a means of undermining the testimony of both partners totheir children. This is why humanism is the supreme threat to modernJudaism. Unlike supernatural-confessional religions that are alsothreatened by seduction and which oppose mixed marriages,humanism proclaims the equality of all supernatural religious confes-sions – an equality of cultural irrelevance. Humanism seeks to seducethe sons and daughters of every supernatural religion. Thus, humanismis an equal opportunity seducer: men and women of all faiths areequally its targets.

The ideal of the confessionally mixed marriage has led, step by step,to the ideal of the sexually mixed college dormitory. The humanistbelieves in the efficacy of seduction. He believes that in thecompetition between lust and the covenant, lust will win in the 18–24age group. He believes that the children of Israel, if given the oppor-tunity, will rise up to play.

This is why humanism constitutes the greatest threat to Judaism inits history. A majority religion can survive the assaults of mixed mar-riage much longer than a minority religion can. There are more candi-dates for marriage for the members of a majority religion. A minorityreligion cannot afford the temporary luxury of tolerating mixedmarriages. This is especially true of American Jews, who are experi-encing birth rates well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children perfamily. “If Jews, who in most parts of the United States constitute atiny minority, were to choose their spouses at random, hardly anyendogamous Jewish couples would be formed at all.”6

Humanism calls on all partners to choose their marital partners on


7. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), Part 5.

8. Ibid., p. 327.

9. Ibid., pp. 332–33.

1296

a confessionally random basis. To encourage this, humanism hascreated the most powerful marriage bureau in history: the tax-fundedsecular university. No group has responded with greater enthusiasmto the siren call of the secular university than the Jews, a topic I shalldiscuss later in this essay.

The Ghetto and Cultural Identity

European Jews prior to the Napoleonic wars (1798–1815) wereisolated inside their own autonomous communities: ghettos. Some ofthese ghettos were urban; others were in small towns. When religiousdiscrimination began to be repealed by Napoleonic law in the first halfof the nineteenth century, Jews began to venture out of the ghetto,both intellectually and geographically.7 The Jewish community’sabandonment of traditional Judaism began at that time. A divisionappeared between reforming Jews and defenders of Talmudicknowledge. Historian Paul Johnson writes: “The pious Jew – andthere could be no other – did not admit the existence of two kinds ofknowledge, sacred and secular. There was only one. Moreover, therewas only one legitimate purpose in acquiring it: to discover the exactwill of God, in order to obey it.”8 Reform Judaism rejected this out-look; it sought to bring Jews into the world around them. It appearedin the second decade of the nineteenth century.9 The term “OrthodoxJudaism” did not appear until the second quarter of the nineteenthcentury. The term was coined by Reform critics of traditional Juda-

Appendix D

10. I. Grunfeld, “Samson Raphael Hirsch – The Man and His Mission,” in JudaismEternal: Selected Essays from the Writings of Samson Raphael Hirsch, 2 vols. (London:Soncino, 1956), I, p. xxiii. Grunfeld says that Hirsch accepted this term of opprobrium and,through his leadership, transformed it into an acceptable self-definition.

11. Hasia R. Diner, A Time for Gathering: The Second Migration, 1820–1880, vol. 3of The Jewish People in America, 5 vols. (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1992), p. 17.

12. Israel Shahak, “The Jewish religion and its attitude to non-Jews,” Khamsin, VIII(1981), p. 28. See also Diner, Gathering, p. 18.

13. Diner, Gathering, p. 9.

1297

ism.10

In Germany, legal discrimination against Jews faded steadily after1820 and was gone by 1880.11 Legal equality brought legal integrationinto the gentile community. Secular law revoked the long-standingspecial legal situation of Jews, where rabbis and elders possessed theauthority to impose civil sanctions on members of the Jewish com-munity. This separate legal status went back to the late RomanEmpire. Israel Shahak writes of European Jewry in general: “This wasthe most important social fact of Jewish existence before the adventof the modern state: observance of the religious laws of Judaism, aswell as their inculcation through education, were enforced on Jews byphysical coercion, from which one could escape by conversion to thereligion of the majority, amounting in the circumstances to a totalsocial break and for that reason very impracticable, except during areligious crisis.”12 Paralleling this change in the Jews’ legal status wasan increase in animosity against them, although they never constitutedmore than 1.3 percent of the German population.13 Social discrimina-tion against Jews in Germany remained common, culminating with thesystematic Nazi persecutions, 1933–45.

In contrast, there was almost no social discrimination against Jewsin the United States prior to the Civil War (1861–65). Jews had lived


14. Eli Faber, A Time for Planting: The First Migration, 1654–1820, vol. 1 of TheJewish People in America (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992),ch. 4.

15. Ibid., pp. 100–1.

16. Ibid., pp. 60–61, 125.

17. Ibid., p. 107.

18. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, 2 vols. (Wash-ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975), I:8, Series A 1–5.

1298

in North America as a culturally assimilated people from the mid-seventeenth century. Beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, theyhad become part of American urban life: in clothing, hair styles, andarchitecture.14 In New York, Jews became eligible for citizenship asearly as 1715, although this was unique in pre-Revolutionary Amer-ica.15 They never received a separate grant of authority to impose civilsanctions on deviant members of the synagogue. As a result, Jewswere far more integrated into American life than their counterpartswere in Europe prior to the 1820’s. Sephardic Jews from Spain andPortugal and Ashkenazic Jews from Germany and Poland livedtogether from the beginning in New Amsterdam. This continued whenit became New York City in 1664. They worked out an agreement oncommon worship and rule, 1728–1825; elsewhere in America,separate synagogues were common.16

American Jews were a tiny percentage of the population through-out the nineteenth century. In 1820, there were about 2,700 Jews inAmerica.17 The overall American population in 1820 was 9.6 million.18

There were so few Jews that there were no rabbis. Until 1840, therewas no ordained, functioning rabbi in the United States, i.e., someonewho had graduated from a recognized rabbinical school or who hadbeen certified by a talmudic scholar of distinction who had been

Appendix D

19. Jacob Rader Marcus, “The Handsome Young Priest in the Black Gown: ThePersonal World of Gershom Seixas,” Hebrew Union College Annual, XL-XLI (1969–70),p. 411.


21. Historical Statistics, loc. cit.


23. Ibid., p. 233.

24. Ibid., p. 53.

25. Ibid., p. 56.

26. Gerold Sorin, A Time for Building: The Third Migration, 1880–1920, vol. 3 of TheJewish People in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), p. 2.

1299

licensed.19 By 1840, the number of Jews in the United States had risento 6,000. In 1848, there were 50,000.20 As a means of comparison,consider that in 1840, there were 17 million Americans; in 1850 therewere 23 million.21

Then, in the 1850’s, came the steamship.22 This changed both thevolume and pattern of immigration: from northern Europe to eastern,central, and southern Europe. The great waves of immigration hitAmerica from all over Europe, not just Protestant northern Europe.American demographics changed rapidly. Among the tens of millionsof immigrants were millions of Jews. Total immigration of Jews to theUnited States was no more than 150,000 as of 1880.23 From 1860 to1880, more of these came from eastern Europe than from Germany.24

There were about 240,000 Jews in America in 1880.25 Of these,200,000 were from Germany.26 Over the next 45 years, some 2.5million Jews arrived, with the vast majority from eastern Europe,


27. Dinar, Gathering, p. 233.

28. Sorin, Building, pp. xv, 1.

29. Diner, Gathering, pp. 232–33.

30. Jacob Rader Marcus, “The Periodization of American Jewish History,” Publicationof the American Jewish Historical Society, XLVII (Sept. 1957–June 1958), p. 129.

31. Stephen Birmingham, “Our Crowd”: The Great Jewish Families of New York (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1967); Birmingham, The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1971). Birmingham titles Chapter 16, “The Jewish Episcopalians.”There has been a reaction to this view among a few Jewish historians. Some of the authorsand the general editor of The Jewish People in America (1992), which was funded by theAmerican Jewish Historical Society, reject the familiar periodization of Jewish immigrationto America: Sephardic, German-Polish (Ashkenazic), and eastern European. This periodi-zation scheme, familiar to American Jewish historians by 1900, was defended by Marcus,“Periodization of American Jewish History,” op. cit., pp. 125–33. With respect to the finalwave of immigration, 1880 to 1920, I do not see how its overwhelming eastern Europeancharacter can be denied. Marcus dates the beginning of the east European Jewish immi-gration: 1852 (p. 130). This correlates with the advent of the steamship. He dates thetriumph of the Russian Jewish tradition: 1920 (p. 130). Simon Kuznets, one of the mostrespected statisticians in American history and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, remarksthat from 1820 to 1870, fewer than 4,000 Jews immigrated from Russia and 4,000 from

1300

especially Russia.27 From 1880 to 1920, one-third of all the Jews inEastern Europe emigrated, and over 80 percent of them came to theUnited States.28 Diner argues – implausibly, in my view – that this newimmigration was not fundamentally different from the old: sameJudaism, same immigration motivation, i.e., economic opportunity.29

This is the equivalent of saying that, culturally speaking, New YorkCity’s Episcopalians were not fundamentally different from theBaptists of the American frontier. Even this comparison understatesthe difference. Episcopalians were separated from the Baptists by theAllegheny mountains. The Sephardic Jews, assimilated into theGerman-Polish Jewish community from 1841 to 1920,30 were separa-ted from the Russian Jews in New York City by a horse carriage rideand the money to purchase it.31

Appendix D

Poland. From 1881 to 1914, two million Jews immigrated, and over 1.5 million were fromRussia: 75 percent. Kuznets, “Immigration of Russian Jews to the United States:Background and Structure,” Perspectives in American History, IX (1975), p. 39. Only15,000 Jews arrived from Russia in the decade, 1871–80. Ibid., p. 43.

32. John Higham, “Social Discrimination Against Jews in America, 1830–1930,” Publi-cation of the Jewish Historical Society, XLVII (1958), p. 13.

33. Ibid., pp. 13–19.

34. Ibid., pp. 19–23.

35. Sorin, Building, p. 2.

1301

The hostile reactions of the gentile community after 1870 markeda change in its opinion regarding the perceived differences of the newimmigration, not merely the latter’s increased volume but its socialcharacteristics. In the 1870’s, Jews began to be kept out of exclusiveresorts and social clubs, and Jewish girls were excluded from certaineastern women’s colleges, but this was the extent of the discrimina-tion.32 (By the early twenty-first century, social club exclusion is allthat remains, and only just barely.) After 1900, social discriminationagainst Jews increased.33 After World War I, it increased dramat-ically.34 This exclusion reflected social opinion within the Jewish com-munity. Sorin comments: “The farther west in Europe one’s origins,the higher one’s status.” He calls this “the geographical origins rule.”35

The great reversal came in 1945 in reaction to the defeat of theNazis. Anti-Semitism became unfashionable within educated circles,which more and more circles became. Anti-semitism had never beenconsistent with the religious pluralism of American life, the “live andlet live” attitude which has been characteristic of American culture –an application of nineteenth-century Americans’ laissez faire outlook.The Nazi ideology had been defeated on the battlefield, and thisreduced the appeal of the old inconsistency. Discrimination was re-


36. Diner, Gathering, pp. 12–13.

37. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, edited by J. P. Meyer, 12th ed. (Gar-den City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1848] 1969), p. 54.

1302

placed by toleration, and toleration by acceptance, in one generation:1945 to 1975. But this acceptance has a confessional premise: “Myreligion is as good as yours, and all religions should be limited tohome and congregation.” The day that this confession is widely be-lieved by members of a minority religion is the day that it movestoward assimilation. A Baptist can afford to confess this in a Metho-dist culture, or visa versa, but for a Jew in a humanist culture, such aconfession is demographically suicidal. It undermines the traditionalanswers to the question: “What is a Jew?” A new answer now comesback: “A Unitarian with better business connections.”

Jews and the Gods of Modernism

Throughout the nineteenth century, Jews actively began to pursuethe gods of the gentiles around them: gods of marketplace. They gotrich in Germany in that century, moving from poverty in 1820 tomiddle-class affluence by 1880.36 The same upward movement of Jewstook place in America. There was even less discrimination here. Thecommon goal of Americans was making money. De Tocqueville wrotein 1835, “I know no other country where love of money has such agrip on men’s hearts. . . .”37 Access to the free market was open to allpeople except slaves in the antebellum South. Jews, who had beensmall traders in Europe, fit in well. They flourished. Like the membersof many other ethnic groups, Jews wrote home to relatives in Europeabout America’s economic opportunities and its lack of religiousdiscrimination. The waves of immigration grew larger.

Appendix D

38. Diner, Gathering, p. 22. This school has been described as a Baptist institutionwhere atheist students study Thomas Aquinas taught by Jewish professors. My assessmentis that their Jewish professors are also atheists.

39. Henry L. Feingold, A Time for Searching: Entering the Mainstream, 1920–1945,vol. 4 of Jewish People in America (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press,1992), p. 15.

40. Idem.

41. Ibid., p. 18.

1303

In the twentieth century, another group of cosmopolitan gods be-came a temptation for Jews: gods of the academy. For about 25 years,1920 to 1945, the prestigious American private colleges, universities,and medical schools placed quotas on the number of Jews. (TheUniversity of Chicago was an exception.)38 Yet even in this case,discrimination was fairly lax. At Columbia University in New YorkCity, the Jewish student population had climbed to 40 percent by1920.39 The school’s move farther away from the Jewish parts of thecity in 1910 failed to reduce the flood of Jewish students when asubway line down the West side was constructed shortly thereafter.Quotas imposed in 1921 reduced this percentage to 22 percent in1922.40 Harvard’s Jewish population, enhanced by “tram” commutersfrom Boston, climbed to 20 percent in 1920. The school’s presidentthen announced a quota of 10 percent. This decision was formallyrepealed by a special committee in 1923, but Harvard’s new policiesof accepting more students from the Midwest pushed Jewishenrolment back to 10 percent by 1930.41

Jews had long possessed legal access to tax-supported Americanschools and universities that came into existence after the Civil War.At the City College of New York in 1920, between 80 and 90 percentof the students were Jewish. At the Washington Square campus of the


42. Ibid., p. 15.

43. Ibid., p. 14.

44. M. D. Storfer, Intelligence and Giftedness: The Contributions of Heredity and EarlyEnvironment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), pp. 314–23; cited in Richard J.Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure inAmerican Life (New York: Free Press, 1994), p. 275.

45. Idem.

1304

private New York University, the figure was 93 percent.42 In the1930’s, Jews constituted 3.5 percent of the American population – thehigh point – and 10 percent of its college population. The same drivefor education had been present in Europe for a century.43

Jews have flourished in this academic environment. Statistically,the biological heirs of Ashkenazic Jews are the most intelligent ethnicgroup in the United States.44 Herrnstein and Murray comment: “A fairestimate seems to be that Jews in America and Britain have an overallIQ mean somewhere between a half and a full standard deviationabove the mean, with the source of the difference concentrated in theverbal component. . . . But it is at least worth noting that their meanIQ was .97 standard deviation above the mean of the rest of thepopulation and .84 standard deviation above the mean of whites whoidentified themselves as Christian.”45 These are statistically significantdifferences. The result has been the exceptional success of Jews inhigher education and in the professions, which are screened by meansof academic performance and competitive examination systems. “Myson, the doctor” and “my son, the lawyer” are not just quaint phrasesof proud but formally uneducated Jewish mothers in the 1920’sthrough the 1940’s. They are representative summaries of the successof Jews in entering the State-licensed professions, an ethnicpenetration way out of proportion to their percentage in the overallpopulation.

Appendix D

46. An example of an Orthodox Jew who accepted the bargain is a Harvard Law Schoolprofessor, Alan Dershowitz, whose study of the effects of secularization reveals the plightof American Jewry: at the present rate of intermarriage, there will be no trace of the Jewsin a century. Dershowitz, Vanishing American Jew.

47. See Irving Greenberg, “Jewish Survival and the College Campus,” Judaism, XVII(Summer 1968).

1305

But there has been a heavy price to pay: initially, the underminingof confessional Judaism; secondarily, the undermining of culturalJudaism. The West’s universities have made the same Faustian bargainto all: come to be certified, but give up your claims in the classroomto academically relevant knowledge based on revelation.46 The Jews,as a minority based on religious confession, and as a minority with acompetitive edge based on intelligence, have had the most to gain eco-nomically from this bargain, and the most to lose confessionally. Forany religious group self-consciously to adopt a dualism that proclaims“two paths of knowledge” is to risk losing its best and brightest to theworld of autonomous humanism. The seeming universalism of human-ism’s ideology offers to its initiates the power and productivity of thedivision of intellectual labor. To become a participant in thisintellectual division of labor, the initiate need only abandon thoseaspects of his religious worldview that are irreconcilable or not readilyshared with the segregating ideals of rival faiths. Jews have respondedto this offer with greater enthusiasm and success than any other reli-gious group in the West.47 Edward Shapiro comments on the effect ofsecular values on Jewish professors.

Most Jewish professors had only a slight relationship to Jewishculture and Judaism. Data collected by the Carnegie Commission onHigher Education in 1969 revealed that while 32 percent of professorswith a Protestant background and 25 percent with a Catholicbackground were either indifferent or opposed to religion, 67 percent


48. Edward S. Shapiro, A Time for Healing: American Jewry since World War II, vol.5 of The Jewish People in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp.112, 113.

1306

of Jewish professors were indifferent or opposed to religion. And while16 percent of Protestant professors and 23 percent of Catholicprofessors considered themselves deeply religious, only 5 percent ofJewish professors defined themselves as such. In comparison to otherJews, Jewish academicians observed fewer Jewish rituals, were morehostile to religion, affiliated with Jewish communal institutions lessfrequently, and intermarried more often. . . . Just as its investment in formal education was greater, so AmericanJewry spent more time, energy, and money than any other Americanethnic or religious group in cultivating and analyzing its intellectuals.There must be something seriously wrong with American Jewry, it wasargued, if it could not retain the loyalty of its brightest and best-educated members. The alienation of the Jewish intellectual from theAmerican Jewish community occasioned much wringing of hands.There was, however, little that could have been done to bring Jewishintellectuals back to the fold. The sermons of rabbis and the proc-lamations of Jewish organizations could hardly convince intellectualsand academicians to abandon their secular and universalist outlook.48

So, by worshipping in the shrines of secular culture, Jews are dis-appearing as a separate religious force. They are a political force, butnot a religious force. Their separate legal status, which was an aspectof the judicial discrimination against them in Christian civilization, hadenabled them to preserve their separate religious status for almost twomillennia. With the coming to power of the gods of secular humanism– politics, money, and education – Jews left the ghetto and entered thepublic square to worship with their votes, their taxes, and theirchildren. Public schools have become the established churches ofWestern civilization. Like the gentiles around them, Jews have tithed

Appendix D

49. Nathaniel Weyl, The Jew in American Politics (New Rochelle, New York: ArlingtonHouse, 1968), ch. 12.

50. Cf. Peter Steinfels, “American Jews Stand Firmly to the Left,” New York Times (Jan.8, 1989).

51. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of ChicagoPress, 1993), pp. 125ff.

52. Daniel Lapin, “Why Are So Many Jews Liberal?” Crisis: A Journal of Lay CatholicOpinion (April 1993).

53. Alan Greenberg of Bear, Stearns & Co. Cited in Jean Bear, The Self-Chosen: “OurCrowd” is Dead (New York: Arbor House, 1982), p. 23.

54. Bernard Wasserstein, Vanishing Diaspora: The Jews in Europe Since 1945 (Cam-bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996).

1307

their children to the State. Also, since at least the 1930’s, a majorityof American Jews has consistently voted to allow the State to extractan ever-greater percentage of their income.49 The saying is, “AmericanJews have the income of Episcopalians and the voting record ofPuerto Ricans.”50 Non-observant Jews have favored the welfareState.51 As an Orthodox and politically conservative rabbi has put it,“many non-observant Jews desperately pursue liberalism as a way outof their covenant. This is the true purpose of liberalism and Jews areits chief champions because it alone offers an escape from having toaccept Jewish law – the Torah.”52

One Jewish leader in the American financial community has said ofthe Jewish New York elite of the 1820–1920 era: “Our Crowd isdeader than a doornail. Ninety percent have disappeared and few areJewish anymore.”53 This problem is not confined to the United States;European Jews are also disappearing through assimilation.54


55. Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (New York: Dell, [1969] 1971), p. 181.

56. Ibid., ch. 16.

57. Shapiro, Healing, pp. 234–35.

58. Ibid., p. 235.

59. Ibid., pp. 238–39.

1308

The Disappearance of Non-Observant Jews

The non-observant Jews in the United States are not reproducing.“In present trends continue,” wrote sociologist Ernest van den Haagin 1969, “in the year 2000 there will have never been more handsome,better-endowed synagogues in America, nor so many; nor so fewJews.”55 He argued that the intermarriage problem threatens the survi-val of American Judaism.56 By 1969, this problem had been chal-lenging non-observant American Jews for several decades, yet it wasnot even mentioned in sociologist Marshall Sklare’s 1957 anthology,The Jews: Social Patterns of an American Group. But in April, 1964,Sklare sounded a warning in the Jewish publication, Commentary, inan article titled, “Intermarriage and the Jewish Future.” He soundedthe alarm even louder in a second Commentary article (March 1970):“Intermarriage and Jewish Survival.”57 But alarms rarely change socialpatterns, especially convenient ones. People continue to do whateverthey have been doing.

A 1971 study showed that the rate of intermarriage was over 30percent.58 In 1973, Reform Judaism, the largest and most liberalbranch of American Judaism, made its last public pronouncementopposing such intermarriage. It has subsequently accepted the newreality and has tried to deal with it.59 In these mixed marriages, only20 percent of the spouses convert to Judaism. Three-quarters of the

Appendix D

60. Ibid., p. 253.

61. Ibid., p. 239.

62. Ibid., p. 243.

63. Ibid., p. 254.

64. Ibid., p. 255.

65. Ibid., p. 257.

66. Religious News Service, reported in Christian News (Feb. 12, 1996), p. 9.

1309

children in families in which the spouse fails to convert are not rearedas Jews. Very few of these children marry Jews.60 One Jewish histor-ian has called this process “the demographic hemorrhaging of Amer-ican Jewry.”61 The birth rate for Jews is one quarter to one-third lessthan for gentiles. It is the lowest ethnic birthrate in America.62 Mean-while, “Of the major American religious groups, the Jews consistentlyplaced last in surveys of religious attendance and belief.”63 As van denHaag predicted, synagogue attendance declined in the 1970’s and1980’s. This was especially true in Conservative synagogues, thegroup positioned between the liberal Reform Jews and the OrthodoxJews.64 Edward Shapiro ended his book, the fifth in a five-volumehistory, The Jewish People in America, with this forlorn hope: “Jewshave survived one crisis after another, and perhaps they will alsosurvive the freedom and prosperity of America.”65 In 1996, the WorldJewish Congress, held in Jerusalem, issued a demographic report,State of World Jewry. It reported that in the United States, over halfof all Jews who married in the 1980’s married a non-Jewish partner.About one-quarter of the children of such mixed marriages are rearedas Jews.66

As with all academic matters, this view is controversial and has


67. Schmelz and Dellapergola, “Basic Trends,” Facing the Future, op. cit., p. 75: Table1.

68. Ibid., p. 91.

69. Ibid., pp. 91–92.

70. Ibid., p. 93.

1310

critics within the Jewish academic community. The demographic dataare not sufficiently comprehensive to be certain. But in a carefullyreasoned, highly qualified essay, two Jewish scholars conclude that thepessimists have the trends on their side. American Jews are not repro-ducing at a rate high enough to replace themselves. Whites in generalare in the same situation; Jews, however, reproduce at a rate lowerthan whites in general. They have the lowest rates of reproductionamong whites in the United States. The replacement rate is 2.1children per family. In the mid-1980’s, Jews had a rate of under 1.5;whites in general, 1.7.67

Mixed marriages by the mid-1980’s were in the range of 30 per-cent. The authors comment that “the inferred U.S. rate of 30 percentfor individuals means that 45 percent of all couples with at least oneJewish partner are mixed.”68 Few of the non-Jewish spouses convertto Judaism.69 This leads to the disinheritance of Judaism. The authorsreport on a remarkable finding. “A study in Philadelphia coveringthree generations found that mixed marriages in one generationentailed greater percentages of mixed marriages and increasinglysmaller percentages of Jewish children in the following generations. Ifboth parents of the Jewish respondent whose marriage was mixed hadbeen Jews, 37 percent of the grandchildren were Jews; if the grand-parents had been a mixed couple, none of the grandchildren werefound to be Jewish in this particular study.”70

By the late 1990’s, intermarriage was at the 50 percent rate.

Appendix D

71. Charles Krauthammer, “At Last, Zion: Israel and the Fate of the Jews,” WeeklyStandard (May 11, 1998), p. 24.

72. Ibid., p. 25.

73. Ibid., p. 29.

1311

Charles Krauthammer writes that more Jews marry Christians (hemeans gentiles) than marry Jews: about 52 percent.71 With only onein four of the children of these mixed marriages being reared Jewish,the future is grim for the survival of Judaism in America. “A popu-lation in which the biological replacement rate is 70 percent and thecultural replacement rate is 70% is headed for extinction. By thiscalculation, every 100 Jews are raising 56 Jewish children. In just twogenerations, 7 out of 10 Jews will vanish.”72 He concludes that thefuture of Judaism is dependent on the survival of the state of Israel.The Jews have put most of their eggs – in both senses – in one bas-ket.73 We can begin to understand why Jews prior to the First World Warexcommunicated adult children who converted to another religion,mainly Christianity. They would hold burial services: symbols ofcovenantal death. They would cut these defecting children out of theirlives. They would not see their grandchildren grow up. They sufferedthe terrible pain of disinheriting their children, especially their sons, forthe sake of the preservation of the religion of Judaism. It was a matterof survival.

Today, the religion of Judaism has been progressively replaced bythe culture of Judaism – a culture without a public confession thatinvokes a supernatural God. Today, most American Jews do notbelieve that the God of the Bible brings covenantal sanctions in historyfor or against Jews on the basis of the community’s use of sanctionsagainst covenantal disinheritance. Tolerance has made mixed mar-riages acceptable. The defecting children are not cut off through the


74. Thomas Sowell, Ethnic America: A History (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 95.

1312

equivalent of excommunication. The grandchildren are not cut off. Butthe grandchildren are unlikely to bear children who will be reared asJews. Under the conditions of mixed marriage, the great grandchildrenof Jewish couples will not be Jews. Refusing to disinherit children whomarry outside the faith, they disinherit Judaism instead. Covenantaltolerance within Jewish families produces heirs with a differentconfession of faith. This produces extinction of the original confes-sion.

Judaism is a minority religion. Tolerance within the covenantalbond of marriage leads to absorption. If confession is not seen as morefundamental than sexual attraction, and therefore not a matter ofcorporate sanctions, the minority faith will disappear. The contestbetween passion and confession, if left to youth to decide, will lead tothe demise of confession. If the surrounding population is larger thanthose doing the confessing, the aging minority confessors will not bereplaced.

The rise of a far more self-conscious Orthodox Judaism, whichrecruits actively in the secularized Reform Jewish community, hasgained considerable publicity. It is not clear yet that this activism hasproduced any statistically significant change in the religious commit-ment of most Jews. The high birth rates among Orthodox Jews mayin time reverse the larger Jewish community’s demographic decline,but in the early twenty-first century, American Judaism is slowlydisappearing. Jews are a rapidly aging group: the oldest of all Ameri-can ethnic groups.74 This demographic fact is masked by the highvisibility of Jewish political involvement and influence in nationalpolitics. The rise of Jewish national political influence since the end ofWorld War II has paralleled the rise of influence of the farm bloc. Thesmaller the number of people actually represented by each bloc, the

Appendix D

75. In 1991, Jews were two percent of the population. Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates, 1994 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994), Table 85. In 1993,agriculture employed 2.5 percent of the work force. Ibid., Table 641. The rise of the gayrights movement after 1970 is an even better example. Homosexuals are a tiny minority –under one percent of the population – yet they have enormous political influence in theUnited States. As AIDS has reduced the number of homosexual men since the early 1980’s,their political influence has increased dramatically.

76. Dershowitz, Vanishing American Jew, p. 25.

77. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1989), Part 3.

1313

greater its highly concentrated and well-funded political influence.Both are down to about two percent of the population.75

Alan Dershowitz refers to an article in the October 1996 issue ofMoment magazine. The article reports that, given present birth rates,by the fourth generation, 200 secular Jews will have produced 10great-grandchildren, while the same number of Orthodox Jews willhave produced more than 5,000.76 It is clear what will happen unlesscovenantal attitudes regarding the future are reversed. Non-observantJews in the United States will simply disappear.

What we see here is a fulfillment, three and a half millennia later, ofMoses’ warning. “Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of thepeople which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is ajealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God bekindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth”(Deut. 6:14–15). The eighteenth century saw the construction ofmodernism’s political temple by the Enlightenment, right wing and leftwing. The acceptance of the legitimacy of this temple by the churchesbegan the erosion of the ideal of Christendom.77 The entrance of Jewsinto this temple in the nineteenth century was the beginning of a greatapostasy for Judaism. The leaders of both religions concluded thatthere could be a reconciliation of confessions through the adoption of


78. This was the case in twelfth-century Constantinople, according to Benjamin of Tud-ela, whose Book of Travels is a major primary source document of the era. Some 2,500Jews lived in a fenced-off quarter: 2,000 Talmudists and 500 Karaites. A fence separatedthe two groups. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p.169.

1314

a neutral, common-ground confession: humanism. This common con-fession – politics, money, and education – seemed to offer a new eraof economic growth, which in fact occurred. But with Westernsociety’s unprecedented increase in economic output has come a risein philosophical despair, war, crime, decadence, family dissolution,and suicide.

Conclusion

Jews who live outside of the State of Israel suffer from a majorproblem: they do not face organized opposition. Dershowitz titleschapter two of The Vanishing American Jew, “Will the End of Anti-Semitism Mean the End of the Jews?” Jews do not face an armed maj-ority that seeks their destruction. In the State of Israel, a nation sur-rounded by enemies, they do.

Organized opposition has always been a major factor in the preser-vation of the Jews’ identity as a separate people. Western society wasconfessional. Jews did not share this confession. The ghetto was thesolution for both sides. (For the anti-Talmudic Karaites, a ghettowithin the ghetto was the solution.)78 With the demise of the ghettoand the rise of Reform Judaism, the old barriers began to disappear.So did the Jews’ old opposition to gentile culture. Jews had builteffective cultural defenses against the conversion of individual Jews torival religions, especially Christianity. But few Jews in 1850 perceivedthat secular humanism is a rival religion; even fewer perceived this in

Appendix D

79. The other possibility is the silent scream of the aborted child.

1315

1950. Christianity and Islam had a place for Jews as Jews, but outsidethe corridors of power. Humanism has a place for Jews as humanistsinside the corridors of power. “Come one, come all,” cry thehumanists, “but you must leave your revelational civil laws outside thecommon Temple of Understanding.” Jews in unprecedented numbershave succumbed to the siren song of social participation andleadership on these confessional terms.

The cost has been high: escalating absorption. This has always beena threat to Jews. What is unique about humanism’s theology of ab-sorption is its theology of a common confession based either onnatural law theory or evolutionary political participation. Judaismmust now find ways to maintain itself apart from the shawmah Israel.The words of shawmah Israel – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our Godis one LORD” (Deut. 6:4) – are still intact, but they have been revisedin spirit: “Hear, O Israel, we are not gentiles.” But there are twosimple, all-too-familiar phrases that have proven incredibly powerfulin negating the effects of this revised shawmah Israel. First, “Grand-ma, I won a scholarship to college.” Grandma is dutifully proud. Thisis followed a few years later by, “Grandma, I’d like you to meet myfiancé.” Pride is then accompanied by a sense of loss and a sense offoreboding. Both the sense of loss and the sense of foreboding shouldhave accompanied the first announcement.

Pluralism has a program of assimilation. First, it offers the ballot.Then it offers the full-tuition scholarship. Then it offers the co-eddorm. Then there is the sound of wedding bells – if things go well.79

Then there is the sound of the pitter-patter of little feet. That sound,delightful as it is, has steadily drowned out the sound of the shawmawIsrael.

Then how can the Jews be preserved until the time of the great


1316

eschatological conversion? Only by their abandonment of their tolera-tion of mixed marriages and by their abandonment of small families.Jews do not evangelize the general population; hence, there are noworkable survival strategies except population growth and the disin-heritance of those within the community who abandon the shawmawIsrael. Jews cannot persevere as humanists. The demographics of Re-form and Conservative Judaism will lead to their replacement by theOrthodox. Orthodox Jews rely on confessional prophylaxis, notbiological. Liberal religion is having the same effect on AmericanProtestantism’s mainline denominations as it had a century ago onEurope’s. Why should Reform and Conservative Jews think they areimmune?

Meanwhile, Orthodox Jews, who frown on contraception, are bid-ing their time while filling cribs.

1. All of my citations of Scripture in this essay are from the King James Version.

1317

Appendix E

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM

[This essay appeared in the 1984 book edited by Robert Clouse,Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views, published by InterVarsityPress. It was the first essay. Within a year, InterVarsity Press pulledthe book off the market. It sold 6,000 copies to my company, Domin-ion Press, at 25 cents each. Dr. Clouse wrote to me saying that hecould not understand this; the book had been selling well. I like tothink that it was my essay and my three rejoinders to the statists whowrote the other three essays. I like to think that I was a great embar-rassment to them. The neo-evangelicals who ran IVP were politicallyliberal, as their publication of D. Gareth Jones’ pro-abortion book,Brave New People (1984), indicated. IVP soon suppressed that book,too, because of a successful public relations campaign by anti-abor-tion Christians. The English branch of IVP kept it in print, which tellsyou something about the evangelical community in England. I haveretained the format in which my essay was originally submitted,including IVP’s footnoting style. I include it in this book because itreveals the extent to which I relied on Deuteronomy, a fact noted at thetime by one of the other essayists, William Diehl, a Keynesian, whocontemptuously dismissed my essay because of this.]

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respectthe person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but inrighteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Lev 19:15, KJV)1

I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteousforsaken, nor his seed begging bread. (Ps 37:25)

The topic of wealth and poverty should not be discussed apart from

Free Market Capitalism

1318

a consideration of the law of God and its relationship to the coven-ants, for it is in God’s law that we find the Bible’s blueprint foreconomics. Biblical justice, biblical law, and economic growth are inti-mately linked. The crucial section of Scripture which explains thisrelationship is Deuteronomy 28. There are external blessings for thosesocieties that conform externally to the laws of God (vv. 1–14), andthere are external curses for those societies that fail to conform ex-ternally to these laws (vv. 15–68).

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto thevoice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his command-ments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will setthee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessingsshall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto thevoice of the LORD thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, andblessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body,and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase ofthy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket andthy store. . . . The LORD shall establish thee an holy people untohimself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the com-mandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And allpeople of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of theLORD; and they shall be afraid of thee. And the LORD shall makethee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thycattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORDsware unto thy fathers to give thee (Deut 28:1–5, 9–11).

Deuteronomy 28 is an extension and expansion of chapter 8, inwhich the relationship between law, blessings, and the covenant isoutlined. God was about to bring his people into the Promised Land,as the fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham. The “iniquity of theAmorites” (Gen 15:16) was at last full. The Canaanites’ era ofdominion over the land was about to end. On what terms would the

Appendix E

2. On the question of Old Testament law in New Testament times, see Greg L. Bahnsen,Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1977).

3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Regnery, 1966), chap. 18. Letme give an example of the “discount for time.” If I were to announce that you have just wona new Rolls-Royce, and that you have a choice of delivery date, today or one year fromtoday, which delivery date would you select (other things being equal)? You would want

1319

Hebrews hold title to the land and its productivity? Deuteronomy 8spells it out: covenantal faithfulness. This meant adherence to thelaws of God.2

Deuteronomy 8 reveals to us the foundations of economic growth.First, God grants to his people the gift of life. This is an act of grace.He sustained them in the years of wandering in the wilderness,humbling them to prove their faith – their obedience to his command-ments (v. 2) – and providing them with manna, so that they mightlearn that “man doth not live by bread only, but by every word thatproceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth men live” (v. 3b). A40-year series of miracles sustained them constantly, for their clothingdid not grow old, and their feet did not swell (v. 4). He also providedthem with chastening, so that they might learn to respect his com-mandments (vv. 5-6) – the way of life. Second, God provided themwith land, namely, the land flowing with milk and honey (vv. 7–8): “Aland wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt notlack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whosehills thou mayest dig brass” (v. 9). This also was an act of grace.

Life and land: Here are the two fundamental assets in any economicsystem. Human labor, combined with natural resources over time, isthe foundation of all productivity. The third familiar feature ofeconomic analysis, capital, is actually the combination of land pluslabor over time. (The time factor is important. From it stems theeconomic phenomenon of the rate of interest: the discount of futuregoods against the identical goods held in the present.3 (Warning: I use


immediate delivery. Why? Because present goods are worth more to you than the samegoods in the future. You might accept the Rolls-Royce a year from now if I paid you a rateof interest, in addition to the car. In fact, at some rate of interest you would accept the laterdate, unless you have a terminal disease, or an unquenchable lust for a Rolls-Royce.

4. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, 2 vols. (1962; reprint ed., NewYork: New York Univ. Press, 1979), I, pp. 284–87, 410–24. See esp. chap. 6. [This bookwas republished in 1993 by the Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama.]

1320

footnotes to add explanatory material, to keep from cluttering up thetext too much.) The original sources of production are land andlabor.4 If the Hebrews were willing to dig, the land would produce itsfruits.

So much for the gifts. What about the conditions of tenure? Theywere not to forget their God. They were not to “accept the gift butforget the Giver,” to use a familiar expression.

The very fulness of the external, visible, measurable blessingswould serve as a source of temptation for them:

When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thyGod for the good land which he hath given thee. Beware that thouforget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, andhis judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lestwhen thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, anddwelt therein; and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thysilver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied;Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God. . . .(Deut 8:10–14a)

God provides gifts: life and land. He also provides a law-orderwhich enables his people to expand their holdings of capital assets (theimplements of production) and consumer goods. But these assets arenot held by men apart from the ethical terms of God’s covenant. Thetemptation before man is the same as the temptation before Adam: to

Appendix E

1321

forget God and to substitute himself as God (Gen 3:5). It is theassumption of all Satanic religion, the assumption of humanism, thesovereignty of man. God warned the Israelites against this sin -- thesin of presuming their own autonomy:

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine handhath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thyGod: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he mayestablish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day(Deut 8:17–18).

These words lay the foundation of all sustained economic growth– and I stress the word sustained. While it is possible for a society toexperience economic growth without honoring God’s law, eventuallymen’s ethical rebellion leads to external judgment and the terminationof economic growth (Deut 28:15–68). It is this concept of God as thegiver which underlay James’s announcement: “Every good gift andevery perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father oflights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”(Jas 1:17)

If men whose society has been (and therefore is still) covenantedwith God should fall into this temptation to forget God and to attrib-ute their wealth to the might of their own hands, then God will judgethem:

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walkafter other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify againstyou this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which theLORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because yewould not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.(vv. 19–20).


5. On the holy commonwealth ideal in early American history, see Rousas J. Rushdoony,This Independent Republic (1964 reprint ed., Fairfax, Va.: Thoburn Press, 1978), esp.chap. 8.

6. Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about the great image was histori-cally specific: four human empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome),followed by the fifth Empire, God’s (Dan 2:31–45). This was not an “ideal type,” to useMax Weber’s terminology, nor was it a developmental model. Hesiod’s seemingly similarconstruction (Greece, 8th century, B.C.) – from the Age of Gold to the Age of Iron – was,in contrast, an attempt at constructing a universal model of the process of decay in man’shistory. Hesiod, Works and Days, trans. Richmond Lattimore (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michi-gan Press, 1959), lines 109–201. The Bible’s developmental model is based on ethics –conformity to or rebellion against God’s covenant – not metaphysics, meaning some sortof inescapable aspect of the creation.

1322

God has given us an outline of the covenantal foundations of a holycommonwealth.5 This is as close as the Bible comes to a universallyvalid “stage theory” of human history or economic development.6

Long-term economic growth is based on men’s honoring the explicitterms of God’s law. The stages are as follows:

1. God’s grace in providing life, land, and law

2. Society’s adherence to the external terms of God’s law

3. External blessings in response to this faithfulness

4. Temptation: the lure of autonomy

5. Response:

a. Capitulation that leads to external judgment; or

b. Resistance that leads to further economic growth

The covenant is supposed to be self-reinforcing, or as economists

Appendix E

7. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for ChristianEconomics, 1982).

1323

sometimes say, it offers a system of positive feedback. Verse 18 is thekey: God gives his people external blessings in order “that he mayestablish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers. . . .” Thepromise would be visibly fulfilled by their entry into the PromisedLand, thereby giving them confidence in the reliability of God’s word.God’s law-order is reliable, which means that men can rely on biblicallaw as a tool of dominion, which will enable them to fulfill (thoughimperfectly, as sinners) the terms of God’s dominion covenant: “AndGod blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, Befruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and havedominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, andover every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen 1:28). Thiscovenant was reaffirmed with Noah (Gen 9:1–7). It is still binding onNoah’s heirs.7

The paradox of Deuteronomy 8 is this: Blessings, while inescapablefor a godly society, are a great temptation. Blessings are a sign ofGod’s favor, yet in the fifth stage – the society’s response to the temp-tation of autonomy – blessings can result in comprehensive, external,social judgment. Thus, there is no way to determine simply from theexistence of great external wealth and success of all kinds – thesuccesses listed in Deuteronomy 28:1–14 – that a society is facingeither the prospect of continuing positive feedback or imminent nega-tive feedback (namely, destruction). The ethical condition of the peo-ple, not their financial condition, is determinative.

Visible success is a paradox: It can testify to two radically differentethical conditions. Biblical ethical analysis, because it recognizes thebinding nature of revealed biblical law, is therefore a fundamentalaspect of all valid historiography, social commentary, and economic


8. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: HumanitiesPress, 1982).

9. Gary North, “Methodological Covenantalism,” Chalcedon Report (Oct., 1977), pub-lished by the Chalcedon Foundation, Box 158, Vallecito, California, 95251.

1324

analysis. An index number of economic wealth is a necessary butinsufficient tool of economic analysis. The numbers do not tell us allwe need to know about the progress of a particular society or civiliza-tion. We also need God’s law as an ethical guide, our foundation ofethical analysis.

Ethics and Economic Analysis

A great debate has raged for over a century within the camp of theeconomists: “Is capitalism morally valid?” Marxists and socialists askthis question and then answer it: no. “But capitalism is efficient,”respond the defenders of the free market. A few of the defenders alsotry to muster ethical arguments based on the right of individuals tocontrol the sale of their property, including their labor services, with-out interference from the civil government.8 They rest their moral caseon the presumed autonomy of the individual.

This sort of ethical analysis has not convinced many critics of capi-talism. They reject the operating presupposition of free market econo-mic analysis: methodological individualism. As methodological col-lectivists, they deny the right of men to use their property against the“common good.” Problem: Who defines the common good? (TheChristian answers that the Bible defines the common good, and setsforth the institutional arrangements that will achieve it. The Bibleteaches neither collectivism nor individualism; it proclaims metho-dological covenantalism.)9 Another problem: Even if the common

Appendix E

10. I capitalize the word “State” where I am referring to the new god of twentieth-century socialism. I distinguish this from “state,” meaning a regional agency of civilgovernment in the United States.

11. One of the finest books ever written in economics covers these questions in detail:Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions (New York: Basic Books, 1980). Sowell is anex-Marxist, so he knows the arguments well. See also Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: AnEconomic and Sociological Analysis (1922; reprint ed., Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Press,1981). This was first published in the United States by Yale University Press in 1953.

12. Gary North, An Introduction to Christian Economics (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press,1973), chap. 20: “Statist Bureaucracy in the Modern Economy.”

13. “The distinction between moral and technical knowledge is elusive. . . . From thestandpoint of any science the distinction is absolutely essential. A subject is not opened toscientific enquiry until its technical aspect has been sundered from its moral as-pect. . . . [T]here can be no doubt that economic theory owes its present development to the

1325

good can be defined by humanistic social commentators, who has theright to enforce it? Finally, can the State,10 through its bureaucracy,enforce the common good in a cost-effective manner? Will the resultsresemble the official ethical goals of the planners? What kinds ofincentives can be built into a State-planned economy that will enableit to perform as efficiently as a profit-seeking free market economy?11

The fundamental issue is ethical. The question of efficiency is asubordinate one. Few Marxists or socialist scholars seriously argueany longer that the substitution of socialist ownership of the means ofproduction will lead to an increase of per capita output beyond whatprivate ownership would have produced. The debates today rage overwhat kinds of economic output are morally valid. Also, who shoulddetermine what “the people” – whoever they are – really need? Thefree market, with its system of private ownership and freely fluctuatingprices? Or the civil government, with its system of politicalcompetition and lifetime bureaucratic functionaries?12

The real debate is a debate over ethical issues, something thateconomists have tried to hide or deny since the seventeenth century.13


fact that some men, in thinking of economic phenomena, forcefully suspended all judg-ments of theology, morality, and justice, were willing to consider the economy as nothingmore than an intricate mechanism, refraining for the while from asking whether themechanism worked for good or evil. That separation was made during the seventeenthcentury. . . . The economist’s view of the world, which the public cannot yet comfortablystomach, was introduced by a remarkable tour de force, an intellectual revolution broughtoff in the seventeenth century.” William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics(1963; reprint ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor, 1965), pp. 158–59.

14. Ibid., p. 159.

15. Letwin does not actually say this. Perhaps he forgot about Newton. Or perhaps hewas referring solely to social science when he named economics as “the greatest scientificaccomplishment of the seventeenth century.” Or possibly he really meant what he wrote,which boggles the mind.

16. Mises writes: “In considering changes in the nation’s legal system, in rewriting orrepealing existing laws and writing new laws, the issue is not justice, but social expediencyand social welfare. There is no such thing as an absolute notion of justice not referring toa definite system of social organization. It is not justice that determines the decision infavor of a definite social system. It is, on the contrary, the social system which determineswhat should be deemed right and what wrong. There is neither right nor wrong outside thesocial nexus. . . . It is nonsensical to justify or to reject interventionism from the point ofview of fictitious and arbitrary absolute justice. It is vain to ponder over the justdelimitation of the tasks of government from any preconceived standard of perennialvalues.” Mises, Human Action, p. 721.

1326

Economist William Letwin, who is wholeheartedly enthusiastic aboutthis supposed triumph of value-free economics, does admit that thereare difficulties with this outlook: “It was exceedingly difficult to treateconomics in a scientific fashion, since every economic act, being theaction of a human being, is necessarily also a moral act. If the mag-nitude of difficulty rather than the extent of the achievement be themeasure, then the making of economics was the greatest scientificaccomplishment of the seventeenth century.”14 Apparently even moreimportant than Newton’s discoveries!15 This faith in analytic neutralityhas been reaffirmed by the developers of the two most prominentschools of free market economic analysis, Milton Friedman andLudwig von Mises.16

Appendix E

Milton Friedman, in a classic essay on epistemology, writes: “Positive economics is inprinciple independent of any particular ethical position or normative judgment.” Friedman,Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 4. For a critiqueof the hypothesis of neutrality in economics, see Gary North, “Economics: From Reason toIntuition,” in North, ed., Foundations of Christian Scholarship (Vallecito, Calif.: RossHouse Books, 1976).

17. On the impossibility of neutrality, see the writings of Cornelius Van Til, especiallyThe Defense of the Faith, rev. ed.. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).

18. For a discussion of the similarities and differences between “the law” and “theworks of the law” written on human hearts, see John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans,2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959), I, pp. 74–76.

19. Marxists believe in objective truth – proletarian truth – but they hold that all otherapproaches are intellectual defenses of a particular class perspective. All philosophy isclass philosophy – a weapon used by one class against its rivals. Since history is objectively

1327

One reason why the critics have been so successful in their attackagainst the academic economists’ hypothetically neutral defense of thefree market is this: Hardly anyone in the secular world really believesany longer that moral or intellectual neutrality is possible. This iswhy Christian economics offers a true intellectual alternative: it restson a concept of objective revelation by a true Person, the Creator ofall knowledge and the Lord of history. The Bible affirms thatneutrality is a myth; either we stand with Christ or we scatter abroad(Matt 12:30).17 The works of the law – not the law, but the works ofthe law – are written on every human heart (Rom 2:14– 15).18 No mancan escape the testimony of his own being, and nature itself, to theexistence if a Creator (Rom 1:18–23).

Socialists deny the possibility of neutral economic analysis, andtheir criticism has become far more effective as humanistic scholarshiphas drifted from faith in objective knowledge into an ever-growingawareness that all human knowledge is relative. (Marxists still believein objective knowledge for Marxists, but not for any other ideologicalgroup.)19 Since all intellectual analysis is tied to a man’s operating


on the side of the proletariat, there can be objective truth for Marxists only. See GaryNorth, Marx’s Religion of Revolution (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1968), pp. 61–71.[Reprinted in 1989 by the Institute for Christian Economics.]

20. Compare Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, rev. ed. (Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970). See also Imre Lakatos and Alan E. Musgrave, eds.,Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1970). Theworks of Herman Dooyeweerd, the Dutch legal philosopher, deal extensively with the pre-theoretical presuppositions of all philosophy: In the Twilight of Western Thought (Philips-burg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960); A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, 4vols. (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1954).

21. Stanley L. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Chicago: Univ. of Chic-ago Press, 1978), chap. 15.

22. See, for example, Walter A. Weisskopf, Alienation and Economics (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1971); Mark A. Lutz and Kenneth Lux, The Challenge of Humanistic Economics(Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings, 1979). Lux is a clinical psychologist, notan economist, and Lutz taught at an obscure college. Benjamin/Cummings is not a familiarname in publishing. I am not berating these men, their publisher, or their employers,though I do not share their economic views. I am pointing to the difficulty of getting suchviews discussed within the normal channels of the economics profession. The economicsprofession has not adopted the forthright acceptance by these men of the obviousimplications of subjectivism for the neutrality doctrine.

1328

presuppositions about the nature of reality, and since these presu-ppositions, being pre-theoretical, cannot be disproven by logic, thesocialist critic’s logic is also undergirded by his equally unprovablepresuppositions.20 (There is a problem for non-Christian subjectivistthought, however: the breakdown of objective science.)21 Even a feweconomists are slowly coming to face the implications of subjectivismwith respect to objective, neutral analysis, but not many, and theirbooks are not yet influential. These men tend to be associated with“new left” economics, and the “establishment” is not impressed.22

As Christians we must always maintain that ethics is basic to allsocial analysis. We must make clear what most professional econo-mists prefer to ignore: It is never a question of analysis apart fromethical evaluation; it is only a question of which ethical system, mean-

Appendix E

23. David Chilton, “The Case of the Missing Blueprints,” Journal of Christian Recon-struction, VIII (Summer, 1981).

1329

ing whose law-order: God’s or self-professed autonomous man’s?Because the Bible provides us with a comprehensive system of ethics,it thereby provides us with a blueprint for economics.23

Biblical Law and Exploitation

The prophets came before Israel and called the people back to thelaw of God. The people did not respond; the result was captivity. Thelaw of God, when enforced, prevents exploitation. The case-law appli-cations of the law are therefore to be honored. Even the supposedlyobscure case laws often have implications far beyond their immediatesetting. For example, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadethout the corn” (Deut 25:4). Paul tells us that this law gives us a prin-ciple: “The labourer is worthy of his reward” (1 Tim 5:18b). Christalso said that the laborer is worthy of his hire (Lk 10:7). In short, ifwe must allow our beasts of burden to enjoy the fruits of their labor,how much more should human laborers enjoy the fruits of their labor!

Problem: Who decides how much to pay laborers? The church?The State? The free market? The Bible is quite clear on this point:Laborers and employers should bargain together. The parable of thelaborers in the vineyard is based on the moral validity of the right ofcontract. The employer hired men throughout the day, paying eachman an agreed-upon wage, a penny. Those hired early in the morningcomplained when others hired late in the day received the same wage.In other words, they accused their employer of “exploitation.” Thiswas an “unfair labor practice.” His answer:


24. Again, consult Sowell’s book, Knowledge and Decisions, for a detailed analysis ofthis issue. Also, see the classic study by Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit(1921; reprint ed., New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Pubs., n.d.).

1330

Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?Take [that which] thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last[laborer], even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I willwith mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? (Matt 20:13–15)

Wasn’t he morally obligated – and shouldn’t he have been legallyobligated – to have paid more, retroactively, to those hired early in theday? No. When they were hired, he offered them the best deal theybelieved they had available to them. He was “meeting the market.”Had a better offer been available elsewhere, they would have acceptedit. Alternatively, should he have paid less to the men hired later in theday? No. He owed them the wage he had agreed to pay. Those hiredin the morning had not known that a job would be available later in theday at the same wage. They faced economic uncertainty. (Economicuncertainty about the future is an inescapable fact of human action ina world in which only God is omniscient. Any system of economicsthat in any way ignores or de-emphasizes the economic effects ofuncertainty is innately, inescapably erroneous, for it relies on a falsedoctrine of man.) They took the best offer that any employer made. Ifthey had been omniscient, they might have waited, lounged around foralmost the whole day, and then accepted an eleventh-hour job offer.“A full day’s pay for an hour’s labor: what a deal!” (An analogousapproach to salvation: refuse to accept the Gospel in your youth, sothat you can “eat, drink, and be merry,” and then accept Christ onyour deathbed. “A full life’s worth of salvation for a last-minuterepentance: what a deal!”) But men are not omniscient. So they act tobenefit themselves with the best knowledge at their disposal.24 The

Appendix E

1331

employer had done them no wrong. Their eye was evil. Christ used this parable to illustrate a theological principle, the

sovereignty of God in choosing men: “So the last shall be first, and thefirst last; for many be called, but few chosen” (v. 16). The employerhad a job opportunity to offer men; God offers salvation in the sameway. The employer paid a full day’s wage to those coming late in theday. If this action of the employer was wrong, then God’s analogousaction in electing both young and old (“late comers” and “earlycomers”) to the same salvation is even more wrong. But this is theargument of the ethical rebel; Paul dismisses it as totally illegitimate.“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Godforbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will havemercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”(Rom 9:14–15).

One of the most important facts of economics is this: Employerscompete against employers, while workers compete against workers.Employers do not want rival employers to buy any valuable economicfactor of production at a discount. Those who hire laborers do so inorder to use their services profitably. They have no incentive to passalong savings to their competitors. If a worker’s labor is worth fiveshekels per hour to two different potential employers, and the workeris about to be hired by one of them for four shekels, the secondemployer has an incentive to offer him more. He will offer him enoughto lure him away from the competitor, but not so much that he expectsto lose money on the transaction. The free market’s competitiveauction process therefore offers economic rewards to employers fordoing the morally correct thing, namely, honoring the biblicalprinciple that the laborer is worthy of his hire.

Similarly, workers compete against workers. They want jobs. If anemployer is offering a job to one employee for more than anotherperson willing to work for, the second person has an incentive to step


25. Gary North, “A Christian View of Labor Unions,” Biblical Economics Today (April/May 1978), published by the Institute for Christian Economics.

1332

in and utter those magic words: “I’ll work for less!” He underbids thecompetition. (When I say “underbid,” I mean underbid in terms ofmoney; I could also say that he overbids his competitors in terms ofthe hours of labor that he offers the employer for a given wagepayment.) The free market’s auction process offers an incentive toworkers to offer employers “an honest day’s labor for an honest day’spay.” In short, the free market offers economic rewards to laborers fordoing the morally correct thing, just as it offers employers.

Very, very rarely do employers and workers in a modern indus-trialized economy compete head to head. These instances take placewhen neither the worker nor the employer has a good idea of his owncompetition, or when one of the two is ignorant. Laborers may notknow the going wage rate. Employers may not know if other workersare available for the money they are willing to pay. So it becomes aquestion of negotiation, the same kind of negotiation that Esau andJacob transacted for Esau’s birthright (Gen 23:29–34).

There is nothing wrong with competitive bargaining, as I explain inchapter eighteen of my economic commentary on the Bible, TheDominion Covenant: Genesis. Normally, competing offers are wellknown to all parties; advertising has made information on pricing andservices widely available. “Help wanted” signs and classified ads domore for the income of the majority of laborers than all the tradeunions in the land – legalized monopolies established by one group ofworkers to deny the legal right of other workers to compete againstthem.25 Nevertheless, where there are gaps in men’s information, menmust pay to improve their knowledge. Information is not a zero-costgood. Any system of economic analysis which ignores or de-empha-sizes this economic fact of life is innately, inescapably erroneous.

Appendix E

26. Gary North,“Exploitation and Knowledge,” The Freeman (January 1982), publishedby the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, New York, 10533.

1333

When a society guarantees men that they will be allowed to keepthe fruits of their labor, it promotes the spread of information. Mencan afford to invest in the expensive process of improving their know-ledge. They are able to capitalize their efforts. If they are successfulin improving their knowledge about competing economic offers, eitheras employers or laborers, they reap the rewards. Members of societyare the beneficiaries, since better knowledge means less waste – fewerscarce economic resources expended to achieve given economic ends.The ends are set by competing bidders in the “auction” for consumergoods and services.26 It should be recognized from the beginning thata deeply felt hostility toward the moral legitimacy of the auctionprocess undergirds the socialist movements of our era.

Predictable Law

The Bible instructs a nation’s rulers not to respect persons whenadministering justice (Deut 1:17). Both the rich man and the poorman, the homeborn and the stranger, are to be ruled by the same law(Ex 12:49). Biblical law is a form of God’s grace to mankind; it is tobe dispensed to all without prejudice. This is the implication ofLeviticus 19:15, which introduced this chapter. The predictability ofthe judicial system is what God requires of those in positions of auth-ority.

Predictable (“inflexible”) law compels the State and the church todeclare in advance just exactly what the law requires. This allows mento plan for the future more efficiently. “Flexible” law is another wordfor arbitrary law. When a man drives his automobile at 55 miles per


27. Perhaps the most eloquent and scholarly work that argues for the connectionbetween predictable law, human freedom, and economic productivity is the book by theNobel Prize winner in economics, F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), esp. the first 15 chapters. See also his trilogy,Law, Legislation and Liberty (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973–80).

28. G. Ernest Wright, “Deuteronomy,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 2, p. 509; citedby R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 2, Law and Liberty (Vallecito, Calif-ornia: Ross House Books, 1982), p. 413.

1334

hour in a 55 m.p.h. zone, he expects to be left alone by highway patrolofficers. The predictability of the law makes it possible for highwayrules to be effective. Men can make better judgments about thedecisions of other drivers when speed limits are posted and highwaypatrol officers enforce them. The better we can plan for the future, thelower the costs of our decision-making. Predictable law reduceswaste.27

The Hebrews were required by God to assemble the nation – richand poor, children and strangers – every seventh year to listen to thereading of the law (Deut 31:10–13). Ignorance of the law was noexcuse. At the same time, biblical law was comprehensible. It was notso complex that only lawyers in specialized areas could grasp itsprinciples. The case laws, such as the prohibition on muzzling the oxas he treaded out the corn, brought the general principles down intoconcrete, familiar terminology. In this sense, biblical faith is essentiallya democratic faith, as G. Ernest Wright argues, for

it can be laid hold of with power by the simplest and most humble. Weare surrounded by mystery, and ultimate knowledge is beyond ourgrasp. Yet God has brought himself (Deut 4:7) and his word to us. Wecan have life by faith and by loyal obedience to his covenant, eventhough our knowledge is limited by our finitude. One need not wait tocomprehend the universe in order to obtain the promised salvation. Itis freely offered in the covenant now.28

Appendix E

29. Rushdoony, Law and Society, pp. 403–6.

1335

The law of God gives to men a tool of dominion over an otherwiseessentially mysterious nature, including human nature – not dominionas exercised by a lawless tyrant, but dominion through obedience toGod and service to man.29

For example, consider the effects of the eighth commandment,“Thou shalt not steal.” Men are made more secure in the ownershipof property. This commandment gives men security. They can thenmake rational (cost-effective) judgments about the best uses of theirproperty, including their skills. They make fewer mistakes. Thislowers the costs of goods to consumers through competition. Christian commentators have from earliest times understood that theprohibition of theft, like the prohibition against covetousness, servesas a defense of private property. Theft is a self-conscious, willful actof coercive wealth redistribution, and therefore it is a denial of thelegitimacy and reliability of God’s moral and economic law- order.

The immediate economic effect of widespread theft in society is thecreation of insecurity. This lowers the market value of goods, sincepeople are less willing to bid high prices for items that are likely to bestolen. Uncertainty is increased, which requires that people invest agreater proportion of their assets in buying protection services ordevices. Scarce economic resources are shifted from production andconsumption to crime fighting. This clearly lowers per capitaproductivity and therefore per capita wealth, at least among law-abid-ing people. Theft leads to wasted resources.

The internal restraints on theft that are provided by godly preachingand upbringing help to reduce crime, thereby increasing per capitawealth within the society. Godly preaching against theft is thereforea form of capital investment for the society as a whole (what theeconomists call “social overhead capital”), for it releases scarce econ-


30. Armen A. Alchian and William R. Allen, University Economics: Elements ofInquiry, 3rd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1972), p. 141. Italics in the original.

31. Idem.

1336

omic resources that would otherwise have been spent on the protec-tion of private and public property. Such preaching also reduces thenecessary size of the civil government, which is important in reducingthe growth of unwarranted State power.

What is true about the reduction of theft is equally true concerningthe strengthening of men’s commitment to private property in general.When property rights are carefully defined and enforced, the value ofproperty increases. Allen and Alchian, in their standard economicstextbook, have commented on this aspect of property rights:

For market prices to guide allocation of goods, there must be anincentive for people to express and to respond to offers. If it is costlyto reveal bids and offers and to negotiate and make exchanges, thegains from exchange might be offset. If each person speaks a differentlanguage [as they did at the tower of Babel], if thievery is rampant, orif contracts are likely to be dishonored, then negotiation, transaction,and policing costs will be so high that fewer market exchanges willoccur. If property rights in goods are weaker, ill-defined, or vague,their reallocation is likely to be guided by lower offers and bids. Whowould offer as much for a coat likely to be stolen?30

The authors believe that the higher market value attached to goodsprotected by strong ownership rights spurs individuals to seek lawsthat will strengthen private-property rights. Furthermore, to the extentthat private-property rights exist, the power of the civil governmentto control the uses of goods is thereby decreased. This, unfortunately,has led politicians and jurists to resist the spread of secured private-property rights.31

Appendix E

32. Ibid., p. 239.

1337

There is no question that a society which honors the terms of thecommandment against theft will enjoy greater per capita wealth thanone which does not, other things being equal. Such a society rewardshonest people with greater possessions. This is as it should be. Awidespread hostility to theft, especially from the point of view of self-government (self-restraint), allows men to make more accurate decis-ions concerning what they want to buy, and therefore what they needto produce in order to offer something of value in exchange for theitems they want. Again, I cite Allen and Alchian:

The more expensive is protection against theft, the more common isthievery. Suppose that thievery of coats were relatively easy. Peoplewould be willing to pay only a lower price for coats. The lower marketprice of coats will understate the value of coats, for it will not includethe value to the thief. If the thief were induced to rent or purchase aused coat, the price of coats would more correctly represent their valueto society. It follows that the cheaper the policing costs, the greater theefficiency with which values of various uses or resources are revealed.The more likely something is to be stolen, the less of it that will beproduced.32

When communities set up “neighborhood watches” to keep an eyeon each other’s homes, and to call the police when something suspi-cious is going on, the value of property in the community is increased,or at least the value of the property on the streets where the neighborsare helping each other. We want sellers to respond to our offers for goods or services. Atthe same time, we as producers want to know what buyers are willingand able to pay for our goods and services. The better everyone’sknowledge of the markets we deal in, the fewer the resources neces-


33. Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology (1963; reprint ed.,Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983).

1338

sary for advertising, negotiating, and guessing about the future. Theseresources can then be devoted to producing goods and services tosatisfy wants that would otherwise have gone unsatisfied. The lowerour transaction costs, in other words, the more wealth we can devoteto the purchase and sale of the items involved in the transactions.

One transaction cost is the defense of property against theft. Godgraciously steps in and offers us a “free good”: a heavenly system ofpunishment. To the extent that criminals and potential criminalsbelieve that God does punish criminal behavior, both on earth and inheaven, their costs of operation go up. When the price of somethingrises, other things being equal, less of it will be demanded. God raisesthe risks (“price”) of theft to thieves. Less criminal behavior is there-fore a predictable result of a widespread belief in God’s judgments,both temporal and final. When the commandment against theft ispreached, and when both the preachers and the hearers believe in theGod who has announced his warning against theft, then we can expectless crime and greater per capita wealth in that society. God’s eternalcriminal justice system is flawless, and it is also inescapable, so it trulyis a free good – a gift from God which is a sign of his grace. This isone aspect of the grace of law.33 It leads to increased wealth for thosewho respect God’s laws.

Compulsory Wealth Redistribution

The Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal.” It does not say, “Thou shaltnot steal, except by majority vote.” A society which begins to adopttaxation policies that exceed the tithe – 10 per cent of income –

Appendix E

34. See the study by Karl Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of TotalPower (New Haven: Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1957).

35. Lewis Mumford, “The First Megamachine,” Daedalus (1966); reprinted in LewisMumford, Interpretations and Forecasts: 1922–1972 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovan-ovich, 1973). See also Max Weber, “Max Weber on Bureaucratization” (1909), inJ. P. Meyer, Max Weber and German Politics: A Study in Political Sociology (London:Faber & Faber, 1956), p. 127.

1339

thereby increases economic uncertainty, as do other types of theft,both public and private. This increase in uncertainty may be even moredisrupting, statistically, than losses from burglary or robbery, becauseprivate insurance companies can insure against burglary and robbery.After all, who can trust a civil government which claims the right totake more of a person’s income than God requires for the support ofhis kingdom? What kind of protection from injustice can we expectfrom such a civil government? The next wave of politically imposedwealth redistribution is always difficult to predict, and thereforedifficult to prepare for, so the costs of production increase.

When Samuel came before the Hebrews to warn them about theevils of establishing a king in Israel, he thought he might dissuadethem by telling them that the king would take a whopping 10 per centof their production (1 Sam 8:l5). They did not listen. (And, for therecord, neither have Christians listened to warnings against the fortyand fifty per cent taxation levels of the modern welfare State.) ThePharaoh of Joseph’s day imposed a tax of 20 per cent (Gen 47: 24–26). Egypt was one of the great tyrannies of the ancient world.34 Itwas probably the most massive bureaucracy in man’s history until thetwentieth century.35 Yet every modern welfare State – meaning everyWestern industrial nation in the late twentieth century – would haveto cut its total tax burden by at least half in order to return to the


36. For a discussion of why Joseph’s imposition of a twenty per cent tax in Egypt wasnot part of God’s law for Israel, see Gary North, Dominion Covenant: Genesis, chap. 23.

37. The estimate of Dr. Max Milner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hesays that in one recent year, rats in the Philippine Islands consumed over half the sugar andcorn, and ninety per cent of the rice crop.“Over 40% of the World’s Food Is Lost to Pests,”Washington Post, 6 March 1977.

1340

twenty per cent level of Egypt in Joseph’s day.36

Foreign Aid: State to State

Foreign aid means an increase in taxes in one nation, so that moneycan go to other nations. State-to-State aid must go through official,bureaucratic channels. Only in major emergencies – famines, floods,earthquakes – do foreign governments allow Western nations to bringfood and clothing directly to their citizens. They understand theobvious: The increasing dependence of citizens on goods from aforeign civil government increases their direct dependence on thatforeign civil government. He who pays the piper is in a position to callthe tune. Oddly enough, intellectual proponents of increased Statewelfare fail to recognize what leaders in Third World nations under-stand immediately, namely, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”With the benefits come controls and future political or diplomaticobligations.

When the United States sends food under Public Law 480 (passedin 1954), to India, the Indian government, not private businesses,allocates it – or whatever is left after the rats at the docks and in thestorage facilities consume approximately half of it. (Rats and sacredcows in India consume half of that nation’s agricultural output. Itwould take a train 3,000 miles long to haul the grain eaten by Indianrats in a single year.37)

Appendix E

38. P. T. Bauer, Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard Univ. Press, 1981), p. 94.

1341

There is a great temptation for government officials of underdev-eloped nations to use this food to free up State-controlled capitalwhich is then used to increase investments in heavy industry – invest-ments that produce visible results that are politically popular – proj-ects that cynics refer to as pyramids. These large-scale industrial proj-ects are in effect paid for by the food subsidies sent by the West.Without the free food sent by the West, these uneconomical, large-scale projects would be out of the question politically. Even worse,foreign aid enables governments to spend heavily on military equip-ment that will be used to suppress political opponents or other ThirdWorld nations – themselves recipients of Western foreign aid.38

What would happen if the West were to stop shipping food atbelow-market prices? Local farmers in the recipient nations have beenhurt – or in some cases, driven into bankruptcy – by the West’sbelow-production-cost food, so they have reduced investments in theagricultural system. These nations have become increasingly depen-dent on the West’s free food. If the subsidies were to cease, the agri-cultural base might be insufficient to provide for the domestic popula-tion, for agricultural output has been reduced as a result of taxpayer-financed cut-throat competition from Western governments that gaveaway the food. At the same time, if the subsidies were to cease, heavyindustry projects could also go bankrupt (or, more accurately, maylose even more tax money than they lose already, and thereforebecome political liabilities).

Let us not be naive about the political impetus for shipments ofAmerican farm products under Public Law 480. The farm bloc and thelarge multinational grain companies are major supporters of thecompulsory “charity” of foreign food aid, just as farmers favor the


39. For background on the political support for Public Law 480 and the program’s useas a tool of American foreign policy, see Dan Morgan, Merchants of Grain (NewYork: Viking, 1979), pp. 100–2, 122–28, 258–68.

40. William Peterson, The Great Farm Problem (Chicago: Regnery, 1959).

1342

food stamp program. Farmers can sell their crops to the U.S. gover-nment at above-market prices, and then the government can give thefood away to people who would not have bought it anyway. Politi-cians like the program also because the U.S. government uses thepromise of free food as a foreign policy lever.39 Government subsidiesto agriculture have become a way of life in the United States, as havegovernment controls on agriculture.40

We know that foreign governments are hostile to what they referto as “Western control,” when private foreign capital comes into theirnations. Why this hostility? Because pro-socialist political leaders inunderdeveloped nations resent the shift of sovereignty from civil gov-ernment to the private sector, both foreign and domestic. Yet thesesame officials beg for more State-to-State aid from the West. Why?Because they control the allocation of this form of economic aid afterit arrives. The question of foreign aid, like all other forms of compul-sory economic redistribution, raises questions of sovereignty.

Should we recommend increased taxes in Western nations in orderto “feed the starving poor” in foreign nations? Is this what Christmeant by loving our neighbors? Are Western tax revenues really feed-ing the starving poor, or are they financing the bureaucratic institu-tions of political control that have been created by pro-socialist,Western-educated political leaders who dominate so many of theThird World’s one-party “democracies”? Are poor people in the Westbeing taxed to provide political support to wealthy politicians in theThird World? Does the Bible teach that State-to-State wealth transfersare ethically valid? Or does the Bible require personal charity, or

Appendix E

1343

church-to-church charity – charity which is not administered by for-eign politicians?

These are fundamental questions regarding sovereignty, authority,and power. In the construction of the kingdom of God on earth,should we promote the increased sovereignty of the political State?Samuel’s warning is clear: no (1 Sam 8). Any discussion of govern-ment “charity” – compulsory wealth redistribution – must deal withthis issue of sovereignty. Other questions, closely related to thepreceding ones, are these: Is the poverty of the Third World the faultof the West? Is the Third World hungry because people in Westernindustrial nations eat lots of food? Does the West, meaning Westerncivil governments, owe some form of reparations (restitution) to ThirdWorld civil governments?

“We Eat; They Starve”

Consider the words of theologian-historian Ronald Sider, whosebest-selling book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, has becomeone of the most influential books on seminary and Christian collegecampuses all over the United States. His introduction to the book setsforth the problem:

The food crisis is only the visible tip of the iceberg. More fundamentalproblems lurk just below the surface. Most serious is the unjustdivision of the earth’s food and resources. Thirty per cent of theworld’s population lives in the developed countries. But this minorityof less than one-third eats three-quarters of the world’s protein eachyear. Less than 6 per cent of the world’s population lives in the UnitedStates, but we regularly demand about 33 per cent of most mineralsand energy consumed every year. Americans use 191 times as muchenergy per person as the average Nigerian. Air conditioners alone in


41. Ronald Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977), p. 18. This book was co-published by the liberal Roman Catholicpublishing house, the Paulist Press. Unquestionably, it represents an ecumenical publishingventure. Presumably, it reflects the thinking of a broad base of Christian scholars.

42. Ibid., p. 152.

1344

the United States use as much energy each year as does the entirecountry of China annually with its 830 million people. One-third of theworld’s people have an annual per capita income of $100 or less. Inthe United States it is now about $5,600 per person. And thisdifference increases every year.41

I can remember reading textbooks written in the 1950s that

affirmed the wonders of American capitalism, and that pointed withpride to the fact that 6 per cent of the world’s population produced 40per cent (or 33 per cent, or whatever) of the world’s goods. But thatargument grew embarrassing for those who proclaimed the supposedproductivity of socialism. Socialist nations just never caught up. So,capitalism’s critics now complain that 6 per cent of the world’s popu-lation (Americans) annually uses up one-third of the world’s annualproduction, as if this consumption were not simultaneously a processof production, as if production could take place apart from the usingup of producer goods. This is word magic. It makes productivityappear evil.

It is true that Westerners eat a large proportion of the protein thatthe world produces each year. This has been used by vegetariansocialists to create a sense of guilt in Western meat-eating readers ofsocialist literature. You see, our cattle eat protein-rich grains. “Corn-fed beef” is legendary – or notorious, in the eyes of the critics.Because of this, argues Dr. Sider, the “feeding burden” of the UnitedStates is not a mere 210 million (the number of human mouths tofeed), but 1.6 billion.42 “No wonder more and more people are begin-

Appendix E

43. Ibid., p. 153.

44. Ibid., p. 43.

45. Associated Press story, Tyler Morning Telegraph, 18 December 1982.

1345

ning to ask whether the world can afford a United States or a WesternEurope.”43 (Outside of college and seminary campuses, not manypeople seem to be asking this question, as far I can see. Certainly theHaitian boat people and Latin American refugees aren’t asking it.Neither are Jews who are emigrating from the Soviet Union.)

The psalmist proclaimed a poetic truth about God’s ownership ofthe world by identifying these words as God’s: “For every beast of theforest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills” (Ps 50:10). But“liberation theologians” are not impressed. Dr. Sider informs us:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that when the total life ofthe animal is considered, each pound of edible beef represents sevenpounds of grain. That means that in addition to all the grass, hay andother food involved, it also took seven pounds of grain to produce atypical pound of beef purchased in the supermarket. Fortunately, theconversion rates for chicken and pork are lower: two or three to onefor chicken and three or four to one for pork. Beef is the cadillac ofmeat products. Should we move to compacts?44

Must we rewrite the words of the psalm (with the seven-to-one rationin operation): “For every chicken of the forest is mine, and thesoybeans upon seven thousand hills”? Perhaps the greatest irony of allis that a 1982 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicatesthat low-income Americans – the people who liberation theologianssupposedly want to deliver from “oppressive institutions” – eat moremeat per capita than high-income Americans do. Blacks consumemore meat per capita than other racial groups do.45 Thus, the “less


46. Richard H. Wagner, Environment and Man, 3rd ed. (New York: Norton, 1978),p. 523.

1346

meat” program would reduce one of the prime pleasures of the poorin America.

Unquestionably, Third World populations sometimes suffer proteindeficiencies. But any program of “social salvation through proteinexports” is going to encounter problems that the wealth-redistri-butionists seldom consider. People’s food is fundamental to theirculture. Trying to stay on a diet has confounded millions of Ameri-cans. Eating habits are very difficult to alter, even when the eaterknows that he should change. An education program to get ThirdWorld peasants to change their diets is going to be incredibly expen-sive, and probably futile. “Rice-eating people would often ratherstarve than eat wheat or barley, which are unknown to them,” writesbiologist Richard Wagner.46

This problem goes beyond mere habits. Sometimes we find thatpeople’s diets have conditioned their bodies so completely that theintroduction of a new food may produce biological hazards for them.This is sometimes the case with protein. Wagner comments:

Another even more bizarre instance was seen in Colombia, where apopulation was found with a 40 percent infestation of Entamoebahistolytica, a protozoan that generally burrows into the intestinal wall,causing a serious condition called amoebiasis. However, despite thehigh level of Entamoeba infestation, the incidence of amoebiasis wasnegligible. The answer to this puzzle was found in the high-starch dietof the people. Because of the low protein intake, production of starch-digesting enzymes was reduced, allowing a much higher level of starchto persist in the intestine. The protozoans were found to be feeding onthis starch rather than attacking the intestinal wall. If this populationhad been given protein supplements without concurrent efforts to

Appendix E

47. Ibid., pp. 518–19.

48. Arnold Toynbee, Civilization on Trial and The World and the West (New York:World, 1958), pp. 286–87.

1347

control Entamoeba infestation, the incidence of amoebiasis wouldprobably have soared, causing more problems than the lack ofprotein.47

Cultures Are “Package Deals”

When a foreign culture introduces a single aspect of its culture intothe life of another, there will be complications. This single changeserves as a sort of cultural wedge. As the historian Arnold Toynbeeputs it, “In a cultural encounter, one thing inexorably goes on leadingto another when once the smallest breach has been made in theassaulted society’s defenses.”48 Changing people’s eating habits, apartfrom changing their understanding of medicine, costs of production,agricultural technology, risks of blight, marketing, and an indetermin-ate number of other contingent aspects of the recommended change,is risky when possible, and frequently impossible.

Third World peasants often recognize the implications of a par-ticular “cultural wedge” perhaps better than the Western “missionary”does: It may have a far-reaching impact on the culture as a whole – animpact which traditional peasants may choose to avoid. Unless theopportunity offered by the innovator is seen by the recipient as beingworth the risks of unforeseen “ripple effects,” the attempt to force achange in the recipient’s buying or eating habits may lead to a disaster.Or, more likely, it will probably lead to a wall of resistance.Missionaries, whether Christian or secular, whether sponsored by achurch or the Peace Corps, had better understand one fundamental


49. John Burton, “Epilogue,” in Steven Cheung, The Myth of Social Cost (San Fran-cisco: Cato Institute, 1980), p. 66.

1348

principle before they go to the mission field: You cannot change onlyone thing.

One of the classic horror stories that illustrates this principle is theSub-Sahara Sahel famine of the 1970s. This arid and semiarid area isvast. It stretches across the African continent, and it includes thenations of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Ghana, Niger, UpperVolta, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and part of Kenya. For l5 years,from the early 1960s through the mid-1970s, the West’s civil govern-ments poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this region. Yetbetween the late 1960s and 1974, hundreds of thousands of peoplestarved, along with twenty million head of livestock. They are stillstarving. Why? As with most agricultural tragedies, there was nosingle cause. The area gets little rain: perhaps twenty-five inches in itssouthernmost regions, tapering off to an inch per year closer to theSahara. The nomads needed water for their herds, as they had fromtime immemorial. The West gave them the water. Here was a totallynew factor in the region’s ecology. It destroyed them. This was onemajor cause.

The other cause was the absence of enforceable property rights inland. The nomads did not assign specific plots to specific families. Noone was made personally and economically responsible for the care ofthe land. “All trees, shrubs, and pasture are common-access resources,so no individual tribesman has an incentive to conserve them, or addto their stock. No individual can reap the returns of planting or sowinggrass, which hold the soil together and prevent ‘desertification.’”49 Beneath the rock and clay and sand, there is water. A subterraneanlake of half a million square miles underlies the eastern end of theSahara. Drilling rigs can hit water at one thousand or two thousand

Appendix E

50. Claire Sterling, “The Making of the Sub-Sahara Wasteland,” Atlantic (May, 1974),p. 102.

1349

feet down. These boreholes were drilled with Western foreign aidmoney at $20,000 to $200,000 apiece. About ten thousand head ofcattle at a time can drink their fill. Therein lies the problem. ClaireSterling describes what happened: The trouble is that wherever the Sahel has suddenly produced more

than enough for the cattle to drink, they have ended up with nothing toeat. Few sights were more appalling, at the height of the drought lastsummer [1973], than the thousands upon thousands of dead and dyingcows clustered around Sahelian boreholes. Indescribably emaciated,the dying would stagger away from the water with bloated bellies tostruggle to fight free of the churned mud at the water’s edge until theykeeled over. As far as the horizon and beyond, the earth was as bareand bleak as a bad dream. Drought alone didn’t do that: they did.

What 20 million or more cows, sheep, goats, donkeys, and camelshave mostly died of since this grim drought set in is hunger, not thirst.Although many would have died anyway, the tragedy wascompounded by a fierce struggle for too little food among Sahelianherds increased by then to vast numbers. Carried away by the promiseof unlimited water, nomads forgot about the Sahel’s all too limitedforage. Timeless rules, apportioning just so many cattle to graze forjust so many days within a cow’s walking distance of just so muchwater in traditional wells, were brushed aside. Enormous herds,converging upon the new boreholes from hundreds of miles away, soravaged the surrounding land by trampling and overgrazing that eachborehole quickly became the center of its own little desert forty or fiftymiles square.50

In Senegal, soon after boreholing became popular (around 1960),the number of cows sheep and goats rose in two years from four


51. Ibid., p. 103.

1350

million to five million. “In Mali, during the five years before 1960, theincrease had been only 800,000. Over the next ten years the total shotup another 5 million to l6 million, more than three animals for everyMalian man, woman, and child.”51 It is not just Americans and WestEuropeans who raise and eat “protein on the hoof.”

The traditional nomad way of life is dead. Western specialists knowit; the nomads know it. They live in tent camps now, dependent onhandouts from their governments, which in turn rely heavily on theWest’s foreign aid programs. The West and the nomads forgot tohonor (and deal with) this principle: You cannot change only onething.

Cultural Transformation

The goal of charitable organizations that deal in foreign aid shouldbe to bring the culture of the West to the underdeveloped nations. By“the culture of the West,” I mean the law-order of the Bible, not thehumanist, secularized remains of what was once a flourishing Christiancivilization. This means that these organizations cannot be runsuccessfully by cultural and philosophical relativists. Missionariesshould seek to impart a specifically Western way of looking at theworld: future-oriented, thrift-oriented, education-oriented, and res-ponsibility-oriented. This world-and-life view must not be cyclical. Itmust offer men hope in the power of human reason to understand theexternal world and to grasp the God-given laws of cause and effectthat control it. It must offer hope for the future. It must befuture-oriented. To try to bring seed corn to a present-orientedculture that will eat it is futile. With the seed corn must come a

Appendix E

52. W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto(Cambridge: At the University Press, 1960). This was a best-seller on college campuses inthe early 1960s. For a critique, see the essays by several economic historians in Rostow,ed., The Economics of Take-Off into Sustained Growth (New York: St. Martin’s, 1963).

53. Examples of socialist (centrally planned) economies that have been propped up byU.S. government aid are Costa Rica, Uruguay, El Salvador, and Ghana. See MelvynB. Krauss, Development Without Aid: Growth, Poverty and Government (New York: NewPress, McGraw-Hill, 1983), pp. 24–32. Another example is Zaire (formerly the BelgianCongo). Consider also that government-guaranteed loans, as well as below-market loansthrough such agencies as the Export-Import Bank, constitute foreign aid, for banks loaninvestors’ dollars to high-risk socialist nations that would otherwise not have been loaned.The Soviet Bloc has done exceedingly well in this regard for decades. On this point, seeAntony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 3 vols. (Stanford,Calif.: Hoover Institution, 1968–73).

1351

world-and- life view that will encourage people to grow corn for thefuture.

It does little good to give these cultures Western medicine and notWestern attitudes toward personal hygiene and public health. It doeslittle good to send them protein-rich foods if their internal parasiteswill eat out their intestines. The naive idea that we can simply sendthem money and they will “take off into self-sustained economicgrowth” cannot be taken seriously any longer.52 To attack the Westbecause voters are increasingly unwilling to continue to honor thetenets of a naive faith in State-to-State aid – faith in the power ofpolitical confiscation, faith in the power of using Western tax revenuesto prop up socialist regimes in Third World nations – is unfair.53

P. T. Bauer of the London School of Economics made the study ofeconomic development his life’s work. He emphasized what all econo-mists should have known, but what very few acknowledged until quiterecently, namely, that in the long run, people’s attitudes are moreimportant for economic growth than money. His list of what ideas andattitudes not to subsidize with Western capital is comprehensive. Noprogram of foreign aid, whether public or private, should be


54. P. T. Bauer, Dissent on Development (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press,1972), pp. 78–79.

1352

undertaken apart from an educational program to reduce men’s faithin the following attitudes. These attitudes are favorable to thedevelopment of a society that will experience economic growth. Examples of significant attitudes, beliefs and modes of conduct un-

favourable to material progress include lack of interest in materialadvance, combined with resignation in the face of poverty; lack ofinitiative, self-reliance and a sense of personal responsibility for theeconomic future of oneself and one’s family; high leisure preference,together with a lassitude found in tropical climates; relatively highprestige of passive or contemplative life compared to active life; theprestige of mysticism and of renunciation of the world compared toacquisition and achievement; acceptance of the idea of a preordained,unchanging and unchangeable universe; emphasis on performance ofduties and acceptance of obligations, rather than on achievement ofresults, or assertion or even a recognition of personal rights; lack ofsustained curiosity, experimentation and interest in change; belief inthe efficacy of supernatural and occult forces and of their influenceover one’s destiny; insistence on the unity of the organic universe, andon the need to live with nature rather than conquer it or harness it toman’s needs, an attitude of which reluctance to take animal life is acorollary; belief in perpetual reincarnation, which reduces thesignificance of effort in the course of the present life; recognized statusof beggary, together with a lack of stigma in the acceptance of charity;opposition to women’s work outside the home.54

A long sentence, indeed. If the full-time promoters of Western guiltunderstood the implications of what Bauer is saying, there would begreater hope for both the West and the Third World. What hedescribes is essentially the very opposite of what has come to be

Appendix E

55. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1958). This book appeared originally as a series of scholarly journalarticles in 1904–5. See also S. N. Eisenstadt, ed., The Protestant Ethic and Modernization(New York: Basic Books, 1968).

56. Sider, Rich Christians, p. 30.

57. R. J. Rushdoony, The Myth of Over-Population (1969; reprint ed., Fairfax, Va.: T-hoburn Press, 1978), pp. 1–3.

1353

known as “the Protestant Ethic.”55 What is remarkable is the extent towhich ideologically motivated guilt-manipulators have adopted somany of the very attitudes that Bauer says are responsible for theeconomic backwardness of the Third World.

Yes, the West continues to eat. The Third World finds it difficultto grow sufficient food. But Christians in the West are supposedlycomplacent. They are well-fed, while their “global neighbors” gohungry.56 It appears that the ancestors of “rich Christians” and richWesterners in general were very smart: They all moved to thoseregions of the world where food is now abundant. The Plains Indians,before Europeans came on the scene, experienced frequent famines.There were under half a million of them at the time.57 Yet, somehow,European immigrants to the Plains arrived just in time to see agri-cultural productivity flourish. They now consume more than their “fairshare” of the food, and their only excuse is that they produce it. This,it seems, is not a good enough answer – certainly not a morally validanswer. The West needs to come up with a cure for the hungry massesof the world, but not the one that worked in the West, namely, theprivate ownership of the means of production.

Ronald Sider has a cure – if not for the world’s hungry masses,then at least for the now-guilty consciences of his readers, not tomention the not-yet-guilt-burdened consciences of the Americanelectorate. “We ought to move toward a personal lifestyle that could


58. Ronald J. Sider, “Living More Simply for Evangelism and Justice,” the KeynoteAddress to the International Consultation on Simple Lifestyle, England (17–20 March1980), mimeographed paper, p. 17.

59. Sider, Rich Christians, p. 216.

60. Idem.

61. Sider, “Ambulance Drivers or Tunnel Builders” (Philadelphia: Evangelicals forSocial Action, n.d.), p. 4.

1354

be sustained for a long period of time if it were shared by everyone inthe world. In its controversial Limits to Growth, the Club of Romesuggested the figure of $1,800 per year per person. In spite of themany weaknesses of that study, the Club of Rome’s estimate may bethe best available.”58 And which agencies should be responsible forcollecting the funds and sending them to the poor in foreign lands?United Nations channels.59 Private charity is acceptable – indeed, it isbetter than the United States government, which sends food andsupplies to “repressive dictatorships”60 – but not preferable. We needState-enforced “institutional change,” not reliance on private charity,because “institutional change is often morally better. Personal charityand philanthropy still permit the rich donor to feel superior. And itmakes the recipient feel inferior and dependent. Institutional changes,on the other hand, give the oppressed rights and power.”61

But if the United States government is not really a reliable State toimpose such institutional change, what compulsory agency is reliable?He neglects to say. The one agency he mentions favorably in thiscontext is the United Nations – the organization which has formallyindicted Israel as a “racist” nation, and which welcomed the PalestineLiberation Organization’s Yassir Arafat, pistol on his hip, to speak

Appendix E

62. For a critical analysis of Sider’s views, see David Chilton, Productive Christiansin an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A Biblical Response to Ronald Sider, rev. ed. (Tyler,Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1982). The book is now in the third edition,reprinted in 1996.

63. Time, 26 April 1976.

64. Jan Tinbergen (coordinator), RIO -- Reshaping the International Order: A Reportto the Club of Rome (New York: New American Library, Signet Books, 1977).

65. William Tucker, Progress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism(Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday, 1982), p. 193.

1355

before the membership.62 It is interesting that the Club of Rome drastically revised its no-

growth position in 1976,63 and in 1977, the year Rich Christians waspublished, the Club of Rome published a pro-growth, pro-technologystudy.64 As William Tucker observes, “When you’re leading theparade, it’s always fun to make sudden changes in direction just to tryto keep everyone on their toes.”65 Of course, it was favorable to vastState-to-State foreign aid programs.

A Zero-Sum Economy?

A zero-sum game is a game in which the winners’ earnings comeexclusively from the losers. But what applies to a game of chance doesnot apply to an economy based on voluntary exchange. Unfortunately,many critics of the free market society still cling to this ancient dogma.They assume that if one person profits from a transaction, the otherperson loses proportionately. Mises objects:

. . . the gain of one man is the damage of another; no man profits butby the loss of others. This dogma was already advanced by some


66. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pp. 664–65. Italics in original.

1356

ancient authors. Among modern writers Montaigne was the first torestate it; we may fairly call it the Montaigne dogma. It was thequintessence of the doctrines of Mercantilism, old and new. It is at thebottom of all modern doctrines teaching that there prevailed, within theframe of the market economy, an irreconcilable conflict among theinterests of various social classes within a nation and furthermorebetween the interests of any nation and those of all other nations. . . . What produces a man’s profit in the course of affairs within anunhampered market society is not his fellow citizen’s plight anddistress, but the fact that he alleviates or entirely removes what causeshis fellow citizen’s feeling of uneasiness. What hurts the sick is theplague, not the physician who treats the disease. The doctor’s gain isnot an outcome of the epidemics, but of the aid he gives to thoseaffected. The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight offuture conditions. Those who succeeded better than others in antici-pating future events and in adjusting their activities to the future stateof the market, reap profits because they are in a position to satisfy themost urgent needs of the public. The profits of those who haveproduced goods and services for which the buyers scramble are not thesource of losses of those who have brought to the market commoditiesin the purchase of which the public is not prepared to pay the fullamount of production costs expended. These losses are caused by thelack of insight displayed in anticipating the future state of the marketand the demand of the consumers.66

The “Montaigne dogma” is still with us. The economic analysispresented by Ronald Sider assumes it. He can be regarded as a dog-matic theologian, but his dogma is Montaigne’s. Consider for a mom-ent his statistics, such as the Club of Rome’s assertion that $1,800 ayear would just about equalize the living standards of the world. TheClub of Rome assumes tremendous per capita wealth in the hands of

Appendix E

67. Gary North, “Trickle-Down Economics,” The Freeman (May 1982).

1357

the rich – so much wealth, that a program of compulsory wealth-redis-tribution could make the whole world middle class, or at leastreasonably comfortable. But the capital of the West – roads, educa-tional institutions, communications networks, legal systems, bankingfacilities, monetary systems, manufacturing capital, managerial skills,and attitudes toward life, wealth, and the future – cannot be dividedup physically. Furthermore, there is little evidence that it would besufficient to produce world-wide per capita wealth of this magnitude,even if it could be physically divided up and redistributed.67

If we divided only the shares of ownership held by the rich –stocks, bonds, annuities, pension rights, cash-value life insurancepolicies, and so forth – we would see a market-imposed redistributionprocess begin to put the shares back into the hands of the most effici-ent producers. The inequalities of ownership would rapidly reappear.

The important issue, however, is the Montaigne dogma. It viewsthe world as a zero-sum game, in which winnings exactly balancelosses. Then how do societies advance? If life is a zero-sum game,how can we account for economic growth? A free market economy isnot a zero-sum game. We exchange with each other because weexpect to gain an advantage. Both parties expect to be better off afterthe exchange has taken place. Each party offers an opportunity to theother person. If each person did not expect to better himself, neitherwould make the exchange. There is no fixed quantity of economicbenefits. The free market economy is not a zero-sum game.

We understand this far better in the field of education. For example,if I learn that two plus two equals four, I have not harmed anyone. Inthe area of knowledge, we all know that the only people who losewhen someone gains new, accurate knowledge are those who haveinvested in terms of older, inaccurate knowledge. Could anyone


68. P. T. Bauer, Dissent on Development, pp. 401–3.

69. Note, 2005: I have changed my mind on this point. The threat should not be excom-munication but rather revocation of voting rights in the congregation.

1358

seriously argue that the acquisition of knowledge is a zero-sum game(except, perhaps, in the case of a competitive examination)? Wouldanyone argue that we should suppress the spread of new, accurateknowledge in order to protect those who have made unfortunateinvestments in terms of old information?

What should we conclude? The Third World needs what all menneed: faith in Jesus Christ and his law-order. The Third World needsthe increased economic output that is the inevitable product of trueconversion to Christ. It needs a new attitude toward the future (opti-mism). It needs a new attitude concerning the power of biblical law asa tool of dominion. It needs to abandon the bureaucratic State agri-cultural control systems that pay farmers only a fraction of what theiragricultural output is worth, with the difference going into State treas-uries. It is not uncommon for West African governments to pay pro-ducers as little as fifty per cent of the market value of their crops.68

What the Third World needs is what we all need: less guilt, lesscivil government, lower taxes, more freedom, and churches thatenforce the tithe through the threat of excommunication69 – not a“graduated tithe,” but a fixed, predictable ten per cent of income. (A“graduated tithe” means a graduated ten per cent, which is contra-dictory. It is a political slogan, not a theological concept. It certainlyis not a standard for State taxation: 1 Sam 8.)

Land Reform

We are told endlessly that Latin American nations need land

Appendix E

70. R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1973),pp. 180–81.

1359

reform. The government is supposed to intervene, confiscate thelanded wealth of the aristocracy, and give it to the poor. This is a var-iation of Lenin’s old World War I slogan, “peace, land, bread.” [Note:in 2003 I discovered on my own that Lenin seems never to have usedthis slogan.] Is such a program legitimate? Is it practical?

The Bible has a standard for land tenure: private ownership. First,how can we respect this principle and still expand the holdings of landby the peasants? Second, how can we keep agricultural output fromcollapsing when unskilled, poor peasants take over land tenure?

The answer to the first question is relatively simple in theory: Weneed to adopt the biblical principle of inheritance. All sons receive partof the inheritance, with the eldest son obtaining a double portion,since he has the primary responsibility for caring for aged parents.Rushdoony’s comments are important:

The general rule of inheritance was limited primogeniture, i.e., theoldest son, who had the duty of providing for the entire family in caseof need, or of governing the clan, receiving a double portion. If therewere two sons, the estate was divided into three portions, the youngerson receiving one third. . . . The father could not alienate a godlyfirst-born son because of personal feelings, such as a dislike for theson’s mother and a preference for a second wife (Deut 21: 15–17).Neither could he favor an ungodly son, an incorrigible delinquent, whodeserved to die (Deut 21:18–21). Where there was no son, theinheritance went to the daughter or daughters (Num 27:1– 11). . . . Ifthere were neither sons nor daughters, the next of kin inherited (Num27:9–11).70

By instituting the biblical mode of inheritance, the great landed


71. Blacks preferred sharecropping to working for wages on white-owned farms: RogerRansom and Richard Sutch, One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Eman-cipation (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 67–70.

72. Robert Nisbet, the conservative American sociologist, concludes that the abolitionof primogeniture and entail (fixing land to the family line) was an important symbol of theAmerican Revolution. He admits, however, that few of the colonies in 1775 were stillenforcing these laws. Nisbet, “The Social Impact of the Revolution,” in America’s Contin-uing Revolution: An Act of Conservation (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research, 1975), p. 80. Nisbet cites Frederick Le Play and Alexis de Toc-queville as sources for his opinion on the importance of the abolition of primogeniture andentail, pp. 82–83.

1360

estates of the Latin American world would be broken up. The civilgovernment would immediately gain the support of the younger sonsof the aristocracy. Land holdings would get smaller. Those sons whochoose not to farm can sell their land to productive peasants, or if thepoor people have no capital initially, hire them as sharecroppers. (Ina capital-poor society, such as the American South immediately afterthe Civil War, sharecropping proved to be an economically soundarrangement.)71 The sons can buy the necessary capital, assuming theydo not inherit it.

With each death, the land holdings get smaller. Will this lead to thedestruction of productive, large-scale agriculture? Not if it is reallyproductive. The size of land holdings could be increased by purchaseby productive farmers. Also, corporations could be set up that wouldissue shares of stock to owners. The holders would leave shares ofstock to their heirs, not the actual land. Then heirs could sell theseshares to other people, including members of the rising middle class.Without single-inheritor primogeniture, there could be a rising middleclass.

One of the preludes to the American Revolution, especially insouthern colonies, was the abolition of the English version of eldest-son primogeniture.72 Puritan New England never did adhere to eldest-

Appendix E

73. Kenneth A. Lockeridge, A New England Town, The First Hundred Years: Dedham,Massachusetts, 1636-1736 (New York: Norton, 1970), pp. 71–72.

1361

son primogeniture. Historian Kenneth Lockridge writes:

The leaders of the [Massachusetts Bay] colony reflected a generalawareness of the unique abundance of the New World in the novelinheritance law they created. In England, the lands of a man who leftno will would go to the eldest son under the law of primogeniture,whose aim was to prevent the fragmentation of holdings which wouldfollow from a division among all the sons. The law arose from a men-tality of scarcity. It left the landless younger sons to fend forthemselves. In New England the law provided for the division of thewhole estate among all the children of the deceased. Why turn youngersons out on the society without land or perhaps daughters without adecent dowry, why invite social disorder, when there was enough toprovide for all?73

There was never a landed aristocracy in the New England because ofthis policy. Primogeniture and entail (prohibiting the from selling theland) disappeared in all but two colonies prior to the American Revo-lution.

I offer this example of one possible social and economic reform todemonstrate how relevant biblical law is for all societies, and how adeviation from biblical law has led, over centuries, to the creation ofa ticking time bomb in Latin American nations. Instead of broadlybased private property in land, and the development of a responsiblemiddle class, Latin American nations now face the likelihood of Marx-ist revolution, with the State, not the people, gaining control over theland. As Rushdoony remarks, “The state, moreover, is making itselfprogressively the main, and in some countries, the only heir. The statein effect is saying that it will receive the blessing above all others. It


74. Ibid., p. 181. See also Gary North, “Familistic Capital,” in the forthcoming book,The Dominion Covenant: Exodus (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984),forthcoming. [The book was eventually titled, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs.Power Religion, 1985.]

75. James B. Jordan, “Tithing: Financing Christian Reconstruction,” in Gary North, ed.,Tactics of Christian Resistance (Tyler, Tex.: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983).

76. Gary North, “Quarantines and Public Health,” Chalcedon Report (April 1977).

1362

offers to educate all children and to support all needy families as thegreat father of all. It offers support to the aged as the true son and heirwho is entitled to collect all of the inheritance as his own. In bothroles, however, it is the great corrupter and is at war with God’sestablished order, the family.”74

Conclusion

God’s law is clear enough: The family is the primary agency ofwelfare – in education, law enforcement (by teaching biblical law andself-government), care for the aged. The church, as the agency for col-lecting the tithe, also has social welfare obligations.75 The civil gov-ernment has almost none. Even in the case of the most pitiable peoplein Israel, the lepers, the State had only a negative function, namely, toquarantine then from other citizens. The State provided no medicalcare or other tax-supported aid (Lev 13 and 14).76

The balance of earthly sovereignties between the one (the State orchurch) and the many (individuals, voluntary associations) is manda-tory if we are to preserve both freedom and order. The Bible tells usthat God is both one and many, one Being yet three Persons. His crea-tion reflects this unity and diversity. Our social and political institu-tions are to reflect this. We are to seek neither total unity (statism) nor

Appendix E

77. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order andUltimacy (1971; reprint ed., Fairfax, Va.: Thoburn Press, 1978).

78. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

79. Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 2nd ed. (Tyler,Tex.: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983). See also Roderick Campbell, Israel and theNew Covenant (1954; reprint ed., Tyler, Tex.: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1982).

1363

total diversity (anarchism).77 Biblical law provides us with the guide-lines by which we may achieve a balanced social order. We must takebiblical law seriously.78

The most effective social movements of the twentieth century’smasses – Marxism, Darwinian science, and militant Islam – have heldvariations of the three doctrines that are crucial for any comprehensiveprogram of social change: providence, law, and optimism. The Chris-tian faith offers all three of these, not in a secular framework, but ina revelational framework. The failure of Christianity to capture theminds of the masses, not to mention the world’s leaders, is in part dueto the unwillingness of the representatives of Christian orthodoxy topreach all three with uncompromising clarity. The world will stay poorfor as long as men cling to any vision of God, man, and law that isin opposition to the biblical outline. We need faith in the meaning of the universe and the sovereigntyof God. We need confidence that biblical law offers us a reliable toolof dominion. Finally, we need an historical dynamic: optimism. Weneed a positive future-orientation for our earthly efforts, in eternity ofcourse, but also in time and on earth. People need to surrender uncon-ditionally to God in order to exercise comprehensive dominion, underGod and in terms of God’s law, over the creation.79 There is no otherlong-term solution to long-term poverty. God will not be mocked.

1. Published first as a report in 1997.

1364

Appendix F

THE ECONOMIC RE-EDUCATION OF RONALD J. SIDER1

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to thisword, it is because there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20).

I began this economic commentary project in the spring of 1973:monthly essays in the Chalcedon Report. I escalated it in August of1977, when I moved to Durham, North Carolina. At that time, I beganto devote 10 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to this commentary proj-ect. I still do.

In that same year, 1977, another historian, Ronald J. Sider, had hisbook, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study, co-published by the Paulist Press (liberal Roman Catholic) and InterVar-sity Press (neo-evangelical Protestant). The fate of these rival pub-lishing projects throws light on contemporary Protestant evangelicaltheology.

In mid-1997, the fourth edition of Sider’s book appeared. On thecover, it proclaims: “Over 350,000 copies in print.” Most of thesecopies were the first edition. The original publishers surrenderedcontrol over it in 1990, when Word Books picked it up and issued thethird edition. Publishers do not surrender books that are still sellingwell. The second edition was forced on Sider in 1984 by David Chil-ton’s book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators(1981), which I hired Chilton to write and which the Institute forChristian Economics published. Sider prudently refused to mentionChilton in that second edition . . . also in the third edition/latestedition.

Appendix F

2. I sat in an office next to his. I would yell, “David, where is that passage about. . . ?”He would yell back, “It’s somewhere in the middle of chapter [ ] of the Book of [ ].”It always was.

1365

In a Christianity Today interview, published in the same issue as anobituary for David Chilton (April 28, 1997), Sider made it clear thathe no longer is of the same opinion as he had been in 1977. “The timeshave changed, and so have I” (p. 68). Furthermore, “I admit, though,that I didn’t know a great deal of economics when I wrote the firstedition of Rich Christians” (pp. 68–69). Or, he could accurately haveadded, the second and third editions. It is clear who his nemesis hasbeen since 1981, the unnamed David Chilton: “I had no interest intrying to psychologically manipulate people into some kind of falseguilt” (p. 68). Chilton had recognized the appeal to guilt throughoutSider’s book. Sider now says that this was not his intention.

What happened to change his mind? First, the fall of the Berlin wallin 1989; second, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Times havechanged, and so has he. Like so many academics who have switchedin the 1990’s, he no longer argues for socialism. It was not DavidChilton’s arguments that persuaded him; it was a shift in liberalism’sclimate of opinion, and therefore academic neo-evangelicalism’sopinions.

Sider’s popularity began to fade about the time ICE publishedChilton’s book. Chilton’s writing style – he was a master of clarity aswell as rhetoric – his mastery of the Bible,2 and his mastery of freemarket economics turned Sider’s book into a retroactive embarrass-ment. I heard the following on many occasions: “I don’t believe every-thing in Sider’s book, but don’t you think Chilton went to extremes?”Obviously, I didn’t. Strong rhetoric catches people’s attention. Thiswas true of Sider’s first edition, too. He used very strong rhetoric –most of which disappeared from the 1997 edition. If strong rhetoricis backed up by proof, it will accomplish its task far more effectively

The Economic Re-Education of Ronald J. Sider

3. The fatter revised edition is longer and a bit harder to read, for it had to respond toSider’s second edition, the one that included “a response to my critics,” except Chilton.

1366

than the verbal equivalent of lukewarm oatmeal. Chilton’s book wasdesigned to teach biblical free market principles by means of a publicdissection of a popular anti-free market book. Chilton’s book did itswork well. It sold better than any book that ICE ever published. Ithought at the time that it was an almost perfect book. I still do.3

Let me use an analogy. To stop a group of amateur sportsmen fromgoing over a waterfall in a rented motor boat, you have to yell reallyloud and wave your arms at them. They may complain later about allthe undignified shouting and waving, but they may pull over to theshore. Even Sider pulled over, although not because of Chilton’sshouting or mine. His ideology’s outboard motor just broke down –a familiar experience with socialist products. He has now publiclytossed this burnt-out motor overboard. He deserves credit for this.

Still, he really owed it to his readers to have written something likethis at the beginning of the new edition: “David Chilton was basicallycorrect in his criticisms of my economic views. I have adopted manyof his proposals, including the following: . . .” But there is not a wordabout Chilton or his book. This is consistent with the second and thirdeditions.

Sider Led an Ideological Exodus

We are all familiar with the student who goes off to college andcomes home after the first year spouting liberal nonsense that helearned in the classroom. This phenomenon has been around since thedays of classical Greece. Aristophanes wrote a comedy about such ayouth: Clouds. A young man goes off to Socrates’ academy and then

Appendix F

1367

comes home a know-it-all jerk. Students usually get over this phaseby age 30 unless they go to graduate school. In graduate school, thedamage to both common sense and moral sense can become perman-ent.

The Christian version of this tale is the youth who comes homespouting nonsense and quoting the Bible out of context to defend hisviews. Maybe he quotes Israel’s jubilee law (Lev. 25) as a model ofState-directed wealth-redistribution. No one told him that the jubilee’slegal basis was genocide: the destruction of an entire civilization bythe Israelites, i.e., wealth-distribution by military conquest. No onetold him that the same jubilee law authorized the permanent enslave-ment of foreigners and their children (Lev. 25:44–46).

He insists that he is still a Christian, but he declares that a Christiancan be a liberal: an in-your-face, in-your-wallet, tax collector’s gun-in-your-belly kind of liberal. He announces, in so many words, “You’llhave to pay; government gets to spend the money on the poor (afterskimming off 50 percent for handling); and it’s all in the name ofJesus. Jesus loves a cheerful taxpayer.”

With the publication of Rich Christians in 1977, Ronald Siderbecame the Moses of the American Protestant evangelicals’ versionof this kind of home-from-college liberal. (By 1977, John R. Stott hadlong served this role in England.) The trouble was, Sider never camehome from college: he was still there – teaching. He led the neo-evangelicals in a unique kind of exodus: out of the fundamentalistprayer closets of their youth. They thought they were on the cuttingedge of a new, caring kind of Christianity. They imagined that theywere headed into the Promised Land of social relevance and politicalinfluence. They believed that their students would follow them. Thestudents did, too, for about three years. Then they changed theirminds, voted for Ronald Reagan, and went into real estate develop-ment or the brokerage business. (This, too, shall pass, but that is


4. Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence toGenerosity (Dallas: Word, 1997), p. xiii.

1368

another story.)The original version of Rich Christians was a tract for the times.

They were rotten times, ideologically speaking. The economic debate,as far as Christian intellectuals knew, was between Keynesians andMarxists. Not today. Everything has changed. Marxism is dead.Keynesianism is in its terminal stages, taking tiny, halting steps like anoctogenarian with a walker. Sider has recognized this, and he hasturned back toward what he used to call Egypt. “No, no: the PromisedLand lies in this direction!” Most of this army turned back in the1980’s, and they have bought up all the choice real estate.

Sider begins his revised edition with this admission: “My thinkinghas changed. I’ve learned more about economics.”4 So have his for-mer readers. Socialist radicalism has fallen out of favor all over theworld. The climate of opinion in the liberal media changed in 1991.Ron Sider has changed right along with it. I think of Joe Sobran’swarning: he would rather be in a church that has not changed itsbeliefs in 5,000 years than in one that spends its days huffing and puf-fing to catch up with the latest shift in media opinion.

The 20th edition is barely recognizable. It even has a new subtitle:Moving from Affluence to Generosity. The earlier editions had beensubtitled, A Biblical Study. The new subtitle is less pretentious. It alsosounds more private than statist, which reflects the book’s perspec-tive.

Here is an example of just how much the book has changed. Youmay remember Sider’s call to statist action on behalf of the poor. Hisargument in 1977 was this: God is on the side of the poor. “. . . theGod of the Bible is on the side of the poor just because he is not

Appendix F

5. Ronald L. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study (DownersGrove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 84.

6. Sider, Rich Christians (1997), p. 41.

7. David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A BiblicalResponse to Ronald J. Sider , 3rd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,1985), p. 35.

8. Sider, Rich Christians (1997), pp. 147–50, 244–45.

9. Chilton, Productive Christians, pp. 101–103.

1369

biased, for he is a God of impartial justice.”5 What does he say now?“Is God biased in favor of the poor? Is he on their side in a way thathe is not on the side of the rich? Some theologians say yes. But untilwe clarify the meaning of the question, we cannot answer itcorrectly.”6 The next chapter backpeddles away from the first edition.

In his 1985 edition, Chilton summarized Sider’s policy recommen-dations, and he offered footnotes from Rich Christians for everypoint: national (State) food policy, (State to State) foreign aid, a guar-anteed national income, international taxation, land reform, bureau-cratically determined “just prices,” national health care, populationcontrol, and the right of developing nations to nationalize foreignholdings.7 In Sider’s 1997 edition, foreign aid is mentioned briefly (pp.31–38). But even here, Sider cites reports on how recipientgovernments have misused this aid in the past. Sider uses the samekind of bureaucratic examples that Chilton used against Sider’s earlyeditions (pp. 258–59). As for the recycled oil money loaned to theThird World, “Too much of what was loaned was spent on arma-ments, ill-planned projects, or wasted because of official corruption”(p. 260). He still mentions land reform, but only briefly (p. 260). Hewants lower tariffs against foreign products. He is adamant aboutthis.8 This was Chilton’s suggestion.9


10. He called Chilton on the phone at least once to tell him how much he liked the book.Chilton had initially thought it was someone who was pulling a trick on him.

11. When I visited him in 1985 – the day that Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit hired himas an advisor – Prof. Griffiths told me that he had not heard about Christian economicsuntil he read my Introduction to Christian Economics.


1370

As he has become more cautious – openly so – he has droppedalmost all traces of his previous toying with socialism and statist coer-cion. The new edition is not the same book. It is not even a firstcousin of the first three editions. His new edition is basically a retrac-tion of the earlier editions – a kind of belated apology to the 350,000buyers of his book who bought intellectually damaged goods.

But he still refuses to mention Chilton’s book, even in the bibliog-raphy. He reminds me of Winston Smith in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, who dutifully dropped inconvenient historical information intothe “memory hole.” Nevertheless, the new bibliography contains somevery good books by such fine free market scholars as P. T. Bauer – towhom Chilton dedicated the third edition, since Bauer was a big fanof Productive Christians10 – George Gilder, Brian Griffiths,11 JulianSimon, and Calvin Beisner. Unfortunately, he does not actually quotefrom any of these authors in his 37 pages of endnotes, except to attackBauer as an extremist.12 He quotes mainly from UNICEF, otherUnited Nations agencies, and the World Bank. He still avoids citingeconomists generally and free market economists specifically. But atleast his bibliography gives the illusion that he has thought through thereasons why his first three editions were wrong.

How did this happen? I attribute it to a dramatic shift in the climateof public opinion. This climate of opinion was beginning to change in1981, when Chilton’s book appeared and when I debated Sider atGordon-Conwell Divinity School. But it was not yet changing among

Appendix F

13. He won mainly because Gerald Ford had been a Vice President who came into officebecause of Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation under a cloud of scandal. Ford immediatelypardoned Nixon for unnamed crimes that Nixon had not been tried for. Then the 1975recession hit. Meanwhile, the newly created Trilateral Commission went looking for apolitical unknown who could be palmed off on the scandal-weary American voters as anoutsider. This strategy worked, but only for one election.

14. See Gary North, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the PresbyterianChurch (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), chaps. 7, 9. Cf. GeorgeMarsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-CenturyEvangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 184–86;Ralph Reed, After the Revolution: How the Christian Coalition is Impacting America

1371

Christian academics. They follow the lead of secular humanist opinionleaders, usually by about five to 10 years. I was not well received bythe faculty of Gordon-Conwell (or at any other seminary, now that Ithink of it).

Harbinger and Fad

Sider’s book was part harbinger, part fad. It was a harbinger ofthings to come because, in 1977, Protestant evangelicals were justbarely coming back into American politics as an identifiable votingbloc. The 1976 Presidential candidacy of Southern Baptist and Trilat-eral Commission member Jimmy Carter had made acceptable the label“evangelical” in the political arena. A majority of white SouthernProtestants actually voted against Carter, but hardly anyone recog-nized this in 1977 or even today. The pundits incorrectly attributed hisvictory to the unpredicted appearance of the evangelicals.13

From the era of the media-orchestrated humiliation of fundamental-ist Christianity at the Scopes’ “monkey” trial in 1925 until the electionof 1976, American evangelicals had been conspicuous by theirabsence.14 They generally opposed politics, or at least identifiably


(Dallas: Word, 1996), p. 53. Note that Reed’s publisher was also Sider’s.

1372

Christian participation in partisan politics. Roman Catholics did thatsort of thing, it was widely believed, “and you know what we thinkabout Catholicism!” For decades, political liberals who controlled thetheologically liberal National Council of Churches had chided funda-mentalists, calling on them to get out of their prayer closets and getactive in politics. They got their wish answered in 1980: the electionof Ronald Reagan, whose personal commitment to salvation throughfaith in Christ was never proclaimed by him in public, and by his defeatof Carter, whose public commitment to Christ was considered media-worthy, but whose personal commitment was to theologians such asPaul Tillich. The National Council crowd never knew what hit them.Reagan stood firm, at least rhetorically, against the NCC’s version ofthe eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majorityvote.” He was re-elected in 1984. The NCC has never recovered. Likesome emphysemic middle-aged athlete still dreaming of his glory days,the NCC continues to issue study guides and newsletters. No one paysany attention.

Immediately after my debate with Sider at Gordon-Conwell, areporter privately asked me what I thought of Sider. I told him that Iappreciated Sider for softening up the market for my work. I told himthat Sider was preparing the way for evangelicals to get involved insocial action and politics, but that my economic opinions, not Sider’s,were representative of the broad mass of evangelical opinion. Thatstatement had been verified the previous fall, with Reagan’s defeat ofCarter. Sider had been part of the minority of white evangelicals whowere favorable to Carter’s worldview and hostile to Reagan’s. Sider’sfame was based on the opinion of classroom professors and liberal artseditors, what I have referred to as the Wheaton College-ChristianityToday-Calvin College axis. This cloistered non-profit community of

Appendix F

1373

liberal arts graduates is part of the modern chattering class, but itnever has reflected the opinions of donors in the pews. The man in thepew always knew that socialism is simply Communism for peoplewithout the testosterone to man the barricades.

I have maintained for three decades that neo-evangelicals pick upfads that have been discarded by secular liberals. Sider’s book isproof. The tenured academic community of Christians was mildlysocialistic when the American media were. Now they are mildly freemarket, just as the media are. What caused the change? The failure ofthe Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev admitted in the late 1980’s that hisnation was economically bankrupt. This stunned the West’s academ-ics. They had always insisted that the USSR had a growing economy.Only a handful of free market economists had questioned this. In1991, Gorbachev was unceremoniously thrown out of power. So werethe Communists. They had neither money nor power by August 21,1991, the day the Communist coup against Boris Yeltsin failed. Withneither money nor power, Communism fell out of favor in the Westovernight. The secular humanist West worships money and power.Lose these, and you’re instantly passé.

Overnight, discount book bins filled up with Marxist books writtenby and for the college market. Marxists in the Western academiccommunity found that their peers were laughing at them. Never beforehad this happened. They had always been taken seriously. Why?Because the Communists had the power to terrorize people withoutthreat of retaliation, and Western liberals have great respect for thisdegree of power. They had raged for decades selectively only againstmilitary dictatorships in small nations – dictatorships that might beoverthrown. Now the “impersonal forces of history” had turnedagainst the Communists. This was bad news for tenured professorswho had publicly worshipped the forces of history, as reported by theNew York Times. They rushed in panic to get on board the last train


15. Required by the United States Constitution; had he run again, he would almost cer-tainly have been elected a third time.

1374

out of socialism’s world of empty promises and emptier souls. They have now become born-again democratic capitalists. What is

a democratic capitalist? Someone who has modified the eight com-mandment as follows: “Thou shalt not steal quite so much as before,except by majority vote.”

The Echo Effect: Neo-evangelicalism

Sider’s book was partly a fad because it promoted a kind ofwarmed-over political liberalism that suited the times. In 1977, JimmyCarter had just been elected President of the United States. He was apolitical liberal, and he was a self-proclaimed evangelical, despite hiscommitment to neo-orthodox theologians. Two years later, MargaretThatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain. In 1980, RonaldReagan was elected President of the United States. Those twopoliticians restructured political rhetoric in the West. They madepolitical conservatism acceptable. More important, they made liberalslook both weak and silly. They oversaw major shifts in public opinion,even among intellectuals. In the year of Reagan’s retirement,15 theBerlin Wall was torn down, and the East German troops did nothingto stop it, as if in response to Reagan’s words to Mikhail Gorbachev:“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.” Gorbachev sat tight. Twoyears after that, he was thrown out of office, along with Communism.

Overnight, the liberation theology fad died. Marxism became passé– the ultimate humiliation in the modern intellectual world. This wasthe year after the third edition of Sider’s book appeared, which sankwithout a trace. Ronald Reagan had destroyed the climate of opinion

Appendix F

16. Sider, Rich Christians, p. xiii.

17. Ibid., pp. 182–83.


19. Ibid., p. 77. See Chilton, Productive Christians, p. 267.

1375

that had made Ronald Sider’s book a best-seller among college-educated Christian evangelicals. Reagan had destroyed Sider’s marketas surely as David Chilton had destroyed Sider’s arguments. Sideradmits as much: “Communism has collapsed. Expanding market econ-omies and new technologies have reduced poverty. ‘Democraticcapitalism’ has won the major economic/political debate of the twen-tieth century. Communism’s state ownership and central planning haveproven not to work; they are inefficient and totalitarian.”16 This waswhat David Chilton had argued back in 1981. Sider writes: “One ofthe last things we needed was another ghastly Marxist-Leninistexperiment in the world.”17 Yet in 1977, he offered this bold-faced,capitalized question: IS GOD A MARXIST?18 He never answeredthis question; instead, he wrote several pages on how God “wreakshorrendous havoc on the rich.”19 Now, he has answered his ownquestion. This is progress. It took him only 20 years.

The New, Improved Version

Dr. Sider has admitted that he didn’t understand much about eco-nomics in 1977. That was clear to Chilton and me when we finally gotaround to reading his book in 1980. Now he has changed his tune. Inhis new book, for example, he continues to call for a “graduatedtithe.” But he says this is strictly personal; he does not mention the


20. Ibid., pp. 193–96.

21. Ibid., p. 193.

22. Ibid., p. 237.

1376

State.20 He assures us: “Certainly it is not a biblical norm to be pres-cribed legalistically for others.”21 Throughout the book, he calls forprivate Christian charity – exactly what Chilton had called for. Hemakes a few gratuitous genuflections toward government intervention,but mainly in the most conventional areas, such as public healthmatters and education22 – activities that the typical Southern Baptistlayman would agree with. Most revealing, he has stripped his book ofconfrontational rhetoric against the free market or in favor of biggovernment. His rare negative rhetorical flourishes are now directedagainst Marxism. This edition is marked by academic caution. It is anapology rather than an apologetic.

Chilton’s arguments did not change Sider’s mind. By the timeCommunism fell, making anti-capitalism passé, he had written tworevisions without even mentioning Chilton or his other free marketcritics. Even in his third revised edition (1990), he provided not onereference to Chilton’s book, and not one reference to me or this com-mentary series. The climate of opinion has not changed that much! Itwas not logic or the Bible that changed Sider’s mind. It was thechange in the climate of secular academic opinion. He was not pre-pared to swim upstream. Neo-evangelicals always swim downstreamwith the liberal current, for liberals can impose academic sanctions.

I have been swimming upstream ever since I was 14 years old,when I attended a lecture by the anti-Communist Fred Schwarz in1956. Bit by bit, inch by inch, I have seen the intellectual tide ofopinion turn – not 180 degrees, but at least 110. It reached universityprofessors last, especially in the humanities departments. Schwarz was

Appendix F

23. Frederick Schwarz, M.D., Beating the Unbeatable Foe (Washington, D.C.: Regnery,1996), ch. 38.


25. My position on biblical law and economics is stated in Chapter 51: “Biblical morallaw, when obeyed, produces a capitalist economic order. Socialism is anti-biblical. Wherebiblical moral law is self-enforced, and biblical civil law is publicly enforced, capitalismmust develop. One reason why so many modern Christian college professors in the socialsciences are vocal in their opposition to biblical law is that they are deeply influenced bysocialist economic thought. They recognize clearly that their socialist conclusions areincompatible with biblical law, so they have abandoned biblical law.”

26. There is nothing on the price mechanism as a means of coordination, nothing on thedivision of labor, nothing on entrepreneurship as the source of profits, etc.

1377

surprised at how just fast the tide turned after 1989.23 He had beenswimming upstream since the mid-1940’s. Swimming upstream is theprice of overcoming evil in an era in which evil is entrenched. It is theprice of launching a paradigm shift.

Sider’s earlier editions were subtitled, A Biblical Study. He hasmoved away from that sort of unacceptable positioning. He writes:“When the choice is communism or democratic capitalism, I supportdemocratic government and market economics.” Not quite. When thechoice was between Communism and market economics, he was notready to attack Marxism, and he attacked the free market with avengeance. It was only after the academic world was laughing atMarxists that he switched.

He goes on to say, “That does not mean, however, that the Bibleprescribes either democracy or markets.”24 To argue, as I have andChilton did, that decentralized constitutional democracy and the freemarket are exactly what the Bible prescribes, is just too theonomic forDr. Sider.25 Today, Ron Sider is closer to the biblical truth, but not onthe basis of the Bible, and not on the basis of economic logic, whichis as absent in his 1997 edition as it was in 1977.26 He dismisses my


27. Appendix E.

28. Sider, Rich Christians, p. 92, note 5.

29. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1989).

30. Murray N. Rothbard, “Late Medieval Origins of Free Market Economic Thought,”Journal of Christian Reconstruction, II (Summer 1975), pp. 62–75; Rothbard, EconomicThought before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought(Brookfield, Vermont: Elgar, 1985), ch. 4.

31. William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics (Cambridge, Massachusetts:M.I.T. Press, 1963).

1378

defense of the free market27 as little more than an extension of AdamSmith, whom he correctly identifies as an Enlightenment thinker.28 Herefuses to tell his readers about this economic commentary series ormy public attack on right-wing Enlightenment political theory.29 Hedoes not mention theonomy’s commitment to searching for judiciallybinding social blueprints in the Bible. He does not inform his readersthat free market economics as a discipline began, not with theEnlightenment, but with the late-medieval scholastic school of Sala-manca, a fact that I have tried to get people to understand ever sinceI published Murray Rothbard’s article on the topic in 1975.30 Thesescholastics used rationalism, not the Bible, to defend their case; so didthe late-seventeenth-century mercantilists;31 so did Smith; so does theentire economics profession. So what? Does he think that his favoriteeconomists in 1977 – there were not many cited in his footnotes – andnon-economists were not also heirs of the Enlightenment? As with hisacademic peers, and virtually the entire Christian world, he hatestheonomy, yet he implies that the Enlightenment left an unreliablelegacy. To which I ask, one more time: If not biblical law, then what?

Sider has affirmed what his academic peers affirm: the Bible offersno judicially binding economic, political, and social blueprints. But at

Appendix F

32. Ludwig von Mises, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” (1920),in F. A. Hayek (ed.), Socialist Economic Planning (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,[1935] 1963), ch. 3. http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp

33. Robert Heilbroner, “After Communism,” The New Yorker (Sept. 10, 1990), p. 92.

34. Jean-François Revel, The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of In-formation (New York: Random House, [1988] 1991).

1379

least in this edition, we find no traces of his original inflammatory,anti-free market rhetoric – the outlook and rhetoric that made hisbook a best-seller. There is also no hint at the existence of some asyet-unpublished plan that might make statism work. He knows thatstatism will not work. He cannot tell us theoretically why this shouldbe true. He shows no familiarity with Mises’ 1920 article on theeconomic irrationality of socialist planning.32 That article was alwaysthe most important theoretical critique of socialism, which socialisteconomist Robert Heilbroner finally admitted in 1990 was correct.33

Anti-Communism is pragmatic if it is not based on economictheory, or biblical law, or some other moral ground. Sider now rejectsCommunism as evil. Why did he wait so long? I contend that it wasbecause the climate of secular liberal opinion had not yet shifted. Untilsecular pragmatists saw that the Communists could no longer maintaintheir terrorist apparatus, they rejected all economic criticisms ofCommunism that were based on its inherently irrationality and/or itsmoral evil. Until that point, the West’s liberal media rejected alluncompromisingly anti-Communist authors and opinions as biased andunscholarly.34

How much civil government is appropriate? We just do not know,Sider says. “We need intensive study of how much and what kind ofgovernment activity promotes both political freedom and economicjustice. Through painstaking analysis and careful experimentation, wemust discover how much government can work within a basic market

http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp



36. Ibid., p. 228.

37. Ibid., p. 176.

38. Ibid., p. 135.

39. Ibid., p. 136.

1380

framework to empower the poor and restrain those aspects of today’smarkets that are destructive.”35 Notice what is the framework: freemarkets, not civil government.

Guilt for poverty must now be shared internationally, perhaps likeforeign aid. “As we saw in chapter 7, North Americans and Europeansare not to blame for all the poverty in the world today. Sin is not justa White European phenomenon.”36

What of the effects of multinational corporations? “For the pur-poses of this book, however, we do not have to know the answer tothe question of their overall impact.”37 Some of them do damage;others do not. (This is sociology’s only known law: “some do; somedon’t.”) What of colonialism? “It would be simplistic, of course, tosuggest that the impact of colonialism and subsequent economic andpolitical relations with industrialized nations was entirely negative.Among other things, literacy rates rose and health care improved.”38

This, from the man who wrote in the second edition, “It is now gener-ally recognized by historians that the civilizations Europe discoveredwere not less developed or underdeveloped in any sense” (pp. 124–25). He goes on: “It would be silly, of course, to depict colonialism asthe sole cause of present poverty. Wrong personal choices, misguidedcultural values, disasters and inadequate technology all play a part.”39

They do, indeed – Chilton’s point in 1981. Well, then, is there enoughfood being produced in the Third World today? Is the Third World

Appendix F

40. Ibid., p. 165.

41. The Dominion Covenant: Genesis and Tools of Dominion.

1381

facing famine? Here, too, we just do not know. The World Bank saysthere is no threat. Lester Brown – whose pessimistic assessment wasprominent in the 1977 edition – says there is a threat. “The finalverdict? Non-specialists like you and me cannot be sure.”40

Here is what we can be sure of: this is not the Rich Christians thatsold 350,000 copies.

Sider offers reworked versions of his old “institutionalized evil” andjubilee year chapters, but his heart just isn’t in it. Reading the 1997edition of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger is like going to yourcollege class’s 20th reunion and running into the campus radical, whois there mainly to sing the old songs. He cannot remember half of thewords, but he can still hum most of the tunes. A good time will be hadby all – all 350,000.

Who Is the Targeted Audience?

Every author should decide who his targeted audience is before hebegins to write. He must also decide the time frame for this particularbook’s influence. Some books are tracts for the times. Others are writ-ten for the long haul. Some are aimed at large numbers of buyers.Others are aimed at opinion leaders.

For example, my commentary series has done well for a commen-tary, but none has sold as many as 10,000 copies; only two have soldwell enough to be reprinted.41 Yet this commentary will be still be readby some opinion-makers in a hundred years. I say this in completeconfidence. Why? Because pastors are always looking for help in


1382

dealing with problem passages, and the Pentateuch is filled withproblem passages. Commentaries survive, in contrast to best-sellingChristian books on contemporary issues. Recall that prior to the late1960’s, there were almost no books on contemporary Christian issueswritten by and for fundamentalists, and very few for academicevangelicals. This, too, was an aspect of the climate of opinion.

One idea or slogan in a book may long outlast the sale of the book,but who can successfully predict this? Not an author, surely. Not hispublisher, either. Think of Malthus’ formulation in his anonymous firstedition of Essay on Population (1798): humans increase geo-metrically, while food supplies increase arithmetically. The idea wassilly, the evidence was nonexistent, and the author dropped the phrasein subsequent editions. Nevertheless, it is the one thing most peoplewho remember Malthus remember about him.

In contrast, another suggestion by Malthus, rarely associated withhis name, was that nature produces huge numbers of offspring thatperish. This idea was picked up six decades later by an unknown nat-uralist, Alfred Wallace, and applied to a wholly new way: some of thesurvivors survive because of unique biological traits, and these traitsare passed on to their offspring. This insight became the basis of Wal-lace’s formulation of the concept of evolution through natural selec-tion. He suggested this to Charles Darwin in a letter. Darwin instantlysaw that Wallace was about to beat him to the punch. Darwin hadseen the same passage in Malthus and had reached the same conclu-sion, but he had hesitated for two decades to publish his researches.Darwin then decided that joint credit was better than no credit at all.He convinced Wallace to publish a jointly signed article in 1858. It hadno influence at all. A year later, Darwin’s Origin of Species appeared.His publisher had not expected the book to sell well. His publisherwas wrong. As it has turned out, Wallace received none of the creditand is long forgotten except among specialized historians. And all of

Appendix F

42. The book market is a free market. While college textbooks are subsidized indirectlyby State-funded tuition, rarely does anyone change a deeply felt opinion because of some-thing he read in a textbook. Nobody goes back to read his college textbooks, asdistinguished from intelligent monographs or classics assigned in upper division classes.

43. Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind and William Bennett’s Book ofVirtues are recent examples of such opposition books: the first, an eloquent defense ofclassical education written for conservatives who have never had to trudge through thatbarren humanist ordeal; the second, a compilation of rewritten children’s stories for grand-mothers to give as Christmas presents to public school children who would be bored stiffby them if they ever bothered to read the book, which is unlikely.

1383

this came as a result of Parson Malthus’ observation about a factor inpopulation dynamics. So it goes in the world of publishing.

How can a book survive the free market’s competition?42 There isfierce competition today in the oceans of new book titles that getprinted each year. The general rule is that a book that hits the best-seller list rarely retains influence. It is too much a product of its time,i.e., tied too closely to the prevailing climate of opinion. It becomesa best-seller because it is an expression of the prevailing views of theday. Even if it is in opposition, it is within the dominant culture’sacceptable boundaries of public discourse.43 But any climate of opin-ion can and will change dramatically from time to time. That is whywe call it a climate. The best-sellers of one era are seldom read in thenext, except by historians who are trying to explain how such medio-cre books could have prospered. The fable about the hare and thetortoise applies well to books whose authors hope will changepeople’s opinions and keep them changed. This thought comfortsauthors whose books have not sold well.

The trick here is keeping your book(s) in print. Slow sales killbooks, especially in an age in which inventory taxes place negativesanctions on marginally profitable titles. The back list that was oncethe bread and butter for publishers has been undermined by taxationpolicies. The advent of books that can be produced on demand, one


1384

copy at a time, and Internet Web sites that may some day proveprofitable for downloaded books, should keep help to book titles aliveuntil their day dawns (if ever). The bankruptcy and then collapse ofthe modern welfare State will also help.

Conclusion

I am writing for future generations of Christians that at long lastbecome fed up with the results of compromises with humanism,whether right wing or left-wing. I say to them: to the law and to thetestimony; trust and obey, for there’s no other way; you can’t beatsomething with nothing. I say a lot of things. Given the length of thisbook, I have said too much already. But this much I feel morallycompelled say: over the last three decades, I have learned that it is farsafer to trust in the Bible than in the climate of opinion, especiallytenured Christian academic opinion. Better to write and then see one’sfirst (and last) edition appear on a remaindered book discount list thanto become a best-selling author, only to publish a disguised retractiontwo decades later with the belated admission: “Well, it sounded goodat the time.”

1. Written in 1997. Kenneth Gentry’s book, God Gave Us Wine: What the Bible SaysAbout Alcohol (Lincoln, California: Oakdown, 2001) provides a detailed analysis of thetheology and exegesis of the Christian critics of wine.

2. Theodore Morrison, Chautauqua: A Center for Education, Religion, and the Arts inAmerica (University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 11.

1385

Appendix G

STRONG DRINK1

And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lustethafter, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or forwhatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before theLORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him;for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee (Deut. 14:26–28).

This text, more than any other, refutes modern fundamentalism’smoral and legal prohibition against the consumption of alcohol. Thereis no exegetical answer to this text, so it is usually ignored by funda-mentalists.

The standard fundamentalist response to biblical references towine-drinking by righteous people is that this must have been unfer-mented wine. But, prior to 1869, no one had ever heard of unfer-mented wine. In that year, a pietistic and disgruntled communionsteward, Thomas B. Welch, began producing non-alcoholic, pasteur-ized “wine” explicitly for use in the Lord’s Supper. He called it “Dr.Welch’s Unfermented Wine.” The product caught on among Protes-tant pietists and then became a separate commercial product. His sonre-named it Welch’s Grape Juice, which was the foundation of amulti-million dollar company.2 Grape juice as a commercial productis possible only because of pasteurization. The ancients did notpossess this technology. Nevertheless, modern Protestant pietists have

Strong Drink

1386

created an oral history which says that Jesus turned water into grapejuice.

When Jesus turned water into wine, the feast’s organizer remarkedthat Jesus’ wine tasted better. This was unheard of, he said; partyorganizers always served their best wine first. “Every man at thebeginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk,then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now”(John 2:10). Why did party organizers do this? Because after manyhours of drinking wine, the drinkers were “feeling no pain.” They didnot notice or care that the later wine was of lower quality. Lessexpensive wine could serve the celebrational purpose. Conclusion:Jesus created wine, not grape juice. Pietism’s oral history of the wed-ding feast of Cana makes no sense in terms of the actual text.

Jesus, in describing the growth of God’s kingdom, compared it tofermenting wine. Both expand. “And no man putteth new wine intoold bottles [skins]; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and bespilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put intonew bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk oldwine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better” (Luke5:37–39). First, Jesus predicted expansion. Old Covenant Israel wouldnot be able to contain this new manifestation of the kingdom of Godin history. The kingdom’s Mosaic boundaries would soon be broken.This imagery was tied to the bubbling expansion of the fermentationprocess. No pasteurization here! Second, Jesus said that old winetastes better to experienced drinkers. That is, the more fermented winetastes better. Applying this imagery to the issue of the two Israels,Jesus was predicting that the defenders of Old Covenant Israel wouldbe critical of New Covenant Israel. They would prefer the familiartaste of traditional wine.

The imagery adopted by Jesus to describe the expansion of thekingdom of God was tied to the fermentation process. But grape juice

Appendix G

1387

is anti-expansion. Pasteurization kills the living organisms that makefermentation possible. The Jews would prefer old wine, Jesus predic-ted: familiar taste, no further expansion. Modern pietists prefer grapejuice. If we take Christ’s imagery seriously, we can see a reason forpietism’s commitment to grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. Premillen-nial pietism opposes the expansion of God’s comprehensive kingdomin history. It wants “souls only” evangelism, not Christendom.

Strong Drink and Intoxication

Pietism’s mythology of unfermented wine does not escape theexegetical problem. The crucial bibulous phrase in Deuteronomy 14is not “wine”; it is “strong drink.” The absence of strong drink hadbeen one of God’s curses on the people during their wilderness wan-dering, just as the absence of bread had been. Moses reminded themof this: “And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothesare not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thyfoot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strongdrink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God” (Deut. 29:5–6). But good times were about to replace the bad times! During thegood days in Egypt, when Joseph wanted to reward his brothersbefore he revealed his identity to them, he gave him strong drink:“And he took and sent messes [portions] unto them from before him:but Benjamin’s mess was five times so much as any of theirs. And theydrank, and were merry with him” (Gen. 43:34). The word “merry” istranslated from the Hebrew root word meaning to become tipsy orintoxicated, the word from which the Hebrew word for “strong drink”is derived. Strong’s Concordance defines the word as follows:“Shekar, shay-kawr’; from Heb 7937; an intoxicant, i.e. intenselyalcoholic liquor: – strong drink, + drunkard, strong wine.”

Strong Drink

3. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, every pastor (”Levite”) musttake an oath of total abstinence from alcohol. They call themselves ”Covenanters,” after theScottish Covenanters, yet they serve grape juice at the Lord’s Supper. So do mostCalvinistic Presbyterian churches. Yet the Scottish Presbyterian tradition always acceptedthe non-liturgical consumption of intoxicating liquor, such as Scotch.

4. Robert Teachout, Wine: The Biblical Imperative: Total Abstinence (Columbia, SouthCarolina: Richbarry, 1983), p. 66.

1388

The tithe of national celebration allowed families to spend moneyon liquor – liquor that was stronger than table wine. This was God’smoney, yet it was legitimately used to become slightly intoxicated, i.e.,to make merry. The priestly tribe was to join in the festivities.3 Thiswas not grape juice. It was good, old-fashioned, buzz-producingbooze, and God wanted His people to experience its pleasures. Butfundamentalist pietists hate liquor so much they refuse to acknowl-edge the clear teaching of the Bible. Their all-consuming hatred ofliquor clouds their understanding as surely as the all-consuming loveof liquor clouds the understanding of alcoholics.

This obvious etymological usage has been denied by dispensationalfundamentalist Robert Teachout in his Dallas Theological SeminaryTh.D. dissertation, as well as in his 1983 book. He insists that shaykarcan mean “drink deeply” rather than “become drunk.” Contextdetermines which way to translate it, he insists. The Hebrew lexiconsare therefore wrong. “The idea of drunkenness so often associatedwith both the noun and the verb is dependent upon the context (andthe beverage that is imbibed), then, and is not the innate meaning ofthe word, despite the simplistic rendering of Hebrew lexicons.”Therefore, Deuteronomy 14:26 means “satisfying grape juice.”4

While he is not so open as to admit what he really means – thisreference is brief – here is what he means: when the Bible says not todrink strong drink (e.g., Proverbs 31:4: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel,it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink”), the

Appendix G

1389

word means alcohol. But when it says that strong drink may beconsumed (e.g., Proverbs 31:6: “Give strong drink unto him that isready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts”), itmeans grape juice. Fundamentalists write as though they actuallybelieve that grape juice creates a merry heart, which indicates thedegree of experience fundamentalists have with merry hearts. (Try toimagine a party where a room full of fundamentalists are working ontheir third punch bowl of grape juice. “Whoopee! Yippee! Halleluia!”)In short, we are asked to believe that the standard Hebrew lexiconsare wrong, Strong’s Concordance is wrong, but Teachout is correct:what Deuteronomy 14:26 authorized was the consumption of abeverage that was not technologically possible to transport over longdistances without fermenting. Fundamentalists ask us to believe thatunfermented grape juice was common in a society that had neverheard of pasteurization. My conclusion: false theological presuppo-sitions can distort one’s perception of reality as surely as excessiveconsumption of strong drink can.

Fundamentalism and Phariseeism

It is typical of modern fundamentalism that drunkenness is singledout as a sin, but gluttony is rarely mentioned. In the concordance tothe Scofield Reference Bible (1909), there is no entry for “glutton.”There are three for drunkenness: “drunk,” “drunkard,” and “drunken-ness.” Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:21 passage are both citedunder “drunkard.” The fundamentalist insists that any consumption of

Strong Drink

5. Typical of this outlook are these books: William Patton, D.D., Bible Wines: Or, theLaws of Fermentation and the Wines of the Ancients (Ft. Worth, Texas: Star Bible Publi-cations, 1871); Dr. Jack Van Impe, Alcohol: The Beloved Enemy (Nashville, Tennessee:Nelson, 1980); David Wilkerson, Sipping Saints (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Revell, 1978).

6. Dirk Johnson, “Temperance Union Still Going,” New York Times (Sept. 14, 1989).

1390

alcohol is a sin.5 Yet he does not offer any comparable accusationagainst fattening foods. Modern sugar beet products, which becamecommon only two generations prior to Dr. Welch’s “unfermentedwine,” are never equally the target of fundamentalist moral concern,if they are mentioned at all. The bloated stomachs and posteriors offundamentalists are not causes for tongue-wagging; falling-downdrunkenness is. Fundamentalists single out one sin and ignore theother. We are still waiting for a fundamentalist tract on the sin ofgluttony. Tracts and books on the sin of liquor have been commonsince the 1870’s. The thesis of such tracts regarding pasteurized winewas not believable prior to Dr. Welch.

The Women’s Christian Temperance Movement (WCTU) –temperance being defined by its members as total abstinence – wasbegun in 1874 in Chautauqua, New York, not far from Dr. Welch’svineyard. It was an early feminist organization. Fundamentalists joinedit in large numbers. It still exists. The New York Times described it in1989 as follows: “The group’s philosophy is simple: What you can’tdrink can’t hurt you. It has an axiom, too. ‘We build a fence at the topof the cliff, so you don’t need an ambulance at the bottom.’”6 Thisanalogy of the protective fence was adopted by the Pharisees twomillennia ago to describe the purpose of the oral law, which hadbecome the Babylonian Talmud by A.D. 500. Judaism’s oral law wasa system of supplementary laws which placed outer boundaries – man-made interpretations – around the Mosaic law. Writes GeorgeHorowitz: “Rabbinical enactments were prohibitions called gezerot(decrees) and regulations of a positive character called takkanot

Appendix G

7. Horowitz, The Spirit of Jewish Law (New York: Central Book Co., 1973), p. 94.

8. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd ed. (Nacogdoches, Texas: Cov-enant Media Foundation, [1977] 2002), ch. 3.

9. Former Dallas Seminary professor S. Lewis Johnson publicly rejected the Ten Com-mandments as the heart of legalism. Legalism for him meant the Ten Commandments. Heapprovingly quoted fundamentalist Presbyterian pastor Donald Gray Barnhouse, whoargued that “It was a tragic hour when the Reformation wrote the Ten Commandments intotheir creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to Jewishlaw, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations or for the church.” S. LewisJohnson, “The Paralysis of Legalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, (April/June 1963), p. 109.

1391

(ordinances). With respect to gezerot one of the maxims of the Menof the Great Assembly was: ‘Make a fence for the Torah’ (Avot 1,1)i.e.: Protect the laws by a hedge of prohibitions more stringent thanthe letter. A warrant for this was found in Lev. 18, 30 interpreted as‘Make an injunction additional to my injunction’ (Mo‘ed Katon 5a;sifra, Ahare f. 86d, ed. Weiss; II Dor 247. The explicit prohibition ofDeut. 4,2: ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, norshall ye take aught from it’ was easily got over by reliance upon Deut.17, 8–11, quoted above, where implicit confidence in the courts ofeach generation and obedience to them are prescribed. Thus,paradoxical as it may seem the Rabbis believed that it was their rightand duty to make changes in the Biblical law if imperatively required,while maintaining, nevertheless, that the commands of the Torah wereunchangeable and might not be added to or diminished.”7 It was thispost-exilic system of interpretation that Jesus challenged with Hisphrase: “You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you. . . .”8

Fundamentalist legalism is notorious. Rejecting the Mosaic law,sometimes even including the Ten Commandments,9 the fundamen-talist hastens to construct non-biblical fences and hedges around othermen’s Bible-authorized pastimes. Fundamentalists act as though theyregard themselves as holier than God. So did the Pharisees.

Strong Drink

1392

Conclusion

There is no general prohibition against the use of intoxicatingdrinks in the Bible, except for kings (Prov. 31:4). There are no moreGod-anointed kings today. That office ceased with the Old Covenant.(So did the offices of priest and prophet.)

The Mosaic law authorized the consumption of wine and evenstronger drink at the national festivals. Critics of alcohol logicallymust argue that the New Testament has imposed a more rigorousstandard on God’s people. What was part of the national covenant’snational festival in Mosaic Israel has somehow become a sin today: theconsumption of alcohol. There are no longer any mandatory nationalfeasts. This, the critics might argue – indeed, they must argue – hasnot only removed God’s authorization of alcohol; it has substituted aprohibition. To argue this way is to argue that the resurrected Jesushas removed a blessing from His people, a blessing that He graciouslyshared with others at the wedding feast at Cana. The problem is, thereis no textual support for such a theological position. There is evenevidence to the contrary. Paul wrote: “Drink no longer water, but usea little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities” (I Tim.5:23). I would add “legalism” to this list of infirmities.

This passage makes it clear that strong drink is a blessing when itis under God’s authority and man’s emotional control. There are leg-itimate times and places for the consumption of intoxicating bever-ages. Most important, wine in the Lord’s Supper is required by God.Dr. Welch was wrong – morally and theologically – to call into ques-tion the use of wine in communion. So are his spiritual heirs.

1. T. Robert Ingram, The World Under God’s Law: Criminal Aspects of the WelfareState (Houston, Texas: St. Thomas Press, 1962), p. 3. Cf. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutesof Biblical Law (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1973), p. 5.

2. See Chapter 22, footnote #8, for details about this organization.

1393

Appendix H

WEAK REED: THE POLITICS OF COMPROMISE

And they met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way, as they cameforth from Pharaoh: And they said unto them, The LORD look uponyou, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred inthe eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a swordin their hand to slay us (Ex. 5:20–21).

Politically conservative American Christians prefer affluent bond-age under free market humanism rather than searching for a Bible-based alternative, for they recognize where the answer will lead: eitherto their belated acceptance of Christian theocracy or their belatedpublic acceptance of the legitimacy of some other form of theocracy.Christians want to believe that they can avoid theocracy. They can’t.Theocracy (theos = God; kratos = rule) is an inescapable concept. Itis never a question of theocracy vs. no theocracy. It is a question ofwhose god rules. That which a society believes is its source of law isits operational god.1

Christians do not want to admit this fact of political life, either tothe public or to themselves. It embarrasses them. Typical are the viewsof Dr. Ralph Reed, an articulate, political technician who, beginningin his late twenties, built Pat Robertson’s political trainingorganization, the Christian Coalition.2 Robertson is the son of aUnited States Senator, a multimillionaire television personality, and a

Weak Reed: The Politics of Compromise

3. Vice President George Bush, Sr., won the nomination and the election.

4. Enron went bankrupt in January, 2002, which at the time was the largest bankruptcyin American history. A few months later, WorldCom’s bankruptcy dwarfed it. Reed waspaid $10,000 to $20,000 a month from 1997 through 2001. Robert Scheer, “A WalkThrough the Valley of Greed,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 29, 2002).

5. Ralph Reed, After the Revolution: How the Christian Coalition is Impacting America(Dallas: Word, 1996), p. 200. For future reference, gold was at $350/ounce in this period.

1394

former ordained Baptist minister with Pentecostal leanings. He ran forthe Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United Statesin 1988. No one has ever won that high office without first havingbeen elected to a lower political office or else having served as ageneral in the army. Naturally, he lost.3 He devoted the next dozenyears to building up a non-partisan, grass roots political trainingorganization, which Reed ran for him until 1997, when he resigned tobecome an independent political consultant and a highly paid part-timepolitical consultant for the now-infamous and bankrupt EnronCorporation.4

For Reed, politics is a profession. For the sake of partisan Repub-lican Party politics, he walked away from considerable influence in thenational media, which he enjoyed solely because he ran a non-partisannational political organization that in 1994 had over a million peoplein its computerized data base, which generated donations of $20million a year5 – in short, a major political force.

Before he decided that running individual political campaigns fora living was a far better use of his time than shaping and articulatingthe political agenda of millions of American evangelicals – a con-clusion I wholeheartedly agree with, given his views of what consti-tutes legitimate political compromise – he wrote Active Faith (1996).It was published by the Free Press, a secular international bookpublisher owned by the huge Simon & Schuster publishing company.

Appendix H

6. Ralph Reed, Active Faith: How Christians Are Changing the Soul of AmericanPolitics (New York: Free Press, 1996), p. 261.

1395

He received that book contract because at the time he possessed agreat deal of national influence. A year after its publication, he posses-sed almost none. I bought the book in a used book store in Sep-tember, 1997, for half price.

Clinton, Yes; Rushdoony, No

In that book, Reed specifically attacked Christian Reconstruction.He did so within the context of his defense of President Bill Clinton:“I oppose President Clinton’s policies. But I do not despise him. Nordo I despise Mrs. Clinton, who has come under a blizzard of attacksin recent times. If Bill Clinton is a sinner, then he is no worse or lessthan you or me.”6

In 1996, the media’s reporting on Clinton’s continuing sexualscandals had long since been suppressed by senior editors. The Mon-ica Lewinsky scandal was two years away, a scandal that led to hisimpeachment by the House of Representatives, though not his convic-tion by the Senate. Had any pastor in the Christian Right done to ayoung female aide what Clinton did to Miss Lewinsky, his careerwould have ended, and the liberal media would have had a feast on hisremains. Clinton lied to the public about the affair, admitting the truthonly when her semen-stained dress revealed that it was his semen. Butthe dominant liberal media treated Clinton’s critics as naive andpolitically motivated defenders of a long-dead sexual morality whichhas no role to play in politics. The voting public generally agreed withthe media on this issue, which was indicative of the moral debaucheryof the late twentieth century. The public also ignored Clinton’s


7. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html

1396

bombing of a harmless aspirin factory in Sudan on August 20, 1998,7

the same day that Monica Lewinsky testified to the grand jury for thesecond time.

President Clinton’s public sins were a great deal worse than thoseof Mr. Reed’s targeted readership: politically conservative Christians,who were hostile to Clinton. Reed was self-consciously making astatement by his defense of Clinton. Reed’s statement placed him inthe camp of the loyal opposition. This is where a day-to-day politicaloperative always has to be. He expects equal loyalty from his oppo-nents if his candidate wins. Problem: for a Christian political leader tobecome a member of the loyal opposition in an era of moral crisis,when Christians have at long last begun to become politically active,is to betray the future on behalf of the present. He offers tinkeringwith peripheral issues at a time when shaping the future requires aprincipled break with the present order. Political operatives exchangeinfluence in the future for influence in the present. They are paid to dothis. Their creed is: “Business almost as usual.”

Dr. Reed did what he was paid to do: keep the deck chairs of theTitanic neatly arranged in a joint effort with Mr. Clinton’s supporters.Dr. Reed is today the Chairman of the Republican Party of the stateof Georgia. He gives no indication that he believes that the Americanship of state is sinking. He remains optimistic. He is wrong. It is surelysinking. Above all, it is sinking morally. It is therefore only a matterof time before it sinks visibly, just as the Soviet Union sank, overnight,in August of 1991. In the 1980’s, the West’s leading politicians bet onthe success of Gorbachev’s reforms and his political survival. Theylost this bet. Dr. Reed is making a similar bet regarding the future ofAmerican politics.

Christian Reconstructionists are on the other side of this bet.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html

Appendix H

8. Reed, Active Faith, p. 261.

1397

Almost no one else is – surely not in the Christian community. We areon the other side because of our conviction that God will continue toextend His visible kingdom in history, which includes politics. Godsays of the power of every covenant-breaking social order, contraryto political operatives in every generation: “I will overturn, overturn,overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is;and I will give it him” (Ezek 21:27). This idea appalls Dr. Reed.

Dr. Reed wrote in 1996: “Some of the harshest criticisms of Clin-ton have come from the ‘Christian nation’ or Reconstructionist com-munity, which argues that the purpose of Christian political involve-ment should be to legislate biblical law. Some of the more unyieldingelements even advocate legislating the ancient Jewish law laid out inthe Old Testament: stoning adulterers, executing homosexuals, evenmandating dietary laws.”8 Unyielding elements? Unyielding to what?To President Clinton? Most of the Reconstructionist authors I knowignored both the man and his wife. We are not all that interested inpolitics. I have written far more in criticism of George Bush, Sr.’sNew World Order rhetoric than I have written about Bill Clinton.Both Rushdoony and I publicly opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq in1991. It is also worth noting that I do not remember seeing Mr. Reedtake on Mr. Bush’s New World Order rhetoric in print, although thismay be because I have not spent much time reading things written byMr. Reed. Life is too short.

I am aware of no Christian Reconstructionist who believes that theState should enforce the Mosaic dietary laws. Rushdoony personallyadhered to the dietary laws, and he has written, possibly, up to a totalof three whole pages on this topic, scattered among his thousands ofpages of books and articles. He never called for the State to enforcethem. Dr. Reed may or may not understand this. Either he has misun-


9. Ibid., pp. 261–62.

1398

derstood Rushdoony’s position on the dietary laws, or else he iscynically misrepresenting it. In either case, he has called his ownwould-be scholarship into question.

Faking It Academically

Next, he misinformed his readers about Reconstructionism’s escha-tology. He described it as premillennial. Here, he moved from merelymisleading rhetoric to good, old fashioned ignorance of the positionof those whom he criticized. He hasn’t a clue that he is dealing withpostmillennialists – something that, by this stage, I should imagine thateveryone else who knows anything about Reconstructionismunderstands. “Led by R. J. Rushdoony, a theologian who serves as theintellectual fountainhead of the movement, they believe that theprimary objective of Christian activism should be to perfect society sothat it is ready when Christ returns for His millennial reign.”9 On thecontrary, we teach that the progressively righteous society is themillennial kingdom made visible in history. Christ reigns in historythrough His people, not in person. This is the traditional postmillennialargument – nothing unique here – but Dr. Reed is oblivious to it. Yethe speaks as if he were a master of Reconstruction’s literature.

By now, I suppose that I should be used to this treatment. Ourcritics are legion. In most cases, they are not scholars. They do notknow how to debate in public. They do not have the training or theinclination to engage in scholarly debate. But Ralph Reed earned aPh.D. in history at an academically rigorous institution, Emory Uni-versity, one of the most liberal universities in the United States. Hadhe handed in an equally unsupported critique of some liberal figure or

Appendix H

1399

movement to one of his liberal professors, he would have received anF. “Don’t submit your right-wing fundamentalist tirades in my class,sir. This term paper is not scholarship; this is character assassination,and shoddy scholarship at that.” Obviously, Dr. Reed did not do thiswhen his liberal professors were grading him. He survived. But onceout from under their control, he has reverted to form. He is a politicaloperative with footnotes – although not enough of them. His mainprofessional concern is neither theology nor truth; it is politics.

The basic rule of scholarship is that you must understand youropponent’s position and be able to summarize it accurately before youattack it. The humanists are way ahead of most Christians in mattersacademic. Christians too often ignore the rules of honest criticism.This leaves them vulnerable to rebuttals such as this one. They windup looking like dolts, with or without Ph.D.’s. While we Recon-structionists are often highly critical of other intellectual positions, noone has ever accused us of not providing the footnotes that prove thatour targeted victims have written exactly what we say they havewritten. Dr. Reed has abandoned both his humanist training and theninth commandment here. He offers not a single footnote in his attackon Christian Reconstruction. He does not understand our position, yethe writes authoritatively as though he has mastered it. He dismisses itwithout understanding it, except for its current political liabilities,which he does not mention. For sincere but uninformed Christians tofollow a man who conducts himself in public in this manner would bea blot on the church. Christ deserves better.

“Moses Was a Tyrant”

Dr. Reed is shocked – shocked! – at Christian Reconstructionism’shostile attitude toward taxpayer-funded education. “Many reject


10. Ibid., p. 262.

11. Idem.

1400

school choice and efforts to reform public education as short-sightedand self-defeating. Instead, they call for the eventual elimination ofpublic schools.”10 He has that right. Oppose the public schools?Oppose the idea that education can never be religiously neutral? Cansuch things be? Dr. Reed can see clearly where this is leading: totyranny. Christian Reconstruction promotes the tyranny of parents’control over their own children’s education through direct parentalcontrol over its funding. He might well have added that we alsopromote the same negative view of State-funded retirement programsand State-funded medicine. Dr. Reed understood exactly what thismeant in the late 1990’s: lost elections. And so, he wrote, “Recon-structionism is an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basiccivil liberties of a free society.”11 Yes, it does: it threatens the civilliberty to steal from other citizens by means of the ballot box, whichis modern politics’ most cherished principle.

Let us be quite clear about his position. Dr. Reed is arguing that theGod of the Old Testament laid down as mandatory an authoritariansystem of civil laws which “threatens the most basic civil liberties ofa free society.” He is not saying that Christian Reconstructionists havemisinterpreted Old Testament law. On the contrary, he is saying thatwe have promoted, as he so delicately puts it, “the ancient Jewish lawlaid out in the Old Testament.” Because of our deviant judicialpractice in this regard, he insists, the pro-family movement “mustunequivocally dissociate itself from Reconstructionism and otherefforts to use the government to impose biblical law through politicalaction. It must firmly and openly exclude the triumphant and author-itarian elements from the new theology of Christian political involve-

Appendix H

12. Idem.

13. http://www.gagop.org/AboutReed.asp

1401

ment.”12 Triumphant politics. Imagine that! Christian Reconstructionists

actually believe that the purpose of political action is – you won’tbelieve this – victory! They believe that civil laws cannot be religiouslyneutral, and that – you won’t believe this, either – religious neutralityis a myth. They believe, fantastic as it seems, that when Jesus said,“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not withme scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30), He was including civil law andlawyers.

Please do not imagine that I am contemptuous of Dr. Reed. Thatwould be like being contemptuous of an unhousebroken St. Bernardpuppy that has just relieved itself on the living room carpet. Thepuppy did not know what else to do when nature called. Nature calledthe puppy in the same way that natural law theory called Dr. Reed,and the results are analogous. Dr. Reed does not know any better: hehas a Ph.D. from Emory University. The average carpet owner knowsenough to clean up puppy’s pile, but only after rubbing the puppy’snose in it, so that he will not do it again. That is what I am doing herewith Dr. Reed.

Actually, Dr. Reed has done my educational work for me. He usedPat Robertson’s Christian Coalition to persuade millions of Americanevangelicals to get involved in politics. He indirectly trained millionsof them. His organization’s Web site announces, “As executivedirector of the Christian Coalition in the 1990’s, he built one of themost effective grassroots organizations in modern American politics.During his tenure, the organization’s budget grew from $200,000 to$27 million, and its support base grew from two thousand to twomillion members and supporters in thousands of local chapters.”13

http://www.gagop.org/AboutReed.asp


14. Appendix F.

1402

These troops or their spiritual heirs at some point will be ready fortheologically principled action. The day will come when Dr. Reed’s“loyal oppositionist” views will be abandoned as naive, deeply com-promised, and no longer relevant. Christian activists will be compelledby the crisis to ask themselves: “If not biblical law, then what?” In theearly 1990’s, Dr. Reed softened up the evangelicals for ChristianReconstructionism, just as Dr. Ron Sider softened them up in the late1970’s.14

I have devoted this much space to Dr. Reed, not because his viewsof Christian Reconstruction ever amounted to anything important, butbecause his kind of “big tent” Christian political compromise cannotbe sustained in a time of major crisis. Such compromise is appropriateas a temporary tactic – never as a permanent principle – only in timesof Christian cultural impotence and early institution-building. Butthere are always Christian leaders like Dr. Reed in every era, men whoseek to justify a temporary tactic as a desirable permanent condition.They are given access to the public arena by humanists, who controlthe media and who want Christians to remain contented with sittingin the back of humanism’s bus, though paying full fare. This is whyDr. Reed’s website can proclaim: “He is the best-selling author andeditor of three books, and his columns have appeared in the NewYork Times and the Wall Street Journal.”

No doubt Dr. Reed still thinks that all it will take to please God inthe political realm is a national Christian political campaign based onthe slogan, “Back to religious neutrality: Equal time for Satan!” Nomore of that Old Testament stuff. God was all wrong back then. Godused to be the promoter of “an authoritarian ideology that threatensthe most basic civil liberties of a free society,” but no longer. God haschanged His mind. He has come to his senses. Dr. Reed and his

Appendix H

1403

political peers applaud God. God now has their full approval. This nodoubt is a great comfort to God.

We have seen all this before. The religious authorities in Jerusalemwere part of the loyal opposition. Jesus had been disloyal. The Estab-lishment crucified Him for His disloyalty. He had told them plainly,“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken fromyou, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt.21:43). But it took the Jerusalem church from the stoning of Stephenuntil Nero’s persecutions in A.D. 64 to break with the Jewish politicalEstablishment. The Christians finally left Jerusalem permanentlyshortly after Nero’s death in A.D. 68, or so church tradition says.Then, in A.D. 70, the Jewish political Establishment fell to paganRome’s Establishment. Rome’s army destroyed Jerusalem. Neveragain would the church be in loyal opposition to the Jewish politicalEstablishment. That Establishment was gone.

Conclusion

Christians are supposed to understand their times. We have limitedresources. We cannot fight every battle. We must select our battlesaccordingly. To regard political tinkering and the working out ofmarginal political compromises as a legitimate substitute for propheticconfrontation at a turning point in history is a great mistake. This isthe mistake of substituting the peripheral concerns of the fleetingpresent for the future of God’s kingdom in history. I pray that you willnot make this mistake.

If this be triumphalism, make the best of it.

1. Kenneth L. Gentry, The Greatness of the Great Commission (Tyler, Texas: Institutefor Christian Economics, 1990).

2. The term was coined by F. N. Lee.

1404

Appendix I

ESCHATOLOGY, LAW, AND PIETISM

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given untome in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I havecommanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end ofthe world. Amen (Matt. 28:18–20).

The Great Commission was comprehensive: all power, heaven andearth, all nations, all things. Nothing was left out.1 There is no zone ofneutrality in the world. Nothing is excluded from the redemptivepower of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am aware of no Bible-affirmingChristian theologian who has gone into print to argue that the GreatCommission excludes any area of life. It would be difficult to makesuch an argument. It would be even more difficult to defend it.

The debate over Christian eschatology is ultimately a debate overwhether God has decreed that the Great Commission will be fulfilledin history. Premillennialists and amillennialists deny that it can befulfilled by today’s Christian church. This is why I call these peoplepessimillennialists.2 Most premillennialists argue that it will be ful-filled by force after Christ returns bodily to set up His earthly king-dom. But they also insist that Christians cannot fulfill the GreatCommission by using the gifts that God has provided to the churchduring the period of Christ’s bodily absence. Postmillennialists aloneaffirm that the Great Commission will become a cultural reality in a

Appendix I

3. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nded. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997).

1405

world in which Christ is absent bodily, yet ruling through His peopleand their covenantal institutions.3

If the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled, then this puts Chris-tians in a grim position: as cultural outsiders forever looking in, asworkers whose work will never come to the degree of fruition com-manded by Christ, as men without the tools of dominion, as peoplefrustrated by a God-given assignment that God Himself has decreedeschatologically cannot come to fruition. Yet the vast majority ofChristians believe that the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled. Thechurch, with only the exceptions of the Puritans and Scottish Calvin-ists, has always believed this.

Those Christians who insist that the Great Commission will neverbe fulfilled in history invariably have in mind a preferred practicalalternative to an eschatologically impossible world in which the thingsthat Christ has commanded are obeyed by the vast majority ofmankind. They owe it to themselves and also to their followers to setforth plainly and in print their preferred practical alternative. Theyshould then call their followers to support the establishment of thispreferred alternative, while at the same time reminding them to worksacrificially and without compromise to proclaim and extend the GreatCommission, which unfortunately can never come to fruition inhistory. They should forthrightly teach their followers to themselvesthis question: “If not ‘all those things’ that Christ has commanded,then what?” But they do not want to put it this way. This is becausethe question sounds very much like a moral compromise, a quest forsecond-best in a world in which Christ has commanded comprehensiveobedience. It sounds too much like this question: “What other socialsystem is a legitimate practical substitute for that which Christ has

Eschatology, Law, and Pietism

4. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew, 2ndelectronic edition (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 2003),ch. 29.

1406

commanded?” The answer to this second question is obvious: none.They perceive this, so they do not ask this question in public. But thevarious answers to this privately asked question necessarily shape theirthinking, which in turn shapes their social agendas – usually hiddenagendas. There is no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me;and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30).4

Therefore, the question regarding a practical and acceptable substitutefor the Christendom of the Great Commission cannot be legitimatelyevaded. Neither can an answer.

There has been a continuing search by Christians for a long-termcultural compromise. Christian theologians implicitly and sometimesexplicitly ask themselves the following questions: (1) If Christianitycannot be triumphant in history, then what should Christians settle foras being second-best to what God has commanded? (2) Which anti-Christian culture, law-order, and worldview can and should Christianslearn to live with in their lifelong quest for survival in a world at warwith the God of the Bible?

These are ultimately eschatologically driven questions. They arethis question: “Is there some way, other than cultural victory forChrist’s gospel, in which the following passage can be avoided in mylifetime?”

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be nottroubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: andthere shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diversplaces. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliveryou up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all

Appendix I

5. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft.Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).

6. Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism Is Paralyzed (Tyler, Texas: Insti-tute for Christian Economics, 1993).

7. April 12, 1988; cited by Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction, p.185. The debate was Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice vs. Gary North and Gary DeMar.

1407

nations for my name’s sake (Matt. 24:6–9).

The eschatological preterist argues that the fulfillment of thisprophecy took place at the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in A.D. 70.5 Hedoes not believe that this prophecy is hanging over the church. Butnon-preterist amillennialists worry about it, which means most amil-lennialists. So do post-tribulation premillennialists. Pre-tribulationpremillennialists (dispensationalists) find solace only in their belief thatChrist will rapture the church out of history before this horrendousevent takes place. But dispensationalism’s rapture fever6 produces aview of the church’s role in history that is always one of culturallydefensive compromise with the prevailing anti-Christian civilization.As dispensationalist theologian Thomas D. Ice has put it,“Premillennialists have always been involved in the present world.And, basically, they have picked up on the ethical positions of theircontemporaries.”7

Theology is a package deal. The Christian who asks the rhetoricalquestion, “Is eschatology so important that it must divide Christians?”has no understanding of the integrated nature of theology.

Theology and Eschatology

The most important theological issue is theology proper: the doc-


8. On the five points of covenant theology, see Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper:Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992).

9. R. J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Coun-cils of the Early Church (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1968] 1978), chaps. 2, 3.

10. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradi-tion (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983).

1408

trine of God. He who gets this doctrine wrong will suffer eternal nega-tive sanctions. The early church fought long and hard to establishorthodoxy in this area of theology. It is here, and only here, that thechurch has come to an agreement: Trinitarianism. Regarding the otherfour covenantal issues – hierarchy, law, sacraments, and eschatology– there has been constant disagreement.

Eschatology is the fifth point of Christian theology: (1) God, (2)man, (3) ethics, (4) sanctions, (5) eschatology.8 It is also chronolo-gically the fifth great theological debate in the history of the Westernchurch. The first was theology proper. This debate was settled in thefourth century.9 The solution was the doctrine of the Trinity. None ofthe rest of the five debates has been settled. The second debate wasover hierarchy: church vs. church (the East-West split came in 1054)and church vs. state (the conflict between Pope Gregory VII andEmperor Henry IV in 1076). The third debate was over law. Thisdebate began in the Western church in the eleventh century: canon lawvs. a revived secular Roman law.10 Scholasticism soon appeared: thephilosophical attempt to reconcile these two legal and philosophicalsystems. The attempt failed. The Reformation was fought mainly overpoint four: sanctions. The Reformation was a culture-transformingand culture-splitting public debate over the role of Papal indulgences(the issue of the sanction of purgatory), the number and meaning of

Appendix I

11. Covenantalism is implied by Calvin’s rejection of Roman Catholicism’s realism(real presence) and also Anabaptism’s nominalism (remembrance). But his invocation of”mystery” did not solve the problem.

12. William E. Blackstone.

13. Aristotle, Physics, VIII.

1409

the sacraments (realism vs. nominalism),11 the judicially bindingcharacter of vows of celibacy made by the clergy and nuns, and thejudicially binding character of excommunication by the RomanChurch. Finally, in the late 1800’s, eschatology became the fifth majordivisive issue in Protestantism. This debate began in earnest with thesuccess in the United States of Jesus Is Coming (1878), written byW.E.B.,12 and the advent of prophecy conferences.

Christian theology is theocentric. Theology proper is the founda-tion of the other four doctrines. Get theology proper wrong, and youwill get the other four wrong by identifying the wrong god as sover-eign. This is why the Book of Genesis is the most important book inthe Pentateuch. Genesis describes the origin of the universe andpresents the Creator-creature distinction. The debate over origins hasbeen the fundamental debate between Christianity and paganism fromthe beginning. Evolutionism has been around a long time. So has thedoctrine of the eternality of matter.13 In our day, the evolution-creation debate has dwarfed all others as the chief theological battle-field of the church. More intellectual ground has been surrenderedfaster by Christianity since the advent of Darwinism than ever beforein the history of the church. Even Islam’s invasion of the West and itscomplete conquest of North Africa, 622–711, was a minor affaircompared to the surrender of the modern church to a peculiar hybridof Darwinism and theism: theistic evolution. Darwinists regard theis-tic evolution as ludicrous, but the idea gives psychological comfort toChristians who have adopted an evolutionary time scale. The church


14. The one major exception: the Church of Christ (Campbellite).

15. This phrase was popularized in the 1950’s by radio preacher J. Vernon McGee.

1410

has preferred to baptize evolutionism rather than resist it.The debate over eschatology has become a major dividing line

within the Protestant church ever since the 1870’s, about the time ofDarwinism’s extension into all academic fields. The comprehensiveand rapid triumph of Darwinism in both the academic world and thepolitical world has been parallelled by the triumph of dispensationalismin the Arminian, pietistic Protestant world.14 Darwinism has conqueredthe thinking of humanists. At the same time, dispensationalism hasprovided fundamentalist Christians with both a theological explanationand a justification for their surrender of cultural territory to theDarwinists. That which Christianity has surrendered to the humanistshas been identified by pietists in general and dispensationalists inparticular as either beyond the redemptive power of the gospel duringthis dispensation or else inherently part of Satan’s kingdom. Thetypical American fundamentalist’s pre-1976 assessment, “politics isdirty,” is more of a description of politics in general than politicsmerely in this temporary dispensation. The same negative assessmentapplies to culture in general. We are confidently assured: “There is nosuch thing as Christian [politics, economics, psychology, etc.]” Thisis accompanied by a corollary: “The Bible isn’t a blueprint for[politics, economics, psychology, etc.].” Judicially, “we’re undergrace, not law.” Above all: “You don’t polish brass on a sinkingship.”15 This statement of faith is eschatological.

Nevertheless, we are also assured of the opposite. “The Bible hasanswers for every question.” “There is no neutrality.” “Jesus calls mento surrender to Him totally.” “The redemptive power of the gospelheals all sin.” That these assertions are in complete opposition to theprevious ones is not recognized by most fundamentalists.

Appendix I

16. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1989), pp. 334–55.

17. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), ch. 2.

18. F. N. Lee, Communist Eschatology (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig, 1974).

1411

Eschatology is part of the covenant: point five. The church can getthe last four points incorrect and still persevere in history, but itcannot inherit in history until it gets correct all five points and theirapplications. The progressive cultural disinheritance of the church,which has accelerated since the publication of Darwin’s Origin ofSpecies (1859), began long before Darwin. It began no later than1700: the rise of the Newtonian Enlightenment.16 But modern evolu-tionism offers the most coherent theological system in the history ofthe war between belief and unbelief: from its doctrine of impersonalcreation (the Big Bang) to its doctrine of the impersonal last judgment(the heat death of the universe).17

Rival theologies have always confronted Christianity. These rivaltheologies have always occupied territory within the church and itsallied academic agencies. So have rival eschatologies. Communismsurely offered a rival eschatology.18 Today, as in 622, so does Islam.

Pessimillennialism vs. Deliverance in History

Amillennialism and premillennialism deny that Christianity cancreate a culture in history. Amillennialists say this can never happen.Premillennialists say it will not happen until Jesus appears with Hisangels to set up an international Christian bureaucracy.


19. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 1.

1412

Amillennialism

To relegate formal eschatology to the final judgment and the post-resurrection world, which amillennialism does, is a fundamental errorthat has culturally debilitating consequences. It means surrenderingcivilization to covenant-breakers as a consequence of eschatological,prophetic inevitability. No one has put it more clearly than amillennial-ist theologian David Engelsma. He is the senior theologian of the tinyProtestant Reformed Church, which split from the Christian ReformedChurch in 1923 over the issue of common grace, which the PRC saysdoes not exist.19 As you read this diatribe, think “carnal = fallen men;spiritual = persecuted Christians.” Engelsma writes:

Carnal dominion is earthly victory. It is victory according to thethinking of man. It consists of numbers – the conversion of a majorityof humans; of physical force – a Christian police force and army; ofcontrol of culture – godly television, radio, and newspapers; ofdeliverance from worldly cares and natural miseries – the virtualeradication of poverty, sickness, and war; and of material prosperity– jobs, money, houses, and long life. This is the dominion of Christ that is proclaimed by postmillennial-ism, especially by Christian Reconstruction. This is supposed to be thevictory of Christ in history, the flourishing of the Messianic kingdom. It is a carnal dominion. The victory heralded by Reformed amillennialism is spiritual. It isreal victory. It is real victory here and now. But it is victory accordingto the thinking of God. It is contrary to human standards of victory,including that of Christian Reconstructionism, foolishness. No one cansee this victory, just as no eye can see the kingdom that is establishedby this victory. The victory and kingdom of Christ can be known only

Appendix I

20. David J. Engelsma, Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillen-nialism (Redlands, California: Reformed Witness, 2001), p. 123.

1413

by faith. The true victory of Christ in history is His saving of the elect churchfrom sin. It is His empowering that church to confess His name. It isHis preservation of the church in holiness unto life eternal. To thissaving of the church belongs Christ’s institution of true churches thatpreach the gospel purely, administer the sacraments properly, andexercise Christian discipline rightly.20

To put it as bluntly and as graphically as I can, amillennialism’sarchetypal victory in a progressively sinful civilization is the victory ofa handful of Christians who are locked in their cells at night in aconcentration camp, and who are worked like slaves during theirwaking hours. God’s victory is demonstrated by never allowing all ofthe concentration camps to snuff out weekly worship services. Godshows Christians victorious grace by persuading the camp’s wardento let them meet once a week in the camp’s latrine area, and to takethe Lord’s Supper once a month.

For the amillennialist, victory in history is manifested best by theexistence of the Barbed Wire Reformed Church. For the amillen-nialist, the enduring authoritative example of God’s victory in historyis Israel in Egypt, after the Pharaoh of the persecution but beforeMoses arrived to put the nation into conflict with the Pharaoh of theexodus. None of that deliverance stuff! All talk of deliverance onlygets good people into trouble with the lawful authorities. Such talk iscarnal. This was the message of the shackled rulers of Israel to Mosesand Aaron.

And they met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way, as they cameforth from Pharaoh: And they said unto them, The LORD look upon


21. Ibid., p. 125.

1414

you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in theeyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in theirhand to slay us (Ex. 5:20–21).

If you doubt me, consider Engelsma’s warning. “To mock thisspiritual victory of Christ is unbelief. To be dissatisfied with it isingratitude.”21 Like the elders of Israel in Egypt, Engelsma calls toaccount anyone who dares to call attention to the obvious fact thatslavery is not liberty and servitude is not victory.

Engelsma is a consistent amillennialist. He is also a consistentpietist. The pietist adamantly rejects any suggestion of the legitimacyand desirability of Christianity’s cultural dominance in history. This isa form of neoplatonism. The pessimillennialist adds to this a sigh ofrelief: God has predestined this lack of influence. Failure is guaranteedeschatologically. The less cultural influence, the better spiritually, saysthe pietist.

Engelsma is forthright: earthly success, he defines as carnal, i.e.,either evil or at least spiritually immature. But there is an exegeticaldilemma facing Engelsma, one which he conveniently ignores. Pauluses “carnal” pejoratively with respect to sin. He uses “spiritual”positively with respect to God’s law. “For we know that the law isspiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14). Moses taughtexplicitly that corporate obedience to Bible-revealed law guaranteesthe external dominion in history by God’s covenant people. It is notthe law and its promises regarding history that are carnal, Paul taught;rather, it is the sinful condition of men who do not obey God’s law.Engelsma tries his rhetorical best to tar and feather biblical law and itscultural promises with Paul’s language of carnality. But Paul arguedthe other way: the spirituality of God’s law. Such is the fate of

Appendix I

22. R. J. Rushdoony, The Flight from Humanity: A Study of the Effect of Neoplatonismon Christianity (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1973), p. 6.

1415

amillennialists who are also pietists. They do not think covenantally.Engelsma’s theology borders on neoplatonism, as all pietism does:

a contemptuous dismissal of matter as manifested in culture. Rush-doony has defined neoplatonism as follows:

For Greek thought, two substances existed; on the one hand areideas, mind, or spirit, the world of forms, and on the other hand is theworld of matter, of particulars against universals, of the many asagainst the one. Since each was an independent substance, there wasno effective and necessary link between the world of mind and theworld of matter, and, as a result, the two tended to fall apart as philos-ophy pursued the logic of each starting point. Neoplatonism developed in Alexandria and spread throughout theancient world. Basic to neoplatonism was the emphasis on mind orideas as the true or more important substance, so that the superiorman, discerning the irrelevance and/or illusory nature of the materialworld, concentrated on the things of the mind or spirit.22

The pietist dismisses both cultural creativity and cultural dominionas material, for both are confined to history, which is ultimately irrel-evant except as the brief period of time available for each person’sregeneration. The ideal of cultural dominion is said to be carnal. TheChristian neoplatonist dismisses any claim that Christianity can orshould create its own defining culture, even though he readily admitsthat every other religion creates its own defining culture. Therefore,he views the war between Christianity and all rival religions as a warin which Christians will at best be allowed by God to live in one oranother pagan culture. God supposedly has predestined this outcome.Christianity will not transform culture. It will barely be able to pre-


1416

serve a defensive ghetto culture in the Gulag. The culture war is there-fore not worth fighting. “Pull up the drawbridge!”

The main differences between amillennialism and postmillennialismcenter around the degree to which history will visibly manifest thejudicial inheritance which Jesus Christ obtained through His death andresurrection, and which He announced to His disciples in Matthew28:18. Will His legal title to all things, which was granted to Him byGod the Father after the resurrection, progressively manifest itselfculturally in the work of Christians in building up the kingdom of Godon earth and in history?

Because of confusion on this point, let me clarify: the New Cov-enant kingdom of God was established definitively in history by Jesusprior to His death and resurrection. “But if I cast out devils by theSpirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matt.12:28). Title to the earth was transferred to Him by God after theresurrection. Jesus transferred title to the church, His bride, no laterthan Pentecost (Acts 2). Thus, the New Covenant kingdom of Godbegan before title was transferred. The church lawfully invokes itslegal title, but this title is reclaimed from Satan progressively, throughChristian reconstruction, i.e., working out our faith with fear andtrembling (Phil. 2:12), in every area of life – matching Christ’stransferred title to everything – through service to others: “But Jesuscalled them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which areaccounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; andtheir great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not beamong you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be yourminister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servantof all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but tominister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42–45).The dominion covenant is progressively achieved by Christians inhistory on a culture-wide basis by means of the church’s division of

Appendix I

23. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, hisfaith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of theman, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are theywhose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Rom. 4:5–7). See John Murray,Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1955).

24. Gary North, Hierarchy and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Timothy(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 2003), ch. 9.

1417

labor (Rom. 12; I Cor. 12), which I have discussed in my commen-taries on these two Pauline epistles: Cooperation and Dominion andJudgment and Dominion.

The postmillennialist argues as follows: that which was judiciallydefinitive in history at the resurrection will be extended progressivelyin history to the entire culture. This process is analogous to Jesus’sin-free final and perfect sanctification, which is judicially transferredto believers definitively at the time of their redemption,23 but whichthey must work out in history.24 God gave Abraham legal title to thePromised Land, but actual possession had to wait four generations(Gen. 15:16). What Abraham received definitively by promise wasachieved by his circumcised heirs, although they subsequentlysurrendered geographically for a time (the exile) and then covenantallyin Christ’s day (Matt. 21:43). Eschatologically, Old Covenant Israelmoved steadily toward apostasy and defeat in history, beginning withthe incomplete conquest of Canaan.

The amillennialist argues the opposite: that which was judiciallydefinitive in history at the resurrection will not be extended prog-ressively in history to the entire culture. Not only is there is nopositive correlation between (1) Christ’s definitive title to ownershipof the world and (2) the church’s extension of the kingdom of God inhistory to culture, there is a negative correlation. Satan’s theft ofculture through Adam will never be overcome in history. That whichwas definitive in Christ’s resurrection from the dead and His lawful


25. Thomas D. Ice, “Preface,” final paragraph, in H. Wayne House and Ice, DominionTheology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah, 1988). For a brief critique,see North, Rapture Fever, p. 136.

1418

reclaiming of the inheritance will never have a widespread effect inhistory. There must be a growing historical gap between Christ’sdefinitive inheritance of the earth at the resurrection and His finalinheritance of the earth at the final judgment. In between, Satan andhis disciples retain control and even increase their control.

Is the church also moving progressively toward final defeat, thoughnot complete apostasy? I ask: Why should the church be defeated inhistory? I know why Israel was defeated. Israel was defeated becauseIsrael apostatized completely. No conservative Trinitarian theologianargues that the entire church will apostatize completely, yet mostChristian theologians believe that the church will be defeatedculturally. The cultural history of the church will supposedly be foundon that last day to have recapitulated the cultural history of OldCovenant Israel. So teach amillennialism and premillennialism.

Premillennialism

There is another variation of the same pietistic error: dispensationalpremillennialism. This view of eschatology consigns the fulfillment ofOld Testament’s prophecies of universal victory for the kingdom ofGod to the post-Church Age era. Only after Christ bodily returnsvictoriously, along with his angels (and, in some popular versions,with resurrected saints),25 which dispensationalism asserts, will it bepossible to establish Christian culture. Premillennialists refuse todescribe this future culture.

Dispensationalism is as pietistic and therefore as neoplatonic asamillennialism is. It has equally culturally debilitating consequences.

Appendix I

26. ”If the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the promises of the future madeto Abraham and David are to be literally fulfilled, then there must be a future period, themillennium, in which they can be fulfilled, for the Church is not now fulfilling them in anyliteral sense.” Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press,1965), p. 158. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 147.

27. Lewis, Prophecy 2000 (Green Forest, Arkansas: New Leaf Press, 1990), p. 277.

28. North, Rapture Fever.

1419

Dispensationalism teaches explicitly that no Old Testament prophecyhas been literally fulfilled or can be literally fulfilled by the Church inthis, the so-called Church Age (the “Great Parenthesis”).26 For now,the church must resign itself to minority status and cultural impotence.Dispensational author David Allen Lewis has offered this reason forrejecting Christian Reconstruction: such views will upset thehumanists, who will inevitably become more powerful. “. . . as thesecular, humanistic, demonically-dominated world system becomesmore and more aware that the Dominionists and Reconstructionistsare a real political threat, they will sponsor more and more concertedefforts to destroy the Evangelical church. Unnecessary persecutioncould be stirred up.”27

My assessment of dispensationalism as equally neoplatonic as amil-lennialism also applies to generic premillennialism’s insistence on thechurch’s inevitably declining cultural influence in the pre-millennialera, in which the church supposedly must experience prior to Christ’seschatologically discontinuous return with His angels to establish Hisnew headquarters on earth, rather than remain seated at the right handof God in heaven. The church will fall into persecution in historyunless it is raptured out of history.28

Then how is the New Covenant church any better protected fromevil than the Old Covenant church was? Israel fell away repeatedly.How is it that the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of


1420

Jesus Christ leaves His church no better equipped for victory?

Christ’s Ascension and Social Theory

This raises a very embarrassing question: Is the post-ascensionchurch always in the same eschatological condition as pre-ascensionIsrael?

The amillennialist seeks to evade this question, but when pressed,his answer is yes. He believes, but refuses to say in public, that thebodily ascension of Jesus Christ in history and the sending of the HolySpirit in history are insufficient to empower the church in history tobreak out of its sad pathway to visible cultural defeat. Amillennialistshave an implicit but unstated conclusion with regard to the doctrineof the bodily ascension of Christ: the cultural power of sin is greaterin history than the cultural power of redemption. They relegate theprophesied victory of the church in history to the realm of personalvictory over sin, while affirming the church’s inevitable visible defeat.The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ took place in history, but forall the good it does the church culturally, it might as well never havehappened. The ascension’s impact is internal and individual, notexternal and cultural, insists the amillennialist.

Theological liberals have been far more consistent in their view ofthe resurrection and ascension: they have relegated both historicalevents to the realm of the spirit. To them, the bodily ascension ofChrist is a phrase testifying to the spiritual optimism of the earlychurch, not a visible, verifiable historical event. Amillennialists believethe same thing regarding the promised victory of the church in history.When the Bible repeatedly predicts that covenant-keepers will inheritthe earth in history, the amillennialist says, “Spiritual, not literal!”

Postmillennialists believe that Christ’s bodily ascension to heavenand the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost empowered the church

Appendix I

29. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for ChristianEconomics, 1990), pp. 227-29.

30. No theological or eschatological school denies that there can be prolonged set-backsin this manifestation of Christ’s rule. Conversely, none would totally deny progress. I knowof no one who would argue, for example, that the creeds of the church prior to the fourthcentury were more rigorous or more accurate theologically than those which came later.

31. This is why amillennialism drifts so easily into Barthianism: the history of mankindfor the amillennialist has no visible connection with the ascension of Jesus Christ. Progres-sive sanctification in this view is limited to the personal and ecclesiastical; it is nevercultural or civic. The ascension of Christ has no transforming implications for society inamillennial theology. The ascension was both historical and publicly visible; itsimplications supposedly are not. The Barthian is simply more consistent than theamillennialist: he denies the historicity of both Jesus’ ascension and His subsequent grace

1421

in history to recapture lost territory in every realm of life. Amillennial-ists believe that such reconquest cannot take place in history; thechurch will surrender territory, should it ever actually recapture it. Thechurch’s cultural inheritance supposedly will go the way of the Mosaicland inheritance. Christ’s ascension plays no role in amillennial socialtheory. Here is what I wrote in the conclusion of Chapter 6 inLeviticus.

There is remarkably little discussion of the ascension of Christ inmodern orthodox theology.29 This topic inevitably raises fundamentalhistorical, cosmological, and cultural implications that modern pre-millennial and especially amillennial theologians find difficult toaccept, such as the progressive manifestation of Christ’s rule inhistory through His representatives: Christians.30 In a world in whichgrace is believed to be progressively devoured by nature, there is littleroom for historical applications of the doctrine of the historicalascension. Covenantal postmillennialism alone can confidently discussthe doctrine of Christ’s ascension, for postmillennialism does not seekto confine the effects of Christ’s ascension to the realms of the internaland the trans-historical.31 That is to say, postmillen


to society. Christ’s ascension, like His grace, is relegated to the trans-historical. See North,Millennialism and Social Theory, pp. 111–13.

32. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, chaps. 12, 13.

1422

nialism does not assert the existence of supposedly inevitable boun-daries around the effects of grace in history. On the contrary, it assertsthat all such boundaries will be progressively overcome in history,until on judgment day the very gates (boundaries) of hell will not beable to stand against the church (Matt. 16:18).32

Both amillennialism and premillennialism teach the inevitable disin-heritance of the church in history and the illegitimacy of the ideal ofChristendom as applying to civilization prior to the bodily return ofChrist. Eschatology shapes social theory.

Covenantal Social Theory

Covenantal representation – point two of the biblical covenantmodel – is not merely contemporary; it is also historical and eschat-ological. For all mankind, it is historical representation in the past:Adam’s Fall. For Old Covenant Israel, it was also eschatologicalrepresentation in the future: Christ’s bodily resurrection and bodilyascension to the right hand of God. New Covenant eschatologicalrepresentation is based on the fact that there will inevitably be acultural victory for the church in history because of Christ’s bodilydeath, resurrection, and ascension, all of which were historical events.Christ’s judicially representative victory in history is the covenantalfoundation of the kingdom’s triumph in history. Paul was adamant onthis point: Christ’s resurrection from the dead is the church’s guaran-tee of victory in history.

Appendix I

33. Gary North, Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Corin-thians, electronic edition (West Fork, Arkansas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2001),ch. 16.

1423

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits ofthem that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also theresurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shallall be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ thefirstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then comeththe end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even theFather; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority andpower. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under hisfeet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath putall things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put underhim, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things underhim. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Sonalso himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, thatGod may be all in all (I Cor. 15:20–28).33

Christ’s bodily resurrection was the visible evidence of God’stransfer of earthly power to Christ in history. “And Jesus came andspake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and inearth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in thename of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teachingthem to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo,I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt.28:18–20). Next, His bodily ascension was the visible evidence of Histransfer of judicial authority to the church. “But ye shall receivepower, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall bewitnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and inSamaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he hadspoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloudreceived him out of their sight” (Acts 1:8–9). The angels told the wit-


34. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, pp. 227–35.

35. Ibid., pp. 256–57.

1424

nesses not to stand around gazing into heaven. “Ye men of Galilee,why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is takenup from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seenhim go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

The historicity of Christ’s bodily ascension makes this event cru-cial for biblical social theory. Neither premillennialism nor amillen-nialism has a developed theology of the ascension. The amillennialsystem implicitly denies the relevance of this doctrine for socialtheory.34 The premillennial system in practice concentrates on standingaround and gazing upward in expectation of Christ’s imminentreturn.35 Both viewpoints reject the possibility of developing an ex-plicitly biblical social theory – i.e., a social theory without any com-promise with natural law – because both viewpoints ignore the impli-cations of Christ’s ascension for church history. Neither systemacknowledges the five-point aspect of Christ’s covenantal incarnationin history: (1) transcendence/immanence (both God and perfect manin one person with two natures); (2) hierarchy/representation (thedivine office of Son in the economical Trinity and the human office ofsecond Adam); (3) ethics/dominion (Christ’s perfect fulfillment of thelaw); (4) oath/sanctions (death and bodily resurrection); (5) succes-sion/inheritance (bodily ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit).Pessimillennial systems have substituted a doctrine of Satanicinheritance in church history for the doctrine of Christendom. This isa reversal of what Jesus taught: the meek will inherit the earth.

Covenant-keeping men’s confidence in God’s transforming workin history wanes when they no longer see evidence of God’s predic-table sanctions in history, an historical and psychological fact to whichtwentieth-century Christianity testified eloquently. This loss of percep-

Appendix I

36. Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia: Presbyterian &Reformed, 1954).

37. North, Millennialism and Social Theory, ch. 4.

38. Ibid., chaps. 7, 8.

1425

tion is not a valid excuse for abandoning hope regarding the future,for God’s word testifies to the victory of God’s visible kingdom inhistory.36 Nevertheless, Christians lose confidence easily, includingtheologians; they cannot live indefinitely with contradictions betweenwhat they say they believe and what they see – “cognitivedissonance,” as scholars call it. Theologians have re-written kingdomeschatology because they could no longer persuade themselves thatwhat they and their peers see all around them testified to the pre-dictability of God’s corporate sanctions as described in the Old Testa-ment. Premillennialism is an eschatology of predictable sanctions –both personal and corporate – that must be deferred until Jesus returnsto earth in total power to impose them in person. Amillennialism is aneschatology of predictable, long-run, negative historical sanctionsagainst God’s people and His kingdom. So is premillennialism untilsuch time as Christ returns in person to impose sanctions through agigantic, international, top-down bureaucracy staffed by Christians.37

But predictable, corporate, historical sanctions are an inescapable con-cept. It is never a question of “predictable, corporate, historicalsanctions vs. no predictable, corporate, historical sanctions”; it isalways a question of what kind of predictable, corporate, historicalsanctions.38 It is ultimately a question of whose law-order governs theimposition of such historical sanctions. It is a debate over who rulesin history, Christ or antiChrist.

Almost from the beginning, the church substituted rival eschatolog-ies that were based on an ethically perverse system of predictable,


39. Ibid., chaps. 5, 11.

40. A good example is Cornelius Van Til. For a detailed analysis of Van Til’s views onpoints three through five, see North, Political Polytheism, ch. 3.

1426

corporate, historical sanctions during the church age. These pes-simillennial eschatologies teach that God will impose negativesanctions in history against covenant-keepers, and positive sanctionsfor covenant-breakers.39 This is consistent with the church’s opposi-tion to biblical law and especially its sanctions.

Christian theologians have publicly rejected God’s revealed law andits mandated civil sanctions, and they have also rejected the biblicaldoctrine of predictable historical blessings for men’s corporateobedience and cursings for their disobedience. They have substitutedother laws – “natural” laws – and other systems of predictable corp-orate sanctions, such as those imposed by a supposedly ethically neu-tral and culturally autonomous free market or those drawn up by acommittee of central planners. In short, they have abandoned biblicallaw, biblical sanctions, and biblical eschatology. They have vaguelyunderstood that these three covenantal doctrines are a coherent,unbreakable unit – points three, four, and five of the biblical covenantmodel – and so they have consistently abandoned all three.40

Pietism’s Social Theory

A representative example of pietism is Peter Toon’s book, TheAscension of Our Lord (1984). The book was originally a series oflectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, the world’s leading dispen-sational seminary. Books on the ascension are rare, so this one affordsus an opportunity to see how the doctrine is understood in the evan-gelical Protestant community.

Appendix I

41. Peter Toon, The Ascension of Our Lord (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), p. 45.

42. Ibid., p. 46.

1427

There is nothing in this book on the relationship between Christ’sascension and the extension of the kingdom of God as biblical civ-ilization. There are chapters on Jesus the King, Jesus the Priest, andJesus the Prophet. We might expect something on social theory in thechapter on Jesus the king. What we get is pure pietism: Jesus the suf-fering servant. Jesus does not reign so much as He suffers. This isbecause Jesus and His body, the church, are separated in history. Theywill remain separated until the end of the age.41

Not only is Christ separated from His body, the church, and there-fore must remain unfulfilled until the end of the age, says Toon, Christactually suffers. His ascension has not overcome His suffering. Toonwrites:

Furthermore, there is a sense in which Christ, in relation to his body,is imperfect. Paul told the Colossian church: “I now rejoice in mysufferings for you and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in theafflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church”(1:24). There were no deficiencies in the personal sufferings of JesusChrist and there was no lack of worth in his sufferings. However, inand through his body, Christ still suffers, must suffer, and will sufferbefore the consummation of the work of God in this body (cf. 2 Cor.12:9). Yet, as he suffers in and through his body, he also brings succorto those who are suffering; we have a High Priest who is touched withthe feeling of our infirmities and tribulations (Heb. 4:15).42

To call this argument bizarre is saying too little. Hebrews 4:15teaches that Jesus suffered in history. “For we have not an high priestwhich cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was


1428

in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus suffereddefinitively in history, as Toon says. He suffered all there was to sufferin principle. But this does not deny the progressive suffering in historyby His covenantal representatives. Jesus was also definitively perfectin history. This does not deny that His people work out Christ’sjudicially imputed moral perfection in history. “Wherefore, mybeloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, butnow much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fearand trembling” (Phil 2:12). This is progressive sanctification.Colossians 3 deals with progressive suffering. Neither passage hasanything to do with Christ’s supposedly shared condition in heaven.

How could Toon make such a blatant theological error, i.e., theidea of Christ’s suffering in heaven along with His earthly church?Because his presentation in this book is completely colored by hispietism. Rather than discuss the Holy Spirit’s empowering of Chris-tians for kingdom-extending service, he calls attention to the succor-ing of Christians by Christ. Christ’s kingship is not manifested byChristianity’s visible dominion in history, but rather by Christ’s invis-ible succoring of besieged Christians in history. There is not one wordin the book on either cultural dominion or the kingdom of God mani-fested in institutions other than the church. There is nothing onempowerment for cultural rule. Rather than empowering His covenantpeople to rule in His name, the ascended Christ is content to succorthem in their permanent historical defeat. This is pure, 24-karatpietism. And, like 24-karat gold, it bends and can be flattened.

Toon cites the Westminster Larger Catechism (1647). He cites itselectively: Answer 45. He ignores Answer 54:

Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father, with allfulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth;and doth gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies;

Appendix I

43. Idem.

44. Ibid., p. 47.

45. Idem.

46. Ibid., p, 48.

1429

furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and makethintercession for them.

Note that this passage refers to history, i.e., the church militant:“furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and makethintercession for them.” Christ’s subduing of His enemies therefore hasto take place in history, not only at the last judgment. Note also thatthere is no mention of suffering. On the contrary, the text proclaims“all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven andearth.”

Toon ignores this passage for good reason. He is engaged in areinterpretation of the Larger Catechism to make it conform with pes-simillennial pietism. This is not an easy task, for the document wasproduced by theocrats, many of whom were postmillennial, as Answer191 indicates. Toon confines his discussion to the institutional church.He also confines his discussion to the psychology of individualChristians. He relegates all victory to the end of the world. Here ishow he interprets Answer 45. (The italicized sentences are from theLarger Catechism. My responses are inside parentheses.) He calls outa people to himself. This means that Christ sends evangelists.43 (Sofar, so good.) He gives them officers, laws, and censures. This refersexclusively to the institutional church.44 (No problem yet.) He bestowssaving grace on the elect. This refers exclusively to the institutionalchurch.45 He rewards their obedience. “This reward will be given inheaven, but its exact nature is not disclosed in the New Testament.”46


47. Idem.

48. Idem.

49. Ibid., p. 49.

1430

He corrects them for their sins.47 (No problem here.) He preservesand supports them under all circumstances. (Big problem here. Doesthis mean that He brings them external victory in history? No, saysToon. This support is strictly psychological.) “Yet Christ the Kingorders their circumstances and inwardly helps them by his Spirit sothat they are able to stand firm in faith and joyfully confess his namein word and deed.”48 Christ restrains and overcomes all our enemies.(But when? Only at the final judgment, says Toon.) “Before his returnto earth, Jesus the Lord and King restrains the evil power of Satan andhis hosts, so that what they can achieve is limited. When he appearsin glory to judge the living and the dead he will overcome all hisenemies and they will be judged and punished.”49

His pietism colors everything in the book. He says that Satan andhis host possess limited authority. There is nothing unique about thisobservation. Every Christian admits this. But he neglects to say expli-citly what this admission means for a pietist. The pietist affirms thatSatan presently rules the affairs of this world: culture, politics, educa-tion, etc. But, at the final judgment, Christ will overcome Satan by Hisdivine, bodily intervention. This overcoming is supposedly notrepresentative for Christ through His church in history. This over-coming is also not a process; rather, it comes only at the end of theprocess, i.e., at the end of history. In stark contrast to his view ofChrist’s non-dominion in history, the pietist believes that culturaldominion is judicially representative for Satan. Satan rules historythrough his covenant people. He does not rule from a throne in someearthly location. The pietist insists that neither Satan nor his host will

Appendix I

50. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), Appendix C: ”ComprehensiveRedemption: A Theology for Social Action.”

1431

be overcome by Christ’s representatives in church history. Therefore,the pietist insists, what works for Satan until the end of time –representative dominion through covenantal agents – cannot workfor Christ. Anyway, he would insist this if he had ever thought aboutthis aspect of his theology, which he hasn’t. But what did Jesus sayabout the church? This: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it(Matt. 16:18).

Toon does not refer to the future millennial kingdom, when Jesussupposedly will rule on earth in person. I have never read any premil-lennialist author who attempts to relate the theology of ascension,meaning Christ’s cosmic rulership from on high, with the Great Com-mission’s call for comprehensive redemption.50 We hear nothing aboutHis rulership on earth and in history through His covenantalrepresentatives. Yet pietism’s theologians are quite willing to affirmthat Satan’s representatives in history do rule in his name, despite hisphysical absence. These theologians refuse to consider this same rep-resentative arrangement with respect to Christians. They openlyaffirm that Satan’s representatives have achieved cultural dominion inhistory, despite their lord’s physical absence, yet they categoricallyreject Christian cultural dominion as being impossible for Spirit-empowered Christians in the post-ascension era.

Then what has Christ’s bodily ascension accomplished for thekingdom of God in history, according to pietists? Not dominion,surely. Not a comprehensive civilization. Not even a comprehensivetheory of civilization. The pietist rejects the Middle Ages, when Chris-tianity was culturally influential, as “triumphalism,” theocratic, andtyrannical. He is happy that the church makes no such claims today.Better to live under the rule of covenant-breakers. Better to suffer.


51. Ibid., p. 147.

1432

In an appendix, Toon writes: “Third, the Ascension means that heis, and will be, the conqueror and judge of the enemies of God.”51 Thisview of Christ’s conquest incorporates two of the three traditionalexplanations of Christ’s work of redemption (“buying back”):definitive and final. But something is missing: progressive. This isalways missing in amillennialism, and it is always missing in premil-lennialism’s view of the pre-millennial era of the church. Neithereschatological system has a doctrine of church history that relatesChrist’s definitive and final sanctification. That is, there is no temporalconnection between definitive sanctification and final sanctification.There is also no corporate sanctification. Yet for the bride of Christto be presented pure and undefiled to the Bridegroom at the end ofhistory, there has to be progressive corporate sanctification in history.Amillennialists and premillennialists reject such a notion. So dopietists.

The chief theological problem with this omission is that Christ’sresurrection and ascension were historical. The proof of Christ’sdefinitive conquest over both sin and Satan were His resurrection (ICor. 15) and His ascension (Eph. 4:8–10). Paul appeals to the doc-trine of Christ’s ascension to make his case for the church’s corporateprogressive sanctification in history. “For the perfecting of the saints,for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Tillwe all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonof God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of thefulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13). Amillennialism and premillennialismplace in history Christ’s definitive perfection and dominion. Theyplace His final dominion at the end of history. Then what of Christ’sprogressive dominion? For pessimillennialism, there is none for thechurch, only for Satan’s kingdom. Satan achieves this representatively

Appendix I

52. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew, 2ndelectronic edition (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 2003),ch. 29.

1433

through the disinherited sons of Adam. Christ does not achieve thisrepresentatively through His adopted sons.

This is why amillennialism and premillennialism are asymmetrictheologies. Their theology of covenantal representation applies toSatan and his kingdom, but not to Christ and His kingdom. Both ofthese eschatologies affirm that Satan rules representatively, exercisingdominion in history through his disciples, whereas Christ, havingachieved definitive victory in history over Satan through His resur-rection, suffers post-ascension historical defeat representativelythrough his ever-besieged church. Christ can achieve cultural victoryonly by ruling in person, whereas Satan has achieved cultural victorywithout ruling in person. For the amillennialist and the premillennialist,cultural dominion in church history is a contest whose rules are riggedin favor of Satan: “Heads, Satan wins; tails, Christ loses.” What worksfor Satan fails for Christ: representative rule. Yet Jesus taught that thetwo kingdoms are so similar that the wheat and the tares must coexistside by side until the end of time (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43).52

By restricting Christ’s kingship to the institutional church – Christthe Priest – and by involving Him in the suffering of his people –again, Christ the Priest – and by confining His rulership to the finaljudgment, Toon has stripped Jesus the King of His reign, His king-dom, and His cultural authority in history. All pietists do this, butToon is more self-conscious than most.

Toon is not ignorant. He is familiar with Anglo-American churchhistory and historical theology. He knows that the many of the Puri-tans and Scottish Presbyterians were postmillennialists. Although hedoes not mention any of his books on Puritanism in the list of pub-lished books that appears in his book on the ascension, he is the


1434

author of Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel (1970).It is a book on postmillennialism.

Toon has self-consciously replaced the concept of the Great Com-mission, which governs everything under heaven, with pietism’s worldof suffering redeemed sinners who cling to each other inside besiegedlocal churches, and who pray for the return of Christ with His angelsto overcome their culturally dominant and increasingly antagonisticcovenantal enemies. Toon has no concept of Jesus as the king ofculture because he rejects any concept of the kingdom of God asmanifesting itself outside the institutional church (and perhaps theChristian family – he doesn’t say). The implication of his theology ofthe ascension is that the ascension has produced a world in whichChristianity possesses less cultural authority in history than OldTestament Israel lawfully possessed.

Toon has an eschatological agenda: to promote cultural retreat asGod’s holy way of living. He ends his book by citing Colossians3:1–5.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection onthings above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your lifeis hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear,then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore yourmembers which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness,inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which isidolatry.

Toon says that this passage should govern our thoughts in thepresent world. Why this passage? Why not the Great Commission?Because Christianity is inevitably losing the cultural and intellectualwar. “As the process of secularization continues, and as the successof modern science and technology condition us to be merely this-

Appendix I

53. Ibid., p. 109.

1435

worldly in our thinking, we need to follow the advice which Paul haveto the church of Colossae.”53 In short, secularism should not beresisted by the Christians’ development of a comprehensive counter-culture based on the Bible. No, it is to be resisted only by righteousindividual living. By citing this particular Pauline passage, he offers anagenda for dominion that boils down to this: just stop fornicating.This, for Toon, constitutes the essence of the visible cultural mani-festation of the kingdom of God in history, the most that we canlegitimately expect in history from the Great Commission. This, orsomething like it, is the conclusion of all forms of pessimillennialism.

This is pietism’s worldview. It leads to legalism. And then, inChristians’ legitimate reaction to legalism, it can lead to an illegitimatelicentiousness. Both positions are antinomian with respect to God’sBible-revealed law, Old and New Testaments.

The theological answer to pietism’s permanent dualism of legalismand licentiousness is covenant theology, which has what pietism doesnot: a doctrine of the kingdom of God as a civilization, not just a listof prohibited individual sins.

The Location of Kingdom Headquarters

The eschatological issue of headquarters should not be ignored.God’s headquarters are in heaven. “And when he had opened the fifthseal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for theword of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they criedwith a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thounot judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”(Rev. 6:9–10). Man’s headquarters are on earth.


1436

Heaven does not come down to earth in history. Jesus did – once.After His ascension, His place of judgment is at the right hand of God,where He makes intercession on behalf of His people (Rom. 8: 34).The throne of grace is not on earth or in history. So, headquarterscannot be on earth or in history. This is equally true of Satan’s king-dom, which premillennialists believe. Satan exercises dominion inhistory from beyond history. But Jesus doesn’t, they teach.

The premillennialist associates Christ’s dominion in history onlywith His bodily presence, not with His reign from on high. His reignfrom on high produces only cultural defeat in history for His repres-entatives, both amillennialism and premillennialism teach. They do notrelate Peter’s words regarding Christ’s location in heaven to Hisparallel dominion in history: “Who is gone into heaven, and is on theright hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being madesubject unto him” (I Pet. 3:22).

Paul described our battles in history as battles against these super-natural powers. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, butagainst principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the dark-ness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph.6:12). These are the supernatural powers that Christ, through Hisbodily resurrection, definitively defeated. “And you, being dead inyour sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickenedtogether with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out thehandwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary tous, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And havingspoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly,triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2:13–15). Despite this, pessimil-lennialism teaches that these Satanic powers, which were definitivelydefeated by Christ in his resurrection, cannot be progressivelydefeated in history by Christ’s pincer movement: power from Hisheavenly throne and power from His earthly church.

Appendix I

54. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1987), ch. 3.

55. While this is almost universally believed by dispensationalists, the movement’stheologians have rarely mentioned it.

1437

Eden was to serve Adam as his headquarters in the conquest of theworld: the dominion covenant.54 Adam was forcibly removed fromheadquarters after his rebellion. Headquarters for Noah was the ark,but only for a few months. After that, geography played no role untilAbram was called out of Ur of the Chaldees. Ur could not serve asheadquarters for Abraham; no place else could, either. Abraham wan-dered. After him, Israel wandered. Geographical headquarters was re-established only with Israel’s conquest of Canaan. But the same threatexisted for Israel as had existed for Adam, as Deuteronomy constantlywarns: removal from headquarters. This happened at the time of thefirst exile, and then culminated with the removal of geographicalheadquarters with the fall of Jerusalem.

Dispensational premillennialists assume that headquarters will bereestablished in Jerusalem by Jesus when He returns to set up Hisearthly kingdom.55 Historic premillennialists remain silent regardingthe place of earthly headquarters during the premillennial kingdom.Amillennialists and postmillennialists insist that kingdom headquartersin history has been transferred to heaven. Postmillennialists teach thatthis transfer will have visible cultural results in history: the progressivedefeat of Satan’s kingdom. Amillennialists also teach that this transferwill have visible cultural results in history: the progressive victory ofSatan’s kingdom.

With the transfer of God’s kingdom to the replacement nation ofthe church (Matt. 21:43; 28:18–20), earthly headquarters no longerexist, even as an ideal. This has been a major transformation by theNew Covenant. The church is decentralized. There are no biblically


1438

mandated international festivals. There are no international head-quarters. While the Roman Catholic Church likes to think that it occu-pies international headquarters in the Vatican, as manifested by thePope’s authority, this faith was definitively shattered by its inability toenforce sanctions against the Eastern Church in 1054 and then againstLuther after 1517. The Vatican after 1965 did not enforce effectivediscipline on the visible army of heretics who filled the church’sseminaries, let alone the army of homosexuals who filled its pulpits. Itsofficial proclamation of cultural authority may not be as devoid ofvisible evidence as Engelsma’s standard of Christian cultural victoryis, but it is close, and with respect to the sexual preferences of itsordained ministers, it is in even worse shape.

Conclusion

The law of God teaches that covenant-keeping will produce dom-inion in history for God’s covenant people (Deut. 28:1–14). The issueof biblical law (point three) is tied to the issue of sanctions (pointfour) in history and therefore to eschatology (point five). This is whytheonomy is necessarily postmillennial. This is a package deal. Biblicallaw’s system of sanctions unbreakably connects point three and pointfive.

The attack on biblical law is an attack on point four: the law’s sanc-tions, above all, civil sanctions. It is also an attack on point five:cultural dominion by covenant-keepers in history. This is why amil-lennialism and premillennialism are inherently pietistic. They denigrateChristianity’s victory in history because they denigrate God’s law.They denigrate God’s law because they deny the law’s historicalsanctions, which produce cultural dominance for God’s people.Denying this eschatological outcome, they must dismiss God’s Bible-

Appendix I

1439

revealed law and its mandated civil sanctions as Old Testamentintrusions into the history of the covenant. This dismissal deliversthem into the hands of one or another system of anti-biblical law,which means anti-biblical ethics.

1440

Appendix J

CATEGORIES OF THE MOSAIC LAW

This appendix appeared originally in the Conclusion to my book,Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (1994), pages 637–45. I havehere retained the footnote references in that chapter. All of these lawsare found in Leviticus, but they provide opportunities for Bible com-mentators and Christian ethicists to search for fundamental principlesof interpretation for dealing with the Mosaic ordinances.

I. Land Laws and Seed Laws

Land laws and seed laws were laws associated with God’s coven-antal promises to Abraham regarding his offspring (Gen. 15–17).There was a chronological boundary subsequently placed on the seedlaws: Jacob’s prophecy and promise. “The sceptre shall not departfrom Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Gen. 49:10). AfterShiloh came, Jacob said, the scepter would depart from Judah. Theunified concept of scepter and lawgiver pointed to the civil covenant:physical sanctions and law. Jacob prophesied that the lawful enforce-ment of the civil covenant would eventually pass to another ruler:Shiloh, the Messiah.

The Levitical land laws were tied covenantally to the Abrahamicpromise regarding a place of residence for the Israelites (Gen. 15:13–16). These land laws were also tied to the Abrahamic promise of theseed. “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egyptunto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18). The mark ofthose included under the boundaries of these seed laws was the

Appendix J

1. Infant baptism is not a confirmation of covenantal inheritance through biologicalinclusion but rather its opposite: the confirmation of covenantal inheritance throughadoption, i.e., adoption into the family of God, His church. The one who baptizes is anagent of the church, not an agent of the family. This was true under the Abrahamiccovenant, too: the male head of the household circumcised the males born into thathousehold, but as an agent of the priesthood.

1441

covenantal sign of circumcision (Gen. 17:9–14). Circumcision estab-lished a personal covenantal boundary. There were also family andtribal boundaries tied to the laws of inheritance. The ultimate inher-itance law was above all a land law: the jubilee law (Lev. 25).

The fall of Jerusalem and the abolition of the temple’s sacrificesforever ended the Mosaic Passover. The five sacrifices of Leviticus1–7 also ended forever. There can be no question about the annulmentof the inheritance laws by A.D. 70. But with this annulment of theinheritance laws also came the annulment of the seed laws. Once theMessiah came, there was no further need to separate Judah from hisbrothers. Once the temple was destroyed, there was no further needto separate Levi from his brothers. There was also no further need toseparate the sons of Aaron (priests) from the sons of Levi (Levites).Therefore, the most important Mosaic family distinction within asingle tribe – the Aaronic priesthood – was annulled: the ultimaterepresentative case. The tribal and family boundaries of the Abra-hamic covenant ceased to operate after A.D. 70. This annulled theMosaic law’s applications of the Abrahamic covenant’s land and seedlaws. The land and seed laws were aspects of a single administration:the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant – based exclusively andforthrightly on the covenantal concept of adoption1 – replaced theMosaic Covenant.

By dividing the Mosaic law into land laws, seed laws, priestly laws,and cross-boundary laws, we can assess which laws are still bindingin the New Covenant, and which are not.

Categories of the Mosaic Law

2. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute forChristian Economics, 1994), ch. 9. See also Gary North, Boundaries and Dominion: TheEconomics of Leviticus, electronic edition (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,1994).

3. Ibid., ch. 10.

4. Ibid., ch. 21.

5. Ibid., ch. 24.

1442

Land Laws

Biblical quarantine (Lev. 13:45–46). This law dealt with a uniquedisease that came upon men as a judgment. Only when a priestcrossed the household boundary of a diseased house did everythingwithin its walls become unclean. This quarantine law ended when thisjudicial disease ended when the Mosaic priesthood ended.2

Promised land as a covenantal agent (Lev. 18:24–29). The land nolonger functions as a covenantal agent. That temporary office wasoperational only after the Israelites crossed into Canaan. That officewas tied to the presence of the sanctuary.3

The laws of clean and unclean beasts (Lev. 20:22–26). This wasa land law, for it was associated with the land’s office as the agent ofsanctions. These laws marked off Israel as a separate nation. This istrue of the dietary laws generally, which is why God annulled them ina vision to Peter just before he was told to visit the house of Cornelius(Acts 10).4

The national sabbatical year of rest for the land (Lev. 25:1–7).This was an aspect of the jubilee year. The law was part of God’soriginal grant of leaseholds at the time of the conquest. There is noagency of enforcement today. There has been no national grant ofland.5

Appendix J

6. Ibid., ch. 25.

7. James Jordan, “Jubilee (3),” Biblical Chronology, V (April 1993), [p. 2].

8. North, Leviticus, ch. 26.

9. Ibid., ch. 27.

10. Ibid., ch. 28.

1443

The jubilee law (Lev. 25:8–13). This law applied only to nationalIsrael. It was a law uniquely associated with Israel’s conquest ofCanaan. It was in part a land law and in part a seed law: inheritanceand citizenship. It was more judicial – citizenship – than economic.The annulment of the jubilee law was announced by Jesus at thebeginning of his ministry (Luke 4:17–19). This prophecy was fulfilledat the final jubilee year of national Israel.6 This probably took place inthe year that Paul’s ministry to the gentiles began, two years after thecrucifixion.7

The jubilee law prohibiting oppression centered around thepossibility that the priests and magistrates might not enforce the jubi-lee law (Lev. 25:14–17). Thus, those who trusted the courts whenleasing land would be oppressed by those who knew the courts werecorrupt.8

The jubilee year was to be preceded by a miraculous year bringinga triple crop (Lev. 25:18–22). This designates the jubilee year law asa land law with a blessing analogous to the manna. The manna hadceased when the nation crossed the Jordan River and entered Canaan.9

The prohibition against the permanent sale of rural land (Lev.25:23–24). This was a land law. It was an aspect of the conquest ofCanaan: the original land grant. This law did not apply in walled citiesthat were not Levitical cities.10

The law promising rain, crops, peace in the land, and no wild


11. Ibid., ch. 33.

12. Ibid., ch. 11.

13. Ibid., ch. 22.

14. Ibid., ch. 17.

1444

beasts in response to corporate faithfulness (Lev. 26:3–6). This wasa land law. Nature’s predictable covenantal blessings were tied to theoffice of the holy land as the agency of sanctions.11

Seed Laws

Gleaning (Lev. 19:9–10). The gleaning law applied only to nationalIsrael, and only to farming. It was a means of establishing a majorform of charity in tribe-dominated rural regions. This law promotedlocalism and decentralization in Mosaic Israel. The moral principle ofgleaning extends into New Covenant times as a charity law, but not asa seed law. The principle is this: recipients of charity who can workhard should. This law is not supposed to be applied literally. Therewere no applications in civil law. This law was enforced by thepriesthood, not by the State, for no corporate negative sanctions werethreatened by God, nor would it have been possible for judges toidentify precisely which poor people had been unlawfully excluded.12

This principle of interpretation also applies to the re-statement of thegleaning law in Leviticus 23:22.13

The laws against allowing different breeds of cattle to interbreed(Lev. 19:19). This was a temporary seed law. It reflected the laws oftribal separation. So did the law against sewing a field with mixedseeds. Also annulled is the prohibition against wearing wool-linengarments.14

Appendix J

15. Ibid., ch. 18.

16. Ibid., ch. 30.

17. Ibid., ch. 31.

18. Ibid., ch. 32.

19. Ibid., chaps. 1–7.

1445

The law against harvesting the fruit of newly planted trees forthree years and setting aside the fourth year’s crop as holy (Lev.19:23–25). This was a seed law. It was a curse on Israel because ofthe failure of the exodus generation to circumcise their sons during thewilderness wandering. It is no longer in force.15

The law governing the enslavement of fellow Israelites (Lev.25:39–43). This was a seed law, although by being governed by thejubilee law, there was an aspect of land law associated with it. Thereis no longer any long-term indentured servitude bringing a familyunder the authority of another family for up to 49 years.16

The law governing the permanent enslavement of foreigners (Lev.25:44–46). This must have been a seed law rather than a land law, forit opened the possibility of adoption, either by the family that ownedthe foreign slaves or by another Israelite family.17

The law governing the redemption of an Israelite out of aforeigner’s household by the kinsman-redeemer (Lev. 25:47–55).This was a seed law.18

II. Priestly Laws

The laws of five sacrifices (Lev. 1–7). These were all priestly laws.They are no longer in force.19


20. Ibid., ch. 8.

21. Ibid., ch. 36.

22. Ibid., ch. 37.

1446

The law prohibiting wine drinking by priests while inside the tab-ernacle or temple (Lev. 10:8–11). This law was exclusive to priestsas mediatorial agents. The wine belonged to God; it had to be pouredout before the altar. This law was tied to the holiness of the temple.It did not apply to Levites or priests outside of the temple’s geograph-ical boundaries.20

The law establishing the official prices of people who take vows(Lev. 27:2–8). This was a law governing access to the priesthood.These vows governed those who were devoted – irrevocably adopted– to priestly service.21

The law establishing vows to priests and the inheritance of ruralland (Lev. 27:9–15). This law was primarily priestly but secondarilya seed law: an aspect of inheritance. This law placed the negativesanction of disinheritance on those who vowed to support a priestthrough the productivity of a dedicated plot of land and then refusedto honor the vow. The land went from being dedicated to devoted:beyond redemption.22

III. Cross-Boundary Laws

Cross-boundary laws are still in force under the New Covenant.These are properly designated as Deuteronomy 4 laws: designed byGod to bring men to repentance through the testimony of civil justicewithin a holy commonwealth.

Fraud and false dealing (Lev. 19:11–12). The laws against theft

Appendix J

23. Ibid., ch. 12.

24. Ibid., ch. 13.

25. Ibid., ch. 14.

26. Ibid., ch. 16.

27. Ibid., ch. 19.

1447

still prevail. They had no unique association with either the land or thepromised seed.23

The law against robbing an employee by paying him later than theend of the working day (Lev. 19:13). This law protects the weakestparties from unfair competition: the ability to wait to be paid.

The law against tripping the blind man and cursing the deaf man(Lev. 19:14). The weaker parties are to be protected by civil law.24

The prohibition against enforcing laws that discriminate in termsof wealth or power (Lev. 19:15). This law had no unique associationwith Israel’s land or seed laws. Its theological presupposition is thatGod is not a respecter of persons: a theological principle upheld inboth covenants.25

The prohibition against personal vengeance (Lev. 19:18). Thisestablishes the civil government as God’s monopoly agency of viol-ence.26

The law prohibiting judicial discrimination against strangers inthe land (non-citizens) (Lev. 19:33–36). This law an aspect of the justweights law. Laws governing justice were not land-based or seed-based.27

The law against offering a child to Molech (Lev. 20:2–5). Thiswas a law governed by the principle of false worship, although itappears to be a seed law (inheritance) or perhaps a land law(agricultural blessings). It had to do with identifying the source of


28. Ibid., ch. 20.

29. Ibid., ch. 29.

30. Ibid., ch. 34.

31. Ibid., ch. 35.

32. Ibid., ch. 38.

1448

positive sanctions in history: either God or a false god. God’s nameis holy: sanctified.28 This will never change.

The jubilee law prohibiting taking interest from poor fellowbelievers or resident aliens (Lev. 25:35–38). This law was an exten-sion of Exodus 22:25. It was included in the jubilee code, but it wasnot derived from that code. In non-covenanted, non-Trinitariannations, however, Christians are the resident aliens. Thus, the residentalien aspect of the law is annulled until such time as nations formallycovenant under God.29

The law promising fruitfulness and multiplication of seed (Lev.26:9–10). This law was covenantal, not tied to the holy land or thetribal structure of inheritance. It was a confessional law, but becauseof its universal promise, it was a common grace law.30

Negative corporate sanctions (Lev. 26:13–17). These were prom-ised to Israel, but they were not tied to either the holy land or thepromised seed. The governing issue was the fear of God, which is stillin force.31

The law of the tithe that applied to animals passing under a rod(Lev. 27:30–37). This law still applies, though it is no longer veryimportant in a non-agricultural setting. God still prohibits individualsfrom structuring tithes in kind (goods) from pre-collection rearrange-ments that favor the tither.32

Appendix J

1449

The Traditional Categories

The traditional definition of the Mosaic laws as moral, ceremonial,and civil does not do justice to the judicial distinctions within theMoral law-order. This traditional classification system attempts toplace a judicial barrier against any extension into the New Covenantof the Mosaic civil laws and ceremonial laws, while avoiding thepitfalls of antinomianism by affirming the continuing validity of themoral law. The problem with this traditional judicial hermeneutic isthat the moral law, apart from specific Mosaic case laws and theirBible-mandated required civil sanctions, invariably has become inter-mixed with some version of paganism’s natural law theory.

My approach has been, first, to identify the priestly laws that wereannulled by Christ’s ministry as the high priest, and the transformationof the priesthood from Levitical to Mechizedekal. The key NewTestament document in this regard is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Itsets forth this hermeneutical rule: “For the priesthood being changed,there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12).Second, I have looked for evidence of a Mosaic law’s inextricablerelationship with the land, which had to do with the maintenance oftribal boundaries. Third, I have looked for evidence of a law’s indis-soluble connection with landed inheritance: seed laws. The seed lawsand land laws often overlap.

The fourth category, cross-boundary laws, correspond to what istraditionally called the moral law. But the phrase “moral law” some-times has the connotation of not being an aspect of justice, especiallycivil justice. Rarely if ever do defenders of the category of moral lawconnect this moral law to the Mosaic law’s mandated historical sanc-tions, especially civil sanctions. This view of the moral law transformsthe moral law into exclusively self-disciplined law. This is the view ofbiblical law defended by pietists and secular humanists, who are united


33. The Attempt to Steal the Bicentennial, The Peoples Bicentennial Commission, Hear-ings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Actand Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,94th Congress, Second Session (March 17 and 18, 1976), p. 36.

1450

in their desire to restrict all biblical injunctions to the humanconscience, where they possess no civil authority. This is the agenda,less and less hidden, of modern defenders of the category of biblicalmoral law. Those defenders who are not pietists are generallyembarrassed by the severity of the Mosaic law’s civil sanctions, espec-ially in matters sexual.

There are also defenders of biblical moral law who have anotheragenda: to gain moral legitimacy for programs of State-mandatedeconomic reform that were not mandated by the Mosaic law, andwhich may even be prohibited by the Mosaic law, all in the name ofbiblical justice. They invoke the moral law in the civil realm, butdeliberately neglect or reject the specific context of a particular law.A familiar example of this political strategy is the invocation of thejubilee laws. The reformers insist that Christians must defend Stateprograms of compulsory wealth redistribution in the name of theselaws. Yet they refuse to acknowledge that the jubilee laws wereaspects of genocide: Israel’s mandated extermination of all of theresidents of Canaan. They also refuse to acknowledge that these lawsapplied only to rural land and houses owned by Levites inside Levit-ical cities. They shout “liberation,” but then mumble about not apply-ing the jubilee laws literally. Here is an example of this strategy ofdeception. William Peltz, the Midwest regional coordinator of thePeoples Bicentennial Commission, at a meeting in Ann Arbor, Michi-gan, argued that conservative Christians can be turned into promotersof revolutionary politics if the revolutionaries can show them that theBible teaches revolution. He then cited Leviticus 25, the chapter thatcontains the Jubilee land laws.33 This tactic has subsequently become

Appendix J

34. David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A BiblicalResponse to Ronald J. Sider, 3rd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,[1985] 1996).

35. North, Leviticus, ch. 31.

36. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler,Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).

1451

a popular theme of numerous radical Christians, including Ron Sider34

and Sojourners magazine. The reformers have not bothered to telltheir followers that if Leviticus 25 is still morally and legally binding,then lifetime slavery is still morally and legally valid, for it is only inLeviticus 25 that the Hebrews were told that they could buy andenslave foreigners for life, and then enslave their heirs forever (Lev.25:44–46).35 I wrote my book, Is the World Running Down? (1988),36

to challenge the misuse of Scripture in supporting various socialistschemes.

Conclusion

To understand a Mosaic law, you must first understand its context.Was it a land law, a seed law, a priestly law, or a cross-boundary law?If it was one of the first three, you must then determine whether theNew Testament has in some way adopted and adapted it to fit theNew Covenant order. An example would be gleaning. This was clearlya land law, yet it may possess underlying moral principles that canassist Christians in the kingdom work of transforming society. Thegleaning laws set forth the relationship between charity and hardwork. The task of application – casuistry – should begin only after aMosaic law has been assigned to one of the four categories.

1452

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Genesis

1:1, 251:16–18, 9641:26–28, xxii, xxxvi, xxxvii,

240, 685, 772, 9921:27–28, 5961:28, 13221:28, 192, 308, 370, 425, 454–

65, 628, 8322:7–14, 2462:15, 4912:16, 2462:17, 9402:23, 3692:24, 394, 676n2:29–30, 7883:1, xlviii3:3, 4923:5, 13203:15, 19, 370, 608, 772, 940,

1035, 12093:17–19, 3703:24, 152n, 3704:1, 7724:5, 57, 7724:9, 152n4:15, 771–725:27, 356:4, 3486:10, 7726:16, 11739, xxii

9:1, 192, 3089:1–3, 425, 8329:1–7, 13229:1–17, 5969:4, 5279:5–6, 84010:24, 77311:7, 46511:7, 62811:10–27, 18612:2–3, 104414:8, 66914:18, 99914:18–20, 55215:2, 38315:5, 39915:13–14, 39915:13–16, 143915:16, 5, 21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 66,

131, 152, 241, 254, 281,341–42, 351, 366, 369, 399,403, 405, 427, 453, 718,1182, 1185, 1208, 1317,1416,

15:16–17, 24215:18, 357, 143917:1, 429n17:2, 87217:5, 36917:9–14, 144017:11, 717:12–13, 242, 74117:14, 242

Scripture Index

1453

17:16, 77319:7, 104219:8, 457–5821:9, 77322:13, 27722:17, 29023:29–34, 133125:5–6, xxxiv25:23, 278, 77325:33, 77326:15, 39026:34–35, 77327, 91627:3–4, 77427:28–29, 77327:37, 77327:39, 77328:9, 77329:32–35m 77431:7, 97332:28, 36934:8, 94634:25, 76134:25, 77434:25–26, 246n34:30, 761, 77435:20, 69038:7, 77538:9, 77538:9–10, 103641:43, 41443:34, 138647:22, 41447:24–26, 1338

47:26, 66548:19, 77649, 120649:3, 595n49:10, 20, 328, 369, 412, 620,

623, 686, 859, 774, 923,1035, 1036, 1046, 1439

50:10, 2n50:20, 414, 126950:24, 691

Exodus

1:7, 1591:9, 3893:7, 10883:15–16, 1643:26, 6754:22, 9964:22, 10334:22–23, 276, 2985:20–21, 1392, 1420–215:21, 249–507:10–14, 4957:12, 2208:19, 2218:26, 1053n10:4–6, 92812:8, 15912:26–27, 594, 109412:35–36, 496, 115212:48, 151, 594, 600, 119412:49, 44, 85, 100, 160, 397,

Inheritance and Dominion

1454

544, 594, 601, 874, 1193,1232

13:13, 59014:49, 16815:9, 94616, 2916:20, 29517:1–7, 2917:4, 60917:6, 123117:8–13, 2917:14–16, 44117:16, 21518, 629, 84618:13, 4618:18, 4618:21, 4618:26, 63019, xxxvi19, 115, 147, 155, 667, 69019:5, 11819:6, 64519:6, 66919:7–8, 115319:13, 609–1019:15, 91619:18, 14620, 15520:3, 48320:5, 65120:5–6, 3720:7, 103120:11, 156–57, 162, 16520:12, 162, 169–70, 622, 663,

675, 691, 722, 725, 78320:14, 62, 69220:15, 692, 111121:2, 86721:2–6, 15721:6, 82321:8–11, 157, 15821:15, 624, 793, 795 21:16, 83021:17, 793, 79521:18–19, 84021:22–25, 617, 84721:33–34, 81921:35–3621:26–27, 86822:1, 101222:4, 629, 686, 705, 740, 101322:5, 819, 82222:19, xix22:21–2222:23–24, 952n22:25, 563, 578n, 880, 144722:26, 564, 575, 59322:26–27, 942, 95222:31, 51523:4–5, 814–15, 81723:5, 81623:9, 94623:11, 66823:13, 23023:13, 439, 482, 91423:14–17, 41023:16, 715, 109423:26, 182, 691, 1116

Scripture Index

1455

23:27–30, 28123:29, 819, 425, 836–3723:29–30, 42724:7, 118, 958n24:12, 16324:18, 16325:30, 915, 917, 677–7830:10, 51430:12, 72830:12–13, 36430:12–16, 119430:14, 20932:9–14, 36832:11–13, 94032:21–14, 355–5632:20, 8033:11, 14733:18–2334:11–1634:14–16, 1291–9234:15, 506 34:20, 59034:22, 410, 71534:28, 163, 42034:30–33, 148

Leviticus

1–7, 14441:9, 7371:13, 7372:4, 9944, 646–47

6:5, 7407:8, 73710:8–11, 144511:23–25, 51511:28, 51511:39, 51513, 136113:45–46, 144116:29–30, 41016:34, 51417:12, 114917:13, 52717:15, 513. 884, 114918:6, 103318:16, 103318:24–28, 144118:25–27, 1053n18:30, 139019:9–10, 912, 99219:9–10, 144319:11–12, 96319:11–12, 144519:13, 962, 989, 144619:14, 144619:15, 615, 1056, 1332, 144619:18, 144619:19, 852–53, 855, 857, 859,

860, 863, 144319:23–25, 144419:33–36, 144619:34, 114919:35, 105619:35–36, 87n20:2, 1149


1456

20:2–5, 144620:15, xix20:15–16, 101620:16, xix20:21, 103320:22–26, 144123:1–12, 71523:13, 99423:15–17, 41023:22, 912, 992, 144323:27, 119023:34, 531, 119023:39–40, 71523:39–43, 41024:10–16, 50524:16, 1149–5025, 347. 411, 1366, 144025:1–7, 144125:4, 91224:4–5, 53225:4–7, 16025:8–13, 144125:9, 119225:10, 542, 85925:13, 442, 56225:14–17, 959, 144225:8–22, 144225:23, 683–8425:23–24, 144225:25–28, 54225:27, 68725:29–30, 85, 384, 393, 59425:31–43, 56125:32–33, 87, 674, 859

25:33, 673, 68125:33, 515–1625:35–37, 563, 880, 88325:35–38, 144725:39–40, 867–6825:39–41, 568, 88125:39–43, 144425:44–46, 166. 373, 562, 576,

735, 748, 867, 1192, 1366,1444, 1450

25:47–52, 390, 86825:47–53, 54225:47–55, 144426:1, 112026:1–13, 107426:3–6, 144226:9–10, 144726:13–17, 144726:38, 32827:2–8, 144527:9–15, 144527:11–13, 59127:20–21, 672, 859n27:30, 46927:30–31, 53427:30-37, 144725:35–37, 579, 578n

Numbers

3:5–10, 6733:45, 2959:5, 151

Scripture Index

1457

9:10, 6049:11, 74410, 65310:1–9, 63110:2–8, 72210:2–9, 74n10:5–8, 70610:8, 364, 716, 72511, 29611:5, 29911:6, 94613, 9613:32, 67, 16713:33, 119, 347, 36214:8, 71–7214:8–10, 34914:10, 3214:11–12, 7214:12, 3, 1033–3414:13–16, 3, 7214:13–17, 15214:14, 14814:15–16, 103414:23, 314:28, 119, 151, 158, 29614:32, 11914:33, 3214:37, 7214:40–45, 36314:41–44, 3114:44–45, 40115:16, 60115:29, 513, 60116:33, 328

18:1, 67618:1–14, 110418:3, 63018:15–17, 590–9118:20–24, 67118:21, 468, 531, 91218:22, 63018:26, 671 67618:34, 53219:16, 69119:18, 69120:1, 2520:4, 29520:8, 91, 123120:11, 123120:11–12, 9120:12, 123120:28, 221, 2, 5, 15921:1–3, 17621:2–3, 32621:3, 215, 363, 83721:13, 2n21:21–26, 2121:29, 48222:41, 48326:53–56, 68426:59, 528:16, 15127:8–1, 103727:9–11, 135827:21, 67829:13–32, 119329:36, 1193


1458

30:2, 89930:2–3, 90831:15–18, 74832:1, 29532:19, 2n32:33, 187, 27932:49, 15333:39, 2533:51–56, 32735:4–5, 67535:7, xviii35:9–29, 84135:19, 103635:27, 103635:34, 68336:8–9, 85936:9, 1003

Deuteronomy

1:1, 11:1–5, 211:3, 251:3–4, 221:5, 291:6, 311:6–8, 281:6–4:49, 25, 281:9–13, 451:11, 481:13–18, 231:16, 291:17, 55, 615, 695n, 1332

1:18–21, 291:19, 291:20–21, 29, 32, 67, 731:21–23, 65, 301:22–38, 291:26–27, 301:26–36, 8–91:27–28, 721:29–33, 301:32, 731:34–35, 301:34–39, xxxv1:36, 31, 661:38, 31, 661:39, 29, 662:4, 812:4–6, 79, 1032:5, 312:9, 31, 802:10–11, 3472:11, 3482:16, 212:20, 3482:20–22, 348–492:20–22, 3542:26–35, 212:30–353:11, 3483:24, 943:25–26, 913:27–28, 904:1–2, 974:2, 13904:4–8, 1106

Scripture Index

1459

4:5–8, 99, 397, 548, 582, 594,1070–71, 1131, 1142

4:6–8, 88–994:7, 13334:9, 1034:9–10, 1154:12, 1164:13, 420n4:20, 26, 1164:23–31, 3284:25, 1324:25–28, 130, 136–374:25–31, 434:26, 1354:28, 1394:29, 9474:29–31, 1394:34, 264:36, 1354:37, 264:37–39, 12614:37–40, 4, 1364:45, 265:1–5, 1465:3, 1475:4, 147, 1575:6–7, 5055:6–21, 1495:8–10, 925:9, 3575:14, 1605:14, 11505:14–15, 1565:15, 158, 165

5:16, 162, 182 5:21, 9215:21–22, 1625:22, 1655:22–33, 1595:32–33, 168, 178, 12285:33, 171, 1786:1–3, 178, 1866:4, 465, 470, 476, 628, 13146:4–5, 8586:4–9, 193, 1164–656:4–15, 1946:5, 1936:7, 1936:10–11, 33, 637, 12616:10–12, 91, 1956:10–14, 717–186:11, 7656:13, 1956:14–15, 196, 13126:20, 196–976:21–25, 1976:24–25, 2147:1–2, 2817:1–5, 201, 213, 441, 7387:6, 2147:8–18, 38–397:13, 7387:16, 736, 738, 902–37:25, 1053n8, 12128:1, 240, 241, 2458:1–2, 12128:2, 240, 247, 279, 299


1460

8:2–4, 2528:2–9, 13188:3, 2538:3–4, 268:4, 252, 9128:5, 11728:5–6, 3258:5–7, 2758:6, 240, 275, 283, 3268:7–13, 2778:9, 283, 2858:8, 2868:9–10, 3558:10–14, 13198:10–18, 2938:11, 2408:11–14, 2878:13, 299, 303, 429n,12548:13–17, 12128:17, 12258:16, 2998:17, 202, 232, 338, 355, 925,

1095–96, 1101, 1125,1177–78

8:17–18, 154, 1263, 13208:18, 93, 202, 226, 240, 298,

415, 427–28, 1212–13, 1125,1215

8:19–20, 93, 232, 240, 251, 287,320, 325, 329–30, 358, 651,1106, 1214, 1320

8:19–21, 1104–59:1–2, 1199:1–6, 341

9:4, 3549:5, 3539:9, 1639:26, 3699:26–29, 3679:29, 3699:33, 34910:4, 420n10:12, 39810:12–16, 37810:15, 378–79, 38210:16, 65610:17, 379, 38810:18, 38810:18–19, 60110:19, 38810:20–22, 39810:22, 38811:1, 398, 399, 40611:2–3, 39911:10–14, 40711:4, 38811:13–15, 41311:16–17, 408, 412–1711:18–21, 42011:20, 42111:21, 423, 424, 43511:22–25, 425–2611:26–28, 121511:32, 43912:3, 22912:3–4, 45412:5–10, 46412:10–11, 468

Scripture Index

1461

12:12, 468, 47012:13–14, 46612:16, 52112:17–18, 471, 53312:19, 47112:28–31, 47812:30, 48212:30–31, 48012:30–31, 73812:32, 47913:1–4, 49013:1–5, 487, 499, 610, 495, 502,

787n13:6, 921–2213:6–10, 233, 278, 66013:6–11, 50413:7–17, 50413:12–15, 74213:12–17, 50413:13, 34814:2, 52814:21, 51214:22–23, 529, 533, 110214:22–29, 52814:24, 53014:25, 53314:26, 138714:26–28, 138414:27, 53114:28, 537, 110514:28–29, 53614:28–29, 60014:29, 104, 53015, 411, 532

15:2, 119115:1–4, 28315:1–6, 5575:1–7, 87915:2–3, 88315:4, 559–5915:6, 36, 575, 578, 884, 89015:7–8, 559, 884, 88815:10, 884–8515:9–10, 56015:11, 283–8415:11, 55915:12, 563, 88115:12–15, 56115:13–14, 88215:14, 56415:16–17, 56615:18, 56415:19–22, 58815:22, 591, 59216:9–10, 109416:12, 60016:13–15, 71516:14–17, 59816:15, 60216:17, 60216:18–20, 607, 62316:19, 56n, 695n16:19–20, 122216:20, 608, 616, 619–2017:2–6, 61017:6, 135, 79717:7, 66017:8, 629


1462

17:8–11, 16917:8–11, 139017:8–13, 627, 629, 647, 648,

678, 70817:9, 63517:9, 65317:13, 63217:14, 64917:15, 65417:15, 65517:16, 139, 65717:16–1717:17, 659, 787n17:18, 117:18–20, 661–6217:20, 169, 662–6318:1–2, 67018:1–8, 63518:6–8, 67418:8, 63518:12, 73618:18–22, 67918:20, 49919:4, 92219:14, 683, 1110–1119:15, 702, 117419:15–19, 69519:15–21, 69219:17, 64519:21, 69620, 46220:1, 351, 726–27, 72420:2, 71620:3–4, 725

20:5–7, 71420:5–8, 72820:7, 72320:8, 724, 73320:10, 73920:10–18, 442, 734, 73620:11, 74020:12–13, 748, 757, 75820:14, 74320:16–17, 4–520:17–18, 73820:19, 83420:19–20, 75620:20, 75821:10–1421:11, 743, 74821:12–13, 771–7221:15–17, 276, 770, 781, 1014,

1047, 135821:17, 37521:18–21, 772, 787, 789, 804,

135821:20, 334, 604, 138821:21, 787n, 80821:22–23, 69122:1–4, 81422:6–722:8, 84022:9–11, 852, 85522:10, 860, 86122:11, 857, 86322:21, 610, 787n22:24, 787n23:1, 860

Scripture Index

1463

23:3, 383, 1042, 35423:3–8, 387, 60023:7–8, 104223:9–14, 87123:15–16, 86723:19, 578n. 88523:19–20, 579, 87823:20, 51623:21–23, 89523:24, 946–4723:24–25, 910, 102724:1, 85624:5, 714, 72324:6, 93924:10–13, 93924:14, 115024:14–15, 96224:15, 1013, 1026, 90524:16, 3024:17, 104, 115024:17–18, 93924:19–22, 546–47, 92724:21, 91224:19, 99624:19–20, 10424:19–22, 991, 99324:22, 99625:3, 94825:4, 914, 1012, 132825:5–6, 720–21, 775n, 103125:13, 87n25:13–16, 105225:15, 87n25:17–19, 215

26:1–3, 109326:3, 1094, 1094–95, 26:5–1026:10, 109326:11, 1093–94, 109526:12–15, 110126:13–14, 1102–326:15, 1102, 110326:16–19, 1105–627:2–3, 111027:6, 111027:12–13, 111127:14–26, 111027:15–26, 111127:15–26, 111827:17, 686, 111027:19, 10427:19, 601, 115027:19, 111127:25, 111127:26, 111228, 569, 57128:1–2, 112028:1–5, 131728:1–14, xvii, xxx, 16, 1074,

1317, 1322, 143728:4–5, 112028:8, 112028:9–11, 131728:12, 1261–6228:11, 112028:11–14, 36–3728:12, 115028:12–13, 114528:12–13, 942


1464

28:13–14, 16928:15–20, 4328:15–66, 1628:15–68, 179, 1317, 132028:24, 90428:30–33, 9628:38–40, 9328:38, 92828:39, 76528:43, 114928:43–44, 1145, 115328:62, 385–8628:63–65, 68928:67, 9629:5–6, 138629:9–15, 116029:29, 106330:1–5, 116630:1–10, 76630:3, xlii30:7, 118530:9, 1176–7730:10, 1172, 117730:11–14, 117630:16, 117730:17–18, 1175, 117930:19–20, 117430:20, 117531, 117531:1–2, 118631:2, 118131:4–8, 118131:5, 118431:5–6, 1203

31:7, 94–9531:7, 118631:8, 120331:9, 163, 120531:9–13, 159, 119031:10–12, 664, 745, 1030, 1163,

120331:10–13, 411, 599, 612, 133331:12, 59931:13–14, 120331:15–16, 120331:16–18, 116731:13–14, 119131:16–18, 120231:20, 120231:17–18, 148–4931:20–21, 120231:21, 120331:23, 97, 120331:26, 47131:26–27, 120431:27–29, 120531:28–29, 120431:44, 120431:46–120431:49, 120431:51–52, 120432:4, 429n32:4, 120332:9–17, 60532:20, 14932:43, 116733:4, 120533:4, 1206

Scripture Index

1465

33:6–25, 120633:8, 34233:29, 120634:6, 69034:7, 162–6334:9, 120734:10, 2434:10, 496, 678

Joshua

1:7, 169, 11831:1–9, 95, 11832, 2302:9–11, 447–483:4, 6755, 15:3, lv, 12075:4, 75:5, 26, 29, 151, 159, 1705:7, 242, 3795:8, 2805:10–12, 1516:15–21, 7366:19, 4526:24, 637, 7376:26, 4817, 11857:15, 737n7:24, 4547:24–25, 737n8:2, 7379, 1211

9:15, 9029:18–20, 9029:27, 452, 90210, 90211:6, 35111:9, 35111:14, 73715:63, 9715:63, 14215:63, 224, 32116:10, 738, 76217:12–13, 97, 142, 224, 32117:13, 76217:13, 73817:16, 35123:5–7, 91223:16923:7, 22923:13, 9823:13, 2241:7,1193

Judges

1:19, 35111:24, 482–835:16–17, 6535:16–17, 7195:19–20, 443–447, 7337:3–8, 72819:29, 718


1466

Ruth

4:1–12, 1039–404:10, 1043

I Samuel

1:1, 4892:7–9, 1127–286:7–9, 216–176:19, 68810:19, 65013:9–14, 65213:13, 2848, 13428:7, 6508:10, xiii8:14, xiii8:15, 654, 665, 677, 786, 13388:17, 665, 677, 78611:14–15, 729–3012:1–5, 1056–5715:1–2, 21515:27–28, 21515:28, 48915:33, 44215:35, 63716, 91616:1, 63717:28, 37517:4, 34718:27–28, 659n20:42, 916

21:1–6, 915–1625:39, 659n

II Samuel

2:2, 659n3:3, 6593:3–5, 659n6:23, 90411:27, 659n12, 67815:2–6, 66821:1–9, 90421:16–22, 349

I Kings

1:31, 34n1:31, 423n1:39, 6552:19–23, 900–14:6, 741n5:13–15, 741n6:1, 6538:17, 6548:63, 7168:61, 429n11:3, 65911:13–19, 65512, 650, 66412:14–15, 46612:15–33, 466

Scripture Index

1467

12:28–29, 46612:27, 46613:4, 46713:8–9, 46716:34, 481–8217, 41317:1, 41117:1–5, 48818, 48918:19, 48918:21, 489, 123018:38–3918:38–40, 23118:40, 411, 49020:22223:7, 681

II Kings

1:10, 5013:2, 7413:14, 7413:27, 7414:1–7, 9456:17, 65817:17, 31619:17–1822, 16324:14, 32124:14, 329

I Chronicles

2:11–12, 104430:18–20, 74419:7, 56n, 607, 695n23:7, 67426:19, 652

Nehemiah

2:3, 34n, 423n9:21, 559

Job

1097–981:1, 11031:5, 1097, 11031:19, 109728:28, 57n31:6, 109142:12, 1098

Psalms

2, 89714:1, 49415:5, 578n18:44, 11820:7, 139, 658, 72623:1, 55924:1, 100925:13, xli, 175, 382, 417, 1217


1468

33:12, 37237:9, xli, 175, 28237:9, 38237:9, 417, 121737:9–11, 59537:9–11, 63637:11, xli, 175, 382, 418, 121737:21–29, 87937:22, xli, 17537:25, 285, 948, 1128, 131650:10, 134453:1, 49468:1–2, 50279:6, 50279:10–12, 502n83:9–18, 502n89:30–32, 1171–7290:10, 3595:8–11, 8105:36, 596n106:19, 146110:10, 57n, 115119:1, 1023119:11, 935119:18, 1023119:44, 1023119:77, 1023119:1023119:109, 1023119:126, 1023119:165, 1023119:174, 1023139:7–8, 135

Proverbs

1:7, 57n4:27, 1696:6–8, 1418:36, 481, 737, 1084, 11789:10, 57n, 37811:14, 6913:22, 3613:22, 174, 91, 227, 637, 73813:24, 795, 117215:22, 6915:33, 57n19:18, 79516:4, 897–9816:9, 126920:23, 87n21:1, 496, 126922:7, 583, 584, 878–79, 959,

1145, 115023:1–3, 60423:21, 604, 138824:6, 6924:23, 695n24:23, 56n28:8, 57828:21, 56n28:21, 695n28:27, 559–6030:7–9, 18730:8–9, 112431:4, 1387–8831:4, 139131:6, 1388

Scripture Index

1469

Ecclesiastes

2:13, 2842:14–15, 2173:19, 2174:13, 2845:4–5, 9088:14–15, 3049:2–3, 217–189:15–16, 28411:1, 17212:12–14, viii

Isaiah

1:22–23, 10571:24–26, 10572:12, 342n2:17, 342n–343n6:8–12, 351–52, 12627:14, 1338:20, 136310:5, 48610:5–6, 105710:5–8, 117110:12–16, 117110:16–18, 1172-7311:2, 5711:11–12, 34313:1, 34313:9–13, 34314:12–14, 444

24:2, 57828:13, 4831:1, 658, 72632:1–8, 110740:12, 106443:1, 68445:1–7, 21245:22–23, 89553, 42555:9, 89655:10–11, 89656:10–12, 661n65:17–20, 38n, 416, 1138, 122065:20, 259

Jeremiah

7:13–16, 121011:13, 48312:14–17, 22813:13–14, 121015:10, 57817:9, 48318:1–10, 13123:3, 38625:10, 94738:31–33, 42252:16, 38550:34, 162

Lamentations


1470

4:16, 695n

Ezekiel

16:1–6, 37116:6–13, 29818:8, 578n18:13, 578n18:17, 578n21:27, 139722:12, 57823:27, 31644:15–19, 86344:19, 86347:21–23, 19, 330, 442, 462–63,

527, 684, 690, 768, 790, 926

Daniel

2:4, 34n, 423n2:31–45, 1321n2:34–35, 418, 12172:40–45, 12712:44, 3442:44–45, 418, 12183:9, 34n, 423n4:35, 12685:10, 34n, 423n5:23, 2015:25–28, 10585:27, 5396:6, 34n, 423n6:14–15

6:21, 34n, 423n8:9–10, 44412:2–3, 30012:2, 301

Amos

5:7–10, 4465:11, 947n

Jonah

3:4, 144, 12103:6, 1423:9, 12104:2, 488

Micah

6:9–12, 10586:16, 10587:2–3, 1058

Habakkuk

2:4, 154

Zechariah

Scripture Index

1471

8, 548

Malachi

3:6, 1249

Matthew

1:5, 10421:16, 10422:2, 446, 6222:13–15, 773n2:19, 773n4:3–4, 2974:4, 2535:5, xli, 382, 6225:17–19, 935, 10245:18, 6225:21–48, 855n5:25, 1077n5:27–28, 1735:34–37, 9065:45, 4135:48, 13, 429n6:2, 5586:10, 224n6:11, 9476:19–21, 4266:24, 10867:13–14, 11867:19–21, 3818:30–32, 527

9:2–7, 30010:21, 660n10:28, 5710:30, 22110:34–37, 660n10:37, 80312:27–28, 22312:28, 141512:30, 456, 1086, 1400, 140513:10–16, 35213:24–30, 143213:28–30, 34612:36–43, 143213:39–40, 344–4713:44, 82613:44, 82714:6–9, 901–215:10–20, 13415:11, 52315:22–27, 36016:18, 740n, 1421, 143016:19, 63716:26, 427, 498–9918:23–35, 96419:29, 17220:8, 96420:13–15, 1328–2920:16, 133021:28–31, 909n21:28–32, 380, 38321:33–46, 38021:38–46, 37621:41, 99721:43, lv, 20, 427, 447, 460,


1472

522, 550, 785, 828, 865,909n, 996, 1009, 1045, 1047,1161, 2106, 1221, 1228,1402, 1416, 1436

23:29–38, 50024:6–9, 140524:29, 34424:38–39, 14225:14–30, 87125:24–30, 826–2725:27, 58625:31–46, 161, 42825:32–40, 99426:51–52, 75227:3–5, 712n27:52, 37328:18, 427, 141528:18–20, xxxviii, 29, 273,

307–8, 326, 451–52, 522,736, 1224, 1403, 1422, 1436

28:19, 460

Mark

10:2–12, 781, 855n10:12, 85612:30, 193n, 132614:61–62, 777

Luke

3:32, 1043

3:33, 7753:38, 773, 8014:16–27, 10094:17, 6784:17–19, 14424:17–21, 735, 8684:18–20, 3734:18–21, 166, 8544:18–22, 935n5:27–39, 13856:1–5, 914–156:24–36, 8936:35, 5726:43, 3310, 92210:7, 132810:17–18, 44512:8–9, 90512:47–48, xi, 770–71, 1038n,

1066, 111912:48, 451, 113212:48–49, 117714:28–30, 71114:28–32, 7014:31–32, 72114:31–33, 35012:48, 116115:21, 37615:28, 37515:29–30, 78516:19–25, 45116:10, 42816:26, 76016:29, 137–38

Scripture Index

1473

17:10, 109918:1–8, 122022:22, 370, 897n, 120922:29–30, 611

John

1:12, lv2:10, 13853:12, 4286:11–15, 2966:26, 29614:12–14, 27316:5–10, 121916:13, 1132

Acts

1:8–9, 14221:11, xliii, 1422–232, 1009, 14152:44, 10224:27–28, 8974:34, 10227, 5047:5, 117:43, 2308:1, 11728:4, 10228:26–38, 86010, 173, 51210:9–16, 523

10:28, 523, 621, 1024, 695n11:26, 104615, 52415:20, 52715:27, 52717:22–23, 44017:24–25, 44017:26, 119618:8–11, 74420:6, 74420:16, 74423:1, 74428:26–27, 353

Romans

1:18, 232, 11981:18–20, 358, 11351:18–22, 1011:18–23, 12361:20, 23, 3001:20–25, 2321:18–20, 6991:26–27, 2322:11, 56, 621, 695n2:14–15, 101, 1029, 13262:15–16, 358–592:25–29, 3792:26–29, 380n2:29, 4224:5–7, 14164:13–14, 2435:12–14, 12, 356


1474

5:16–17, 12–137:12, 537:14, 53, 14137:19, 9778:23, 12208:34, 14358:39, 6979:14–18, 4969:14–15, 13309:17–18, 897n9:31–10:4, 118811:23–24, 517n11:23–24, 1290n11:25–27, 129012:1, 440, 109913:1–7, 101013:1–8, 62913:4, 56–5713:8, 968, 114714:5, 574

I Corinthians

1:25, 10223:11–15, xxxviii3:12–14, 782–836:3, 6117:21, 373, 585, 9697:26, 10227:32–33, 10228, 1738:4, 5129:1–10, 1013–14

9:9–10, 102910:19–21, 219–2011:11, 429n12:4–11, 21012:9, 142612:27–28, 43315, 143115:17–20, 30815:20–28, 1421–2215:21–28, 1137–3815:24–28, 27415:32, 58415:42–44, 113715:45, 77615:50–54. 1137

II Corinthians

6:2, 7966:14–189:7, 597

Galatians

2:11–14, 5242:17, 153:14, 241–423:16, 15, 855, 857, 10343:16–17, 1863:17–18, 1703:17–19, 6, 153:17–21, 14

Scripture Index

1475

3:18, 11, 97, 133, 241, 8573:26–27, 3743:27–29, 3313:27–29, 8633:28, 8553:29, 114:4–6, 3834:5–8, xxxvii4:13, 134:22–23, 1366:7, 8116:7–8, 783

Ephesians

1:13, 10–111:3–6, 9–101:10–14, 738n–739n, 9341:11–14, 102:8–10, 72:14–20, 8554:2, 1704:8–10, 14314:12–13, 14315:5, 116:1–3, 435, 622, 1228–296:2, 6256:3, 11746:12, 14356:9, 56, 695n

Colossians

1:14–171:16, xxxvii1:24, 14262:13–15, 14353:1–5, 14333:25, 6213:25, 6952:5–11, 1151–522:12, 815, 1415, 1427

I Thessalonians

2:14–16, 826

II Thessalonians

3:7–10

I Timothy

2:14, 685–864:2, 1034:10, 7775:17–18, 10145:18, 13285:23, 1391

II Timothy

2:11–13, 905, 941


1476

3:2, 8554:1, 5254:3, 5255:17–18, 9348:12, 855

Hebrews

2:17, 9403:8–11, 84:1–11. 855n4:2, 64:3, 9, 1674:9–11, 166, 1674:15, 14265:8–9, 243–445:9, 2445:10, 6697:1–27:1–7, 553–547:3, 6517:11–12, 8547:12, 150, 14488:10, 101, 4228:10–11, 6259:16–17, xl9:27, 73910:16, 522, 62510:39, 1111:24–27, 141–4212:6–8, 2791:17, 1320

James

1:9, 695n1:22–25, 4302:2–6, 696n2:9, 562:10, 170, 2502:11, 621, 695n2:17–20, 4264:1, 285

I Peter

1:17, 56, 621, 695n2:9, 6692:9–10, 6453:15, 618–193:18, 5103:22, 1435

II Peter

3:10, 311

I John

1:8–10, 132:3–4, 3843:7–9, 13–143:22, 384

Scripture Index

1477

3:24, 3845:2, 384

Jude

1:4, 132n

Revelation

6:9–1012:2–4, 44412:7–13, 44519:9, 919

19:14, xxxii20:7–9, 74020:9–10, 1108, 114120:10, 42520:14, 94020:14–15, 213, 740, 86521, 425, 54821:1, 9121:1–4, 63521:7–8, 63522:2, 93122:18, 31422:3

1478

INDEX

Aaron, 2, 25, 148abdication, 639–43Abel, 57, 135, 771, 940abomination, 478, 482, 750abortion, 181, 237, 290n,

393–94, 481, 617, 619, 641,1177

above/below, 219, 220, 224Abraham

circumcision, 7, 242, 244,379

covenant, 1439dietary laws, 522–23Jesus &, 15name change, 369, 402, 404oath to, 28, 403offspring, 1439promises to, 5–7, 132,

153–54, 171, 176,242–44, 338, 339, 341,353, 366, 399, 479, 1034

reproduction, 133road to success, 172seed, 370–71, 374

Abram, 552Absalom, 668Achan, 737n, 905, 1185accents, 750accountability, 74accreditation, 126action, 1187Acton, 480

Adamallegiance, xxxviiassignment, 491authority, 491broken covenant, 214carburetor, 257–58common grace, 370covenant, 356–59curse, 298dead man walking, 940disinherited, 370, 772Eve &, 492Fall, xxiiGod’s name, 370–71God’s promise, 940grace, 789headquarters, 1436heirs, 12imputed sin, 12inclusion, 788inheritance, xxxviiijudgment by, 608legal status, 858mercy to, 797messiah &, 416naming process, 369parricide, 713private property, 689prodigal sons, 376rebellion, 787–89representative, 12, 1421road to success, 172

Scripture Index

1479

seed, 370sense of smell, 260serpent’s agent, 713solitaire, 258steward, xxxviiisubordination, 491task, 491

addiction, 335adiaphora, xlii, 335, 456, 1226administrative law, 856, 851Adonijah, 654, 900-1adoption

authoritative, 1042biblical model, 298bondage, 374church membership, 395conversion, 1047covenant, 393, 1046gentiles, lv, 375, 383, 393inheritance, 3, 383, 1032,

1042Israel, 275, 298, 371, 393legal claim, 298Levites, 677oath-sign, 384redemption, 374reproduction, 1047sonship, 244strangers, 393theme, 10

adultery, 172–73advertising, 977, 1331advisors (see counsellors)Aesop, 40, 141

Agag, 441aggregation, 1246agnosticism, 1233–34agricultural cycle, 413, 415, 419agriculture, 543, 546, 994,

1339–46, 1357–59Ahab, 222, 481, 488, 659, 741Ai, 737, 1185Akiba, 387alchemical wealth, 297alchemy, 297Alchian, Armen, 1252n, 1335alcohol, 792, 793, 794, 807Alexander the Great, 139alien, 391, 515–19, 526–27,

542–45, 547 883–84 (seestranger)

allegory, 421Allis, O. T., 346naltar, 449Amalek, 29, 96Amalekites, 215, 363, 401, 441amen, 686, 1111American Presbyterian Church,

639American Revolution, 1359–60amillennialism

ascension, 1420asymmetric theology, 1432continuity, 1218cultural despair, 1221cultural surrender, 1411defeat (church), 1218mumbling, 1138quasi-Manichean, 1073


1480

refutation, 417sanctification, 1416–17sanctions, 1424Satan’s kingdom, 425social decline, 271spiritualizing, 1218Van Til, 1136–37

Amish, 52, 1025Ammon, 348Amorites, 5, 8, 21, 28, 29, 33,

342, 1211Anak, 341, 347Anakim, 348, 363analogical thought, 1060anarchy, 237, 238ancients and moderns, 504Andover Seminary, 208–9animal (injury), 819animal (lost) 815–16animism, 222, 233, 688annihilation, 442, 453, 454, 467antinomianism

bestiality, xixbiblical law, 997, 1017,

1028, 1084covenantal sanctions, 331defined, 625evangelical, 1083–88hermeneutics, 625Holy Spirit, 1132inheritance, 625legalism &, 572Marcionism, 806mysticism, 1132

prophecy, 134widespread, 997

anti-semitism, 1285n, 1300apologetics, 260–61, 269–70apostasy, 185, 203, 338, 499apprenticeship, 208, 433, 988Aquinas, Thomas, 1085Arad, 2, 176archangels, 445Aristotle, 886Ark of the Covenant

city, 931holiest object, 682Israel’s center, 470, 549Levites defended, 538,

673–75mezuza 7, 422national incorporation, 471Philistia, 216sacred space, 688tablets of the law, 677war against Amalek, 363

Arminianism, 134–35armored car (money), 817army, 47–48, 87, 209, 1183–84ascension

adiaphora, xliiamillennialism, 1423Christ’s suffering, 1426–27confirmed Great Commission,309continuity/discontinuity,

1223–24cultural redemption, 1419

Index

1481

empowerment, 429, 1028eschatology, 1225, 1419Great Commission, 307,

1132, 1224–25, 1430historicity, 1423, 1431ignored, 267, 1224–25kingdom, 1425, 1427kingdom grant, 273linear history, 307–8postmillennialism, 1423premillennialism &, 1423social theory, 266, 1219,

1419–34Toon on, 1425–34

Asia, 41Asian “tigers,” 586–87assembly, 706assimilation, 749–51Assyria, 138, 140, 142, 326,

385, 486, 1171Assyrian gods replicas, 109–10astrology, 443astronomy, 411–12asylum, 871asymmetric theologies, 1432Athaliah, 655Athanasian Creed, 18, 395atheism, 455, 484Athena/Zeus, 443Athens, 440, 632–33atonement, 698, 1190–91attitudes, 1351attorneys, 704auction, 323, 1331–32

authorityArk of the Covenant, 677biblical law, 194breadwinner, 958case laws, 1017central planning, 73church, 212citizenship, 700civil, 51complexity, 50consumers, 76, 1066, 1068costs attached, 1006counsel, 70covenant, 294, 1163, 1166delegated, 45, 47, 50, 70,

370, 689division of labor, 45–46family, 799–803federalism, 710God’s, 50, 370hierarchy, 646, 647, 1080joint responsibility, 800–1Joseph, 414Joshua, 90, 92, 1207liability, 797oath, 896, 899–903patriarchy, 798plural, 51, 53, 471–75priest/king, 662priests, 678prophet, 489, 678–79responsibility, 679rival gods, 234sanctions, 55


1482

seller, 1066specialization, 51stories, 118transfer, 32, 90, 151voice of, 708volunteerism &, 51

autonomyaggregation vs., 1252assumed, xlviiiblessings &, 202, 1322cosmos, 494covenant-breaking, 322economic growth, 182, 303economic theory, xlviii,

1252Egyptians, 161eyes, 350false worship, 320–21free market, 1081God, 317, 319, 1251, 1269greed &, 1010–11idolatry, 317, 321imputation, 1252individualism, 1269kingdom of politics, 709law, 318–19Locke, John, xlviiilure, 355, 1129mathematics, 227methodological individualism,lii–liiimodernism’s gods, 1283Moses/rock, 1231mysticism, 319

national, 1129people, 708power, 318reasoning, 123rebellion, 102science, 494self-ownership, xlviiiSmith, 1123social theory, 620State, 630, 653suicide, 1178supreme court, 630temptation, 1212value-free economics, 1247wealth, 202

Aztecs, 481

Baal, 234Babylon, 138, 140, 143, 326,

329, 385, 444, 486Bahnsen, Greg, ix, , 904n, 905,

1225–27balance of payments, 580, 1158Banfield, Edward, 58, 584Bangladesh, 77Bank of England, 1090banking

central, 1090–91fractional reserves, 954–58,

1088–89fraud, 1088–89payments system, 932–33

bankruptcy, 1008, 1089baptism

Index

1483

circumcision &, 423daughters, 782equality, 863inclusion, 387gender equality, 856infant, 1440ninheritance, 863Jew/Greek, 863oath-sign, 384ownership, 831records, 823servant to son, 374sonship, 387

Baptists, 174Bar Kochba, 113, 185–86,

386–87barbed wire, 1071Barbed Wire Reformed Church,

1412bargainers, 979–81, 1331Barnhouse, Donald, 571nbarter, 1146basket of goods, 1055bastardy, 120–22, 181, 279, 394Bastiat, Frederic, 1078Bathsheba, 900–1Battle of the Bulge, 740nbattlefield formation, 1183–84,

1185–86Bauer, Peter T., 1350–51, 1369Baxter, Richard, 436beach bum, 290nbeasts, 1441Beelzebub, 223

begging, xviBeisner, E. Calvin, xxBen-haded, 222Berber tribe, 111Berlin Wall, 1071–72bestiality, xix, xxi, 1016Bethell, Tom, xlviiBethlehem, 446, 622betrayal, 703Bible

absolute, 875authority, 500–1blueprints, xiii–xiv,

1019–20, 1317completed, 500, 501, 503cosmic personalism, 123ethics, 1328literacy &, 779modernism, 220prophet, 503scrolls, 678self-commenting, 1027Van Til’s experience, 431wrath to grace, 416

Bible Presbyterian Church, xxiibiblical law

antinomianism vs., 997,1017, 1028, 1084

annulment, 853, 997, 1019authority of, 194, 420, 1019autonomous God, 319blessings &, 1122–23bureaucracy, 844–45calendar, 411


1484

capital, 1319capitalism &, 18, 818case laws, 856–57, 1015,

1024Christendom &, xxixcivil, 589civil authority, 51civil sanctions, 612comprehensive, 194, 421conquest of Canaan, 362continuity, 1024courage, 96–97, 1186covenant, 341covenant lawsuit, 1029critics of, 337, 437–38,

1028, 1019, 1084–85cross-boundary (see cross-boundary laws)daily instruction, 194dominion &, 1176decentralization, 664economic blueprints, 1317economic growth &, 220,

321, 1176–78eschatology &, 638evangelism, 99–114, 582,

594family &, 802grace &, 244hatred of, 16–18, 567heart &, 422–23, 429hermeneutic, 854–56,

1016–17, 1024higher criticism vs., 436–37

historical study’s guide, 198imitation by children,

429–30immigration, 393inheritance, 997, 1208intermediary institutions,

475internalized, 429justice, 114king obeys, 661–62kingdom &, 211–12,

1135–36kingdom grant, 18, 97, 325learn by doing, 194liberty &, 1198mastery, 420–23natural law theory vs., 438,

1029non-bureaucratic, 847oath, 403obedience, 421ownership of Canaan, 330priesthood, 662private property, 397, 391productivity &, 582protection for all, 601public reading, 411, 599,

1190Puritans, 436–37rebellion against, 211, 358Reed vs., 1396reference point, 1053reputation abroad, 100revelational, 612, 1193

Index

1485

revised, 1019sanctions, xli, 211, 331,

424–26, 478, 1107spirit of, 844spiritualizing, 570stones, 1110theocratic, 1025tool of dominion, xxix,

1206, 1334, 1357unity, 63victory &, 1189wealth &, 1121–22wisdom, 99, 100see also Mosaic law

Big Bang, 255, 261, 312, 1222biology, 272bird in hand, 1187bird’s nest, 832Bismarck, Otto, 666-67black power, 180nBlackenhorn, David, 204blasphemy, 505–6blessings

autonomy &, 1322charity, 879–80compounding, 302comprehensive, 880confirmation, 603corporate, xvii, 1120–44,

1149–53, 1262, 1317covenant, 1099, 1130–33firstborn son, 595life and land, 621, 622–23multiplication, 301

oath, 644obedience, 171–72, 1232objective, 1107, 1120–24,

1143, 1261–62responsibility &, xistream, 1099temporal/eternal, 300tithing &, 1102

blindness, 351, 1102blood, 135, 840blood avenger (see kinsman

redeemer)blood money, 728blueprints, xiii-xiv, 18, 654,

1019–20, 1377Boaz, 1040–41, 1045–46Bob Jones University, 124bondage, 298, 374, 563, 566bondservant, 561–62books, viiiBooths (see Tabernacles)borders, 233, 237, 876, 936Boulding, Kenneth, 1245boundaries

borders, 233, 237–38, 876covenant, 1166defenseless, 962dominion covenant, 693exile, 685family’s land, 684–85God’s name, 1031Greece, 690holiness, 214, 588, 598,

852–53home, 951


1486

judicial, 661–62landmarks, 683, 692law, 1185leases, 910–11military, 657–58moral, 228ownership, l–lipagan gods, 222point three, 79poor people, 1006post-exilic, 685Promised Land, 408ranges, 1068Rome, 690sanctions &, 1112–19State, 1006tree, 910–11tribal, 411, 924, 1440World War II, livworship &, 492see also immigration

Boy Scouts, 206–7bragging, 1070brain drain, 1071branding, 830–31bravery, 730bread, 283–84, 296–297, 468–

69, 947–48bread/word, 253breadwinner, 948breeds, 860, 1443bribery, 388, 615British Parliament, 638, 642Bruno, Giordano, 504n

brute facts, 350Buchanan, James, 235nBuddhism, 319burden of proof, [204 – 704]bureaucracy, 844–46burial, 690–91building codes, 333, 841–51Buridan’s ass, 1252Burckhardt, Jacob, 473nBurke, Edmund, 472–73Bury, J. B., 304–5bureaucracy, 664, 844–46, 1424bus, viiibutterfly effect, 218n, 222

Caesar, xv, 362, 1277Cain, 135, 152n, 772–73, 801Calabrisi, Guido, 848–49calculus, 1238, 1253Caleb, xxxiv, 9, 21, 29, 31, 349calendars, 409–10, 551, 1064–

65California Coastal Commission,

315–16calling, 681Calvin, John, 359Calvinism, 133–34, 174, 524–

25, 1209Canaan

altars, 449capital, 33, 227–29common grace, 450conquest, 19culture, 447

Index

1487

destruction, 326–27, 360(see genocide)

disinheritance, 214, 228–29,452

division of labor, 228genocide, 214–16, 238,

356–57God’s special ownership,

683–84gods, 211, 222, 439, 442,

452, 479–80gold, 454groves, 450idols, 222–23implements, 450inheritance, 33, 36 judgment day, 254pluralism, 456polytheism, 465power religions, 453real estate, 82separation, 214–15spiritual inheritance, 33standards, 356–57, 360wealth preserved, 216

Canaanitesannihilation, 214–16, 356,

441–42, 453, 738capital, 738cause & effect, 225–26cup of iniquity, 453disinheritance, 66, 214, 278

281, 327, 425, 452–53,683, 738, 912–13

dominion, 1317enslavement prohibited, 453excluded, 683expelled, 321, 341false worship, 278, 485Gibeonites, 452losers (guaranteed), 366remnant perseveres, 329threat to Israel, 278worse than Israel, 353–54,

56capital

accumulation, 579biblical law, 1319components of, 1318compound growth, 120confession of faith, 226consumption, 1152–53continuity (family), 793disinheritance, 790–91entrepreneurship, 1188ethics &, 179export of, 579, 581–83future-orientation, 83inter-generational, 83limits to growth, 184loss of, 120Mosaic law, 154

capital punishment (seeexecution)

capitalism, 190, 818captives, 747–49captivity

comforting, 138


1488

covenant’s confirmation,140–41

death, 1179empires’ gods, 233evangelism, 751–52festivals ceased, 746hope during, 138, 139, 1167idolatry, 1179incomplete, 329inheritance, 98, 119, 138,

139, 211, 1168land law changed, 330language, 749–50pluralism &, 438prophecy, 130, 1166–67return, 385sanction, 130, 447separation, 211universal God, 1168–69

cards (notes), 1238cards (shuffle), 258caretaker, 816, 824, 831cart, 216–17Carthage, 109–10case law, 1015–17, 1024, 1026–

27casuistry

demise, 436, 506, 615–16,1133

economic growth &, 610–16

God’s art, 615inescapable concept, 616inheritance &, 607–26

justice in Israel, 611, 615lost skill, 616Paul, 1024Rushdoony, 1133

cattle breeding, 1443causation

anti-covenantal, 1179Ark of the Covenant, 216–

17assumptions, 226–27Canaanites’ view, 225, 483chance, 217covenantal, 197, 202, 227,

316, 592, 896, 900,9 9 6 –97, 1030–31 ,1155–56, 1213

Darwinian, 123demons &, 495dualistic, 122eschatology &, xxxix-xlethics &, 169–71, 316,

1123, 1130–32formulas, 227hope, 1349humanism vs. Christianity,

42, 122, 200, 216, 1062Kant, 216, 311Kline, Meredith (see Kline)labor, 750magic, 218–19, 492–93,

495perverse, 1179–80repeatability, 493, 495secular, 216

Index

1489

social, 572, 1133, 1156supernatural, 216, 218–19technology, 226–27

celebrations, 603celibacy, 1022celtic traders, 112central planning, 50, 75centralization, 50–52, 70, 73–

74, 78, 409, 651, 663, 755,846, 1003

census, 404chance, 217, 221, 1209Charles II, 642chariots, 351, 658, 726 charity

blessings, 879–80compulsory, 823conditional, 1005–8dead animal, 516, 519debt, 1152–53dependence, 1153entitlements, 823, 1005fallen animal, 816gleaning, 993, 1000, 1004God’s ownership, 1009grace, 1005loan, 557–605, 879–81,

1191personalized, 1009Sanger vs., 237Sider, 1375voluntary, 823

chastening, 275–77, 281cheating, 1066–67

checks and balances, 1055Cheops pyramid, 1064nChemosh, 482, 483childhood, 429–32Chilton, David, xxChina, 42, 108, 587choice, 1252–53, 1259, 1260–

61Christ (see Jesus)Christendom

biblical law, xxixChristian civilization, 455confession, 461denial of, xv, 454–62, 1134,1421eschatology &, 458, 1218,

1224, 1423faded ideal, 182, 1312Great Commission &, 1405inconceivable today, 1219Kline vs., 1134–35Luther vs., xvproductivity, 231triumph, 438West, 229

Christian reconstructionacademic disciplines, 568casuistry revived, 436, 1133dominion covenant, 1415hermeneutics, 329nopposition to, 568, 1220,

1411, 1418Reed vs., 1394–1401see also theonomy


1490

Christian schools, 432–35Christianity, viii, 360–61, 614,

620Christmas, 550, 551church

Babylonian captivity, 435,438

beggar, 786Bible’s story, 128boundaries, 231calendar, 551compounding, 36decentralized, 1437defeat, 1416–17, 1419–20definitive, 42growth, 36, 40–41Holy Spirit, 1419–20inclusion, 387inheritance, 36, 1047,

1420–21international, 231, 1437membership, 395, 554monopoly, 395New World Order, 1271Nicea, 638officers, 637post-ascension, 1419State &, 627–48, 652, 708–

10, 1192tortoise, 41universal, 231usury laws, 577, 578Westminster Assembly,

638–39

Church Age, xliv–xlv, 425, 572Church bonds (investments),

573circumcision

baptism &, 423blood boundary, 857boundary, 251, 858, 1440conditional promise, 7, 14–

15, 170confession &, 1207conquest &, 29, 245, 251,

279–80, 379, 741, 1207covenant sign, 7ethical, 391heart, 378, 379, 380, 396,

422hope, 761inheritance, xliii, 6–7, 14–

15, 29, 241–45, 279–80,382, 1207–8

judgeship, 656kingdom grant, 379lawful heirs, 251negative corporate sanctions,381, 383oath-sign, 243, 280, 381,

1207, 1208obedience &, 380–81ownership mark, 823, 831Paul, 379promise (conditional), 14–

15, 171sanctions, 381–83separation, 857–58

Index

1491

sonship, 242, 380–83subordination, 381surrender, (military) 742,

761–62tributary treaty, 741uncircumcision, 380nwilderness, 1–2, 7, 151

cities (Levites), 673cities (refuge), 841citizenship

adoption (tribe), 673authority, 700biblical, 644circumcision, 719confession, 876court, 700covenantal, 280, 395, 655–

56, 1073excluded groups, 538excommunication &, 471,

589, 864festivals, 598–600holy army, 673, 714, 719,

722, 755, 811immigration, 235inheritance, 811judge, 644, 655, 700oath, 280, 644sanctions, 280two foundations, 719witness, 700

city, 548city of God, xxixcity of man, 740n, 1197

civil covenantcircumcision, 656common grace, 235confession, 460courts, 609, 630festivals, 599immigration &, 393Judah, 1439magistrates, 612Mosaic, 139negative sanctions only, 629neutral, 238pluralists deny, 507prohibited (Canaan), 244,

861resident aliens, 575, 600–1separation, 861Tertullian & Rome, 1278tithe &, 676Whigs (Constitution),

639–41witness, 700–1yoking, 861see also State

civil law (see law: civil)Civil War (American), 365civilization, 1219 (see alsoChristendom)clans, 907class, 58, 584, 996, 1164classical culture, 480classical religion, 1117classroom, 205Clinton, Bill, 1394


1492

cloak, 942clocks, 1064–65closed system, 254, 256, 261clothes, 252, 254, 256, 273,

857, 862–64, 866Club of Rome, 1353–54clustering (neighborhoods),

1154coal miner, 190coasts, 104–5collateral, 562, 565, 575, 889,

939–53Colson, Charles, 460, 639–40commission (tithe), 419commentaries )Bible), xxxiicommerce, 516, 520committees, 68–73, 78, 1425common fields, 853common grace

Adam, 370, 940Calvin, John, 359Canaan, 450Canaan’s capital, 33–34capital, 450common knowledge, 227condemnation, 451corporate, 360–61culture, xxixday of judgment, 964debt to God, 964defined, 451denial, 360–61goals, 34inheritance &, 33–35, 439–

43Kline’s view, 198, 620,

1098, 1133–34long life, 34natural law theory vs., 361obedience, 359objectivity, 1143pagan confession, 1107prayer breakfasts (political),

467nrain, 413special grace &, 964stranger, 514, 593testimony, 699wealth, 34witnesses, 698–99

common law, 318common meals, 465–66communion table, 919–20Communism, 76–77, 473–75,

648, 875, 1139–40community

covenants, 933economy &, 930–33efficiency &, 933famine, 928–29festivals, 606sense of, 935

comparative religion, 482, 484competition

cheating, 1067–76civic, 1073corporations, 205Elijah, 489

Index

1493

exclusion, 976–78execution vs., 791fraud, 989free market, 975, 1069generals, 48good vs. evil, 1074information, 977international, 205, 1074meat market, 520–21oppression-free, 978–79perfect, 1042n, 1244npolitical, 1324publishing, 1382State vs., 1128structure, 978, 1330tax revenues, 664workers, 971, 976, 980,

988, 1331, 1446stranger, 514

complexity, 50, 52, 53compound growth

biblical principles, 41covenant-breakers, 39covenantal, 38–39inheritance, 43iniquity vs., 40inter-generational, 92–93limits, 308, 311–12negative, 119–20reinvestment, 40victory, 39

compulsion, 1001computer chips, 309–11confession of faith

Abram’s, 552Adamic family, 395adoption, 1046assimilation, 751autonomy, 203biblical yoke, 861borders, 858, 936Christendom, 461, 735Christian nation, 459–60,

477circumcision &, 858, 1207citizenship, 280n, 393, 876–

77 citizenship and immigration,393, 396civil, 477–77common ground, 236,

456–60, 484, 1311–12common grace, 450–51communion, 819continuity, 404, 457corporate, 1104–6, 1110,

1112covenant, 150, 404, 450–51covenant lawsuit, 510Deuteronomy 13, 503dual covenants, 590early (criminal), 740economic growth, 1129economics (atheism), 1233,

1249education &, 208Enlightenment, 476–77ethical dualist’s, 103


1494

exclusion, 936false, 503family, 395, 458festivals, 549, 1094–96 Greek, 484humanist State, 458, 462,

476, 1155inheritance, 1046–47Israel’s incorporation, 465,

470–71, 476Jews, 1285, 1290–91,

1300–4, 1310–15Job’s, 1097Joshua’s, 94lost animal law, 816magician’s, 510marriage, 1291–95Melchizedek’s, 552–54 mixing, 863modern science, 227, 493modernism’s, 203, 1283,

1287, 1312Moses vs. Pharaoh, 495–96national, 236, 297, 393,

396, 457–59, 464–65,470–71, 476–77, 858,865–66, 876, 1053, 1153

natural law theory, 1195–97neutrality, 456, 457–58, 906oath of purity, 1104–5obedience as a test, 494–95 pagan, 1105–8passion vs., 1311perfection, 1103

personal, 94, 227Peter’s, 621pietism’s, xxix–xxxpolitical pluralism’s, 280n,

335, 385, 457–58, 462,477, 876, 1195

positive, 1101–9power &, 495prophecy, 490, 493–94,

509–10 public education, 208Roman empire’s, 754, 1117,

1273sacrifice, 471, 1097sanctions &, 1101–4, 1118,

1129sanctuary society, 875,

935–36scientific worldview, 226separation, 858, 863, 865,

919Sodom, 457subordination to God, 297,

460, 908, 919, 1225tribal names replaced by,

1046–47Trinitarian, 280n, 396, 460–

61, 477ultimate resource, 226 Unitarian, 462unity, 464–65, 858Western culture, 735Westminster Confession,

639, 1226

Index

1495

witnesses, 699–700yoke, 861

confidence, 426, 948, 1423–24confusion, 272conquest

assignment, 29, 67circumcision &, 29, 242–

43, 245continuity, 404costs, 743courage &, 1182covenant model, 176, 426exclusion, 911–14fourth generation, 93, 342inheritance, 279inter-generational, 83kingdom extension, 913kingship, 649mandatory, 67means of, 302military, 68model for history, 429obedience, 250promise, 240–51prophecy, 67, 427prophetic laws, 717rejected, 67success, 250third generation, 93title to land, 330trade, 753unique event, 31, 36

conquest generationAbraham’s heirs, 153

circumcision, 244, 379,1207

courage, 97covenant renewal, 26,

175–76grace, 153heirship, 244inheritance delayed, 30oath, 398, 405risk (circumcision), 244transfer of authority, 93uncircumcised, 151

conscience, xvi, 697conscription, 718–22conspiracy, 692, 702–4consumers, 74–76, 82, 1152,

1066, 1068consumption, 812–83continuity

amillennialism, 1218–19,1224

capital, 793conquest, 404covenant, xliii–xliv, 19,

30–31, 92, 150, 1163,1165, 1173

Darwinism, 262discontinuity &, 1223–24dominion, 404exodus generation, 158fifth commandment, 622–23grace, 253growth, 404, 1219history/eternity, xxxviii,


1496

428–29, 451inheritance, 329, 404, 451kingdom extension, 404Mosaic covenant, 158Mosaic law, 149, 152New Heaven/New Earth,

416oath, 402obedience, 1106Passover, 158point five, 403postmillennialism, 1219representation, 30–31restoration, 1173subjectivism, 1265, 1267Ten Commandments, 128wealth, 1164warfare, 748

contraception, 394, 779ncontract

authority, 906civil courts, 633, 648cooperation &, 907–99covenant &, 516, 634, 906–

9debt, 960enforcement, 1081illegitimate, 950legal predictability, 633representation, 907right of, 1328self-government, 908State sanctions, 885, 907,

1081

value of, 623vow &, 895, 898, 906, 909

control (taxes), 663–65contumacy, 630–31, 796, 806–8cooperation, 613, 694, 907, 909coordination (plans), 1269copper, 285corn (see grain)corners (fields), 992corporation, 74cosmic clock, 23cosmic personalism, 23, 123cosmology, 306, 317, 322cosmos, 221–22, 443–44, 494costs

counting, 349–53estimating, 70God’s pleasure, 363legal predictability, 633magic, 495

Coulanges, Fustel, 410n, 473n,480, 1113–16

Council of Nicea, 638counsellors, 69–71, 76counterfeiting, 1075, 1076,

1088–89courage, 94–98, 169, 1183,

1188court

agents of, 700-1appeals, 629civil, 706–7expenses, 701–2modern, 706

Index

1497

numbers, 630–31oppression, 1442predictable, 613, 950priests, 630–31, 706–7sanctions, 630, 700–1venue, 629–30supreme (see Supreme

Court)venue, 629–30

covenantAbram, 553Abraham, 153, 1439Adam, xxi–xxii, 356–59agricultural cycle, 419annulment, 1229authority, 294, 1163, 1166biblical law, 341blessings, 294–95, 299bond, 301boundaries, 1166broken (United States), 181causation (see causation:covenantal)citizenship, 280, 395, 655–

56, 1073civil (see civil covenant)Christ/Satan, 462c i r c u m c i s i o n ( s e ecircumcision)community &, 933confirmation, 301, 302,

427, 603, 1164, 1166continuity, xlix–xliv, 19,

30–31, 92, 150, 158,

854, 404, 1163, 1165,1173

contracts, 516, 634, 906–9corporate, 1153courage, 94declaration, 277Deuteronomy, 1207

discontinuity, 128–29,345, 347, 478, 625, 854,1130–33

dispersion, 1168–69economic growth, 140, 290,

301, 414, 603economics, 556eschatological, 414, 416,

1222ethical, 479, 691exile, 689–90faithfulness, 95, 96, 299,

301, 378, 510family, 395, 795father, 384final declaration, 1081five points, xxxv, 174, 194–

96forgetfulness, 287, 326fourth (civil), 644future-orientation, 594–97gentiles, 331Gerezim/Ebal, 1111grace, 298grandparents, 120–21hearing, 353hierarchy, 608


1498

historical development,281–82

history &, 419, 1135–39Horeb, 146imputation, 12incarnation &, 1423inheritance, 212, 228, 403,

404integrated, 1215inter-generational, 178–82Jonah, 488, 1029judges, 1076judicially objective, 1261law, 176lawsuit, 196, 488, 492, 803,

1174, 1211, 1228legal claims, 680marriage, 1293–94meals, 220Moses’ song, 1203–5national, 176, 326, 575,

1156nature’s processes, 413oath, 398, 896one/many, 465parents, 152, 794–96Passover (see Passover)Pentateuch’s structure, xxxvpolitical, 235predictability, 198prophet, 510prosperity, 1160–65rain, 413, 416reductionism, 235

renewal, 2, 25, 158, 405,1102, 1105, 1110, 1193,1197, 1207

representation, 152, 300,1421

responsibility, 1131restoration, 139sanctions, 137, 141, 143,

300, 1163self-reinforcing, 1321sign, 7stipulations (law), 171stranger, 383model (See covenant

model)subordination, 301success, 202–3Ten Commandments, 149theology, 1222theonomy, 1225three generations, 122time &, 322, 585transitory, 516ultimate resource, 285war over, 477wealth &, 286, 298, 301,

1096whose?, 644witness, 135, 1203

covenant modelAbraham, 171authority (point two), 610boundaries (point three), 79circumcision (point four),

Index

1499

381–82continuity, 403covenant renewal (pointfour), 2, 1102, 1110Deuteronomy, xxiv–xxvDeuteronomy 6:4–-13, 194–

96dominion (point three), 578economic theory, 15eschatology (point five),xxxix, xl–xlvi, 1227Exodus, xxv, 958five points, xxxvforgetfulness (point two),

294God’s sovereignty (point

one), 401, 1203healing (point four), 266hierarchy (point two), 958,

1102Hittite treaties, xxvholiness (point three), 598,

714, 724imputation (point four), 11inheritance, 22, 91, 197,

404, 1175, 1227–28Israel’s boundaries (pointthree), 464Kline/Sutton, 24, 1227Levitical sacrifices, xxvLeviticus, xxvlost animal (point three),

819mediator, 24

oath, 1101outline, xxxv–xxxviPareto’s law, 1157Pentateuch’s structure, xxiv,

xxxvprophet’s job, 131rebellion (point four), 787representation (point two),

90, 1421sabbath (point four), 557standards (point three),

1055, 1060, 1083Sutton, xxxv, 24, 1227Ten Commandments, xxvvow (point four), 895

cowardice, 731–32, 1187creation, 1062Creation Science, 258–59, 266,

268–70creationism, 124, 126creativity, 285, 291credit, 36, 968, 1089, 1156,

1158–59credit/debt, 966–70, 1146–47,

1152Cree Indians, 111crime

civil sanctions, 60, 701,791, 998

cost of, 62habitual, 796, 805illegitimacy v., 121increase, 60, 121rates, 181


1500

rebellious son, 794, 796,803

theocentric, 993–94time preference, 58–59victim, 62victimless, 333–34

criminal class, 805–8, 811, 813criminals, 58, 61–62, 63Cromwell, Oliver, 618, 642crop, 911ff., 994–95cross-boundary laws

antinomians vs., 1029bird’s nest, 832, 839blessings, 1232charitable loan, 575collateralized loan, 941evangelism through law,

100false worship, 504grain picking, 935judicial hierarchy, 45judicial impartiality, 56,

607, 620–21, 623just weights, 1052landmarks, 1111list of, 1445–47lost property, 815muzzled ox, 1012, 1028,

1030obedience, 168–69, 253roof railing, 851sabbath law, 156, 165teaching God’s law, 211vows, 897

wages withheld, 962warfare, 724, 767

cult, 229–30cultural despair, 1221cultural echo, 180cultural evolution, 108cultural mandate, xxii–xxiiicultural wedge, 1346–47culture, xxii, 750, 997, 1221culture of death, 1177cup of iniquity, 453Currey, Cecil, 100–200curses

Abraham, 1044autonomy, 320–21boundaries, 1119captivity, 139, 765–66continuity, 1117–19, corporate, 1262death, 940debt, 583disinheritance, 879drought, 412–13entropy, 258–61, 265–67,

272, 312, 1052Egypt’s taxes, 665Fall, 250–51, 298–99, 370false judgment, 601, 1112ground (Eden), 15–16Gerezim/Ebal, 1118hanging, 691homosexuality, 232humility, 301Jews in dispensationalism,

Index

1501

xlivlandmark moved, 686, 1111national debt, 1153nature, 413–14, 848Nineveh, 6objective, 1120, 1121old age, 416parents, 793predictable, 1098–99ratification, 1112reversal, 890nserpent, 400shaman, 501Solomon’s wealth, 651temporal/eternal, 300, 991uncharitableness, 560wilderness, 295–96, 819,

1088wine’s absence, 947n

curve, 1253cyclical history, 300, 412, 419Cyrus, 212

dabar (“word”), 420Dabney, Robert, 365ndaily bread, 947–48Daniel, 901Darius, 901Darwin, Charles, 1381Darwinism

conquest academically, 265,268, 1408–9

continuity principle, 261–63Creation Science vs.,

260–63deep time, 262discontinuity principle,

262–63drugs &, 809education, 809na t u r a l l a w theor yundermined, 437, 710, 1196naturalism, 162Newtonianism undermined,

125, 507, 1234punctuated equilibrium, 262social effects, 809social thought, 268–70socialism (1890), 268, 1078success indicator, 268uniformitarianism, 262–63

Dathan, 328daughters

baptism, 782, 812education, 779–80family name, 796inheritance, 777–81, 859,

1003, 1358rebellious, 796

David, 375, 659, 915–18, Davidson, Nicholas, 121day of atonement, 410, 1191day of judgment, 964day of the Lord, 342–47, 365death

abortion (see abortion)disinheritance, 1175equalizing, 300


1502

eschatological, 416false prophecy, 491, 679Isaiah’s prophecy, 416leveler, 218last enemy, 273meaning &, 218penalty (see execution)sanction, 12, 15

Deborah’s song, 444, 718, 719debt

aliens, 563–64, 572–73,575, 579, 868, 883–84

cancelled, 1191charity &, 559–60, 572–74,

576, 867church, 573, 576–77collateral, 562–65, 575, 951commercial, 564–65, 567–

68, 574consumer, 1152contracts, 960definitive/progressive, 964dominion, 884export &, 579–80foreign trade, 579–82government’s, 322grace &, 964guarantee, 1147–48interest-free, 563–66, 568,

576, 578–79legal bond, 1147limits on, 574–76mankind’s, 1010multiple, 575, 953–58, 960

pledge, 939–42poverty &, 558–60, 563–65,

579present-orientation, 37, 575,

1151productive, 1152release, 532, 557–58risk, 565sabbatical year, 283,

557–58servitude, 573, 575, 584–

85, 868subordination 878–79,

1148–52trade, 580–83, 586–87wealth &, 1147year of release, 557–58inescapable, 967

debt/credit, 585–86, 966–70,1146, 1152, 1158

D e c a l o g u e ( s e e T e nCommandments)decay, 260–61, 264–65decentralization, 653, 657, 669decree

butterfly effect, 222Calvinism vs. antinomianism,134conquest generation, 403final judgment, 897God’s sovereignty, 1268Great Commission, 1403–4historical evaluation, 1063historical progress, 898

Index

1503

Medes and Persians, 901predestination, 1209prophecy, 342sacrificial system, 595

deep time, 262deer, 834default (loan), 945defeatism, 173, 455–56deicide, 446–49deism, 23, 337delegation, 47, 68, 685, 814–15deliverance, 295democracy, 112demons

animism, 688denial of, 220, 493Egypt’s priests, 221idols &, 201, 219, 224invocation, 219, 223, 226local, 223–24prestidigitators, 220representation, 222revenge, 498subordination to, 226

dentistry, 189dependence, 1153depression, 960, 1090de-sanctification, 33deserving poor, 993, 995, 1006de Tocqueville, Alexis, 180Deuteronomy

avoidance of, xblessings/responsibility, xicovenant model, xxiv, 174,

247–48covenant renewal, 25, 159,

165, 175, 1207Diehl vs., xi–xiidominion, 1180economic growth, xixeconomics, viii, lvforeboding, xgenocide, 17inheritance, xxxiv, xxxvi,

liv, 383, 1207law, x, 146, 1207name, 1obscure, ixopposition to, 17, 1229 pathway to success, xipostmillennial implications,

1224prologue, 24purpose, 164recapitulation, 97, 1207resented, x–xvii, xxi, 1144rival views, xiScofield’s notes, xliisecond reading, 175social theory, 19success offered, x–xitheme, liv, 10, 18, 44“these words,” 1treaty, 1228, 1229trust and obey, x

Dewey, John, 434–35diamond trade, 1075ndiaspora, 549


1504

Diehl, William, xi–xii, xiii–xiv,1021, 1213n

diet, 1345dietary laws

annulled, 173, 522–26assimilation, 750–51barrier to entry, 522Calvin on, 524–25holiness, 517, 523land laws, 512, 521–22Lord’s Supper, 525not health-related, 513,

522–23stranger, 513–14

Diggers, 645ndignity, 951, 960–61discipline, 424, 728–29, 750discontinuity

amillennialism, 417covenants, 128–29, 345,

347, 478, 625, 854,1130–31

Darwinism, 261–62diet, 750judicial, xxipietism’s hermeneutic,

569–72presumption, 12829resurrection, 1137sanctions, 1130–31

discounting, 58–59. 1082–83discoveries, 231–32discrimination, 544disinheritance

Adam, 370, 772Aztecs, 481brothers, 780Canaanites, 66, 214, 278,

281, 327, 425, 452–53,683, 912–13

covenant, 478day of the Lord, 343, 365death, 1175definitive, 281, 373definitive/progressive/final,

373disobedience, 435exclusion, 787execution, 790–91, 794final judgment, 738firstborn son, 278, 722–77,

785foreign slave owners, 872genocide, 3, 229gods, 749inescapable concept, 66contraction, 944irreversible, 790–91, 794Israel, 330, 369, 373, 377,

997, 1034Israel/Canaan, 426, 486Israel’s enemies, 1204military, 735, 748modern gods, 484national, 198New Testament, 736primary means, 736son, 772

Index

1505

reason for, 797rebellious son, 790, 795regeneration, 735–36restoration, 1169reversible, 790Satan’s, 425siege, 748, 765sons (Judaism), 1293subordination, 735theft, 687threat of, 320

dispensationalismanimal sacrifices, 345–46 Canaan, 19Church Age, 425discontinuity (church), 1218ethics, 570n, 572hermeneutic, 445, 569–72neoplatonic, 1417–18pietistic, 1417–18politics, 1286Scofield’s system, xlii–xlvisocial theory, xiv–xlvi

dispersion, 1173dissent, 124–25divide and conquer, 1185division of labor

authority, 45–46capital, 944collapse, xxxicommittee, 71compounding, 228credit, 1089debt/credit, 968, 1146–47

dependence, 932dominion covenant, 1415education, 209–10family (modern), 204–6father/son, 204–5, 433genocide vs., 225, 238idolatry, 317immigration, 234international, 228judicial, 45law &, 596, 613means of payment, 956predictability &, 596price of, 613private property &, 693–94rural, 750separation, 681service, 51sewing machines, 780skills, 843–44Smith, Adam, 190social order, 228specialization, 943–44strength, 779thrift, 225urban employment, 204–5wealth, 225women, 779–80

divorce, 855Dolan, Edwin, 1236–37dominion

agents, 16biblical law, 1176continuity, 404


1506

costs of, 362covenant (see dominion

covenant)credit, 36–37cultural, 1414debt, 884economic growth, 1176–78future-orientation, 1164gleaning, 992God’s thoughts, 65hierarchy, 65, 586, 884Israel, 169kingdom, 1156judgment &, 819–22justice, 607man’s covenant, 1179–80long life, 1175money-lending, 578–87national, 212–13, 1153nature, 836obedience, 172–75pledge, 940–41point three, 578population growth, 49, 1176private property, 823production, 83progressive, 1431Promised Land, 1175–76religion, 1180representative, 1429–30responsibility, 1179sanctions &, 1177Satan’s, 1429science, 203

superior goal, 586thrift, 1153tools, 1179war on, 1178wealth &, 36, 1162, 1176

dominion covenantbinding, 16Canaan’s capital, 454confidence, 948covenant-breakers, xxiiidenial of, xxiidivision of labor, 1415fulfillment, xxxvii, 311,

313–14, 324Great Commission, 324hierarchy, 757, 832limits of time, 308lost animal vs., 820man’s dependence, 757New Testament, 323pietism vs., xxiiiprogressive, 1415Second Coming, 324small plots, 693social hierarchy, 958–59trees, 757war on, 1178

donkey, 590, 591, 595doormats, 421doorposts, 420, 421double jeopardy, 697double payment, 1014double portion, 276, 1014, 1047down payment, xi, 716

Index

1507

dowry, 781, 778–79, 781dreams, 487drought, 412–13Drucker, Peter, 286n, 1078drugs, 334, 808–11drunkenness, 334, 604, 661n,794, 807, 1388dualism

alliance, 125civil government, 103fundamentalism, 123knowledge, 1304Luther, xv, 248–49philosophical, 122

Duhem, Pierre, 307Dutch Calvinists, 432duty, viii

earnest, xl, 11earthquake, 333East Germany, 1071–72Eastern mysticism, 219Ebal, 1111echo effect, 180–81ecology, 323, 764–66economic commentary,

xxvii–xxviiieconomic growth

ancient literature, 1212–13attitudes &, 1350–51autonomy, 203biblical law &, 240, 321biblical explanation, 226capital, 318

compounding, 228, 1213covenantal, 140, 290, 301,

415, 603Deuteronomy, 8division of labor, 228dominion &, 1176–78eighteenth century, 290end of, 311eschatology &, 414–15,

1129, 1178ethics &, 182, 415, 1213,

1320exponential curve, 1213–14faith in, 1284forgetfulness &, 293–95,

1319–20foundations, 1318freedom, 392future-orientation, 182Hong Kong, 286, 288knowledge (imported),

228–30law order, 1319magic, 497Mosaic doctrine, 240–41,

300–2, 415national, 240–41, 415normative, 418obedience, 1213population growth, 188–89progress, 302rate, 190requirement, 322, 1213rule of law &, 389, 614


1508

savings &, 304Smith, Adam, 240social imperative, 1213subordination, 240–41sustained, 1129theme, 1176West, 624–25, 1129zero-sum game vs., 1356

economic policy, 1247–48,1255–56

economic pragmatism, 474economic theory

agnosticism, xlviii, 1233,1269

atheistic, 1234autonomy, xlviii, 1252–53behaviorism, 1253Christian, xxxiii, 83, 626,

571covenant model, 15, 556dualism, 1265–68epistemology, 1199–1200ethics &, 1232–33formulas, 1232–33goal, 994methodology, xlvii–xlviii,

1323–24production/consumption, 83reductionism, 235rationalistic, 1232scarcity, xlvii–xlviiisupply-side, 83value-free, 1199, 1235welfare, 297, 537

economicsblueprint, xlvi, 18, 1019–21conspiracy, 701–3cost/supply, 633covenant/commerce, 516,

634covenantal, xlvidefined, xxxivDeuteronomy, xi. lveschatology &, 1223ethics, 1258, 1325firstfruits, 714–16free market, lvgleaning, 999–1001inheritance, 778–79, 1038Israel’s feasts, 602marginalism, 1222-23Pentateuch, xxvii–xxxpersuasion, 977–79safety &, 841–42sovereignty, xxxviistewardship, xxxivtextbooks, xxx, xxxvi, 77wandering beast, 821West, 41

Eddington, Arthur, 255Edelstein, Ludwig, 305–6Eden

death, 12domestication, 427entropy, 257–60Israel’s model, 548–49Locke’s theory, lisense of smell (entropy),

Index

1509

257training camp, 548tree (boundary), 910–11,

936–38trees (common), 450

Edersheim, Alfred, 536nEdom, 79, 81education

accreditation, 126apprenticeship, 203bureaucratic, 208–9Christian, 125–26, 128,

429–33college, 206compulsory, 434creationism, 124, 126daughters, 778–80delegated, 209–10division of labor, 209–10dualistic, 123ethical, 208feminine, 203–6formal, 194, 208fundamentalist, 124–25,

1289gender, 207graduate school, 123–24humanist, 434messianic, 208mothers, 210neutrality, 124, 208Newtonianism, 125performance by gender, 207Rome, 1280–81

secular, 124, 126–27, 208specialization, 208–10tax-funded, 122–23, 208Unitarian, 208, 209vouchers, 211

efficiencyabortion, 481central planning, 1273community &, 933exports, 582free market, 1248measure, 1248New World Order, 1272socialism, 1236subordinate issue, 1325

Egyptbondservant, 600bureaucracy, 410, 845–46centralized information, 411empire, 658exodus, 4famine, 414firstfruits, 1094–95iron furnace, 116Israel’s slavery, 496–97magicians, 220oppression, 389, 996precise measurements,

409–10priests’ magic, 495sabbath, 161sanctions, 496servants, 158socialism, 497


1510

special grace, 413–14stoning, 609strangers, 389taxation, 665, 1338transportable wealth, 81two, 107

Eisenhower, Dwight, 48nelder, 1014Eleazar, 383, 678election, 12, 170electricity, 779Eli, 209Eliab, 375Elijah, 411, 488–98, 501Elisha, 741Elimelech, 1038–41, 1043–45,

1050elites, 1127Emims, 347emigration, 1071–72Emmert, John, 113empire

ancient religion, 210, 1117,1289

Babel, 1289barriers, tom 742–43centralized, 657–58citizens’ veto, 721classical religion, 1117coastal, 104–5commerce, 657nDaniel’s prophecy, 1271evangelism &, 754, 752–53,

754

horses, 657–58Israel &, 656, 727, 742,

746–47, 751–53military, 657pantheon, 233pluralism, 744, 746–47, 754polytheistic, 483Rome, 1197–98syncretism, 442taxes, 477trade, 746United Stares, 657

employer, 963, 965, 969–70,972–73

empowerment, 1028enemies, 572energy

constant, 254entropy &, 312kinetic, 255potential, 257random, 256resurrection, 257

Engels, Frederick, 50n, 931,1063n

Engelsma, David, 417, 1220,1411–14

English Civil War, 638–39, 646Enlightenment

American, 640civil confession, 476–77Communism, 648Decalogue, 504–9Duhem vs., 307

Index

1511

national incorporation,476–77

pietism &, 437pluralism, 238, 618, 754–

55, 639–40right wing, xlixScottish, 357social theory, 1134temple (political), 1312voting, 476Whigs, 1250

entertainment, 122entitlements, 823entrepreneurship

action, 1187–89adding value, 83Austrian School, 829capital, 190, 893, 1189equilibrium, 1242, 1244idle resources &, 828–29insight, 1268–69Kirzner/Lachmann, 1265nMises/Knight, 1243uncertainty, 829, 891–92

entropycost, 259covenant sanctions, 322cursed, 257, 266, 274defined, 255Eden, 259–60effects, 260ethics &, 265final judgment &, 256finitude, 312

heat death, 185ignored, 266millennial kingdom, 271miracles &, 271overcoming the effects, 299pessimillennialism, 267social, 264–65, 269–70social model, 295social theory, 268zero, 273

envy, 390–91, 481, 1161, 1257–58

Ephraim, 776epistemology, 641, 1062, 1199–

1200, 1248, 1269equal time (Jesus), 462, 1085equality, 300equilibrium, 262, 1236–39,

1242–44, 1252equinoxes, 306Er, 775Esau, 79, 348, 354, 773–74,

1331eschatology

adiaphora, 456, 1226biblical law &, 638Canaan, 19Christian Reconstruction,

1397civil law &, 1087–88continuity, 346–47, 428dead end, 1221defeatism, 173, 455–56discontinuity, 346–47, 417


1512

dominion covenant, 324economic growth, 1178Great Commission, 1403inheritance xxxviii–xxxix,

7, 20, 406, 417, 426–27kingdom replacement, xllimits to growth, 37, 39–40,

321millennial views, 360model, 427myth of neutrality, 456point five, xxxix, 1409population growth &, 312preterism, 1406representation, 1421sanctions &, 276, 637social theory, xxxix–xliv,

267, 269–72, 1135–38,1421–23

succession, xliEstablishment, 489Estrada, Emilio, 108ethics

capital asset, 179common ground, 198–99community &, 430–33cosmos &, 446dispensationalism &, 570,

572economic growth, 182economics, 1233–34, 1244–

45, 1246–50, 1258, 1325entropy &, 265fundamental, 265

hedge, 492history &, 1135–36inheritance, 426, 427Kant’s noumenal realm, 311kingdom grant, 246–47, 382land &, 385neighborliness, 929prophecy &, 131–32, 492ritual &, 380Smith, Adam. 1123–24social theory, 1327wealth &, 1124

Euclid, 230evaluation, 1121evangelicalism, 124evangelism

captivity, 751–52empires &, 752–53law &, 99–114, 582military, 753–54Passover or, 744peace, 752pluralism &, 752shared meal, 592–93

Eve, 492, 608evolution, 262, 270evolutionism

conquest, 911–14wilderness, 83–84ownership, 683stewardship, 683theistic, 1408

exclusion, 689, 787–89, 817–19, 976–78

Index

1513

excommunicationaliens, 1194citizenship &, 471, 589, 864declaration, 637ecclesiastical, 796–97, 864excommunication, 509, 864festival attendance, 542inheritance, 84weak reed, 509n

executionabortionists as executioners,

619Achan, 737nAdam, 370Adonijah, 901biblical case for, 59–61bloodshed, 840Cain, 801Canaanites, 717, 737central issue, 481civil sanction, 612, 630–31,

795court venue (God’s), 59crime &, 60, 609–10, 808debate, 503–5disinheritance, 785, 789–90,

794, 796donkey, 590Elijah, 488, 490exclusion, 787false prophet, 488–90, 494,

499, 650, 679, 681false worship, 278family &, 795, 799, 812

habitual criminals, 796,805, 808

hermeneutics, 1016hierarchy &, 610Jesus, 59, 712nmurder, 840–41predictability, 632present-orientation, 59rebellious son, 782, 787–

813refrigerators, 847restitution, 630–32revenge, 59–60roof law, 641, 845Saul’s sons, 904siege law, 747, 749, 758,

763, 768socially central, 481Socrates, 870nstoning, 609–10, 794, 1396time preference, 59uncovered pits, 847whole burnt offering, 737nwitness, 697, 700, 804, 812

exile, 185, 316, 689Exodus (book)

biblical law, xbook of the covenant, 176n,

958case laws, 436, 793context, 165covetousness, 162deliverance, xxxvifive-point model, xxv, 24


1514

lost animal, 816number-one question, 164–

65purpose, 164sabbath, 156–59, 164

exodus, 4, 8, 32, 197, 389, 443,496–97, 1153

exodus generationanti-inheritance, 44blindness, 402children of, 31Christians’ model (negative),404continuity, 158curse on, 295–96, 559, 1088death of, 1–2, 21–22, 29,

1088disinherited, 30, 93, 97Egypt’s legacy, 959excluded, 3eschatological inheritance,

400, 406eye of faith, 412faithless, 9, 68, 402God’s command to, 29, 32,67God’s threat to, 1033–34inheritance refused, 97,

400, 403leadership transfer, 402Passover, 158power-seeking, 44present-oriented, 176prophecy to Abraham, 72

rebellious, 28–31, 363, 402,404, 559

slaves, 157–58, 718third, 21trade, 83transfer of title, 32third, 21, 28

exponential curve, 269, 309,312

exports, 579–83, 587eye for eye, 617, 696–97, 699–

700, 711, 841eyewitness, 116–18

face to face, 147–49, 155facts, 117, 350faith

Abraham’s, 243, 244, 552army (small), 726atheism, 484breakdown, 335brother in, 575, 878, 882,

889–90, 892Calvinism, 249Christian economics, 1200Christ’s divinity, 638circumcision, 857citizenship, 876–77Communism, 1141, 1273compromised, 103, 123–24,

340, 508, 666confession (see confession

of faith)conquest, 231

Index

1515

continuity, 404corporate, 128, 488, 1214covenant blessings, 154Darwinism, 262dead, 426democracy, 1334economic theory, 1268Egypt’s, 414Europe, 41festivals/feasts, 602–3filtered memory, 118future, 41, 151, 508, 592–

93, 595, 716, 802, 1165,1363, 1410

gift of God, 431God’s law, 1181, 1195,

1363God’s sovereignty, 403,

1363grace, 154, 713grammar of, 227household of, 373, 374,

376–77humanist, 199, 289, 1197,

1295, 1327inheritance, 400, 1046inter-generational, 92–93judicial ground of, 243lack of, 404, 1165, 1232land, 693laws of thermodynamics,

262loss of, 525, 626, 658, 1204Lutheranism, 249

magic, 219marriage, 1311–12miracles (wilderness), 299modernism, 203moral foundations, 365Moses, 141–42, 495, 1232natural law, 437, 507,

1196–97neutrality, 1326obedience &, 154, 426peace treaty, 741, 755political pluralism, 335,

338, 640, 666, 876,1273, 1279

progress, 304–5promise, 243rest, 167resurrection, 308, 584rich in, 693nrighteous people, 154salvation, 7sanctions &, 316, 361, 592,

626, 997, 1105seeing and believing, 350,

402Spirit’s promise, 241–42things indifferent, xliitithe of celebration, 531unity, 13, 1432wealth vs., 232word &, 6works &, 426

Fall, xxiifalse judgments, 55


1516

false testimony, 696, 698–700false worship, 320–21family

authority, 799–803, 811black, 180–81business, 205capital, 802cult of, 803defense against God, 803execution prohibited, 795,

799–800festivals, 476, 676ngangs, 207inheritance, 36, 858–59land laws, 858–59law enforcement, 810levirate marriage, 1031–51liability, 797name, 796, 798–99, 811–12,

860national incorporation,

470–71oath, 394sacred fire, 1113representation, 179responsibility, 810toleration, 802tribal, 1096weak link, 660welfare agency, 1361

famine, 414, 427–28, 927–30,1347–48

farmer, 926–27fat, 604–6

fate, 217, 317, 443fatherless, 121fatted calf, 375fear

conscription exemption,718–19, 724–33

covenantal oath, 398forest fire analogy, 731God, 57, 115–16inescapable concept, 55–57judicial, 54–55, 115–16paralysis, 1187nature, 529warrior, 726–27

feasts, 410, 919 (see alsofestivals)

Federal Reserve Notes, 969federalism, 707, 708, 710, 1070feet, 252Fell, Barry, 106n, 111–12fellowship, 593fences, 694, 1389fertility, 237, 316festivals

aliens, 530, 542–43, 598,600–1

annulment, 556blessings, 598, 602–3calendar, 410, 411captivity, 746central location, 476, 598citizenship, 598–600empire vs., 743–44, 751eschatological, 413

Index

1517

excommunication, 542,599–600

expenses, 476, 602families, 476holy army, 476, 604, 752Jerusalem, 550joint celebration, 466Levites, 468local, 530, 537national, 411, 555national community, 549,

606one God, 470Passover, 600post-exilic, 752priestly, 599prosperity &, 603rule of law, 601sabbath year, 577sacrifices, 591, 1096seed/land laws, 549Tabernacles, 530–31tithe, 529transportation cost, 1095,

1096walking, 604–5

feuds, 694field, 826–28, 991–92fifth commandment, 1228–29finders, keepers, 817, 830fines, 1067finitude, 308–13, 1214final judgment

Darwinism vs., 263

decay ceases, 267denied, 180, 192disinheritance, 428entropy vs., 256genocide &, 213humanism vs., 1222limit to growth, 37, 40pessimillennialism, 267typology, 425

finders-keepers, 817Finn, Huckleberry, 205fire, 480firstborn

annulment, 723covenant line, 1048disinherited, 278, 272–77,

785inheritance, 276, 278–79,

375, 770–86, 1047–48Israel’s eschatology, 1036levirate, 721, 1047–48sacrifice, 588–90, 597

firstfruitscalendar, 410down payment, 715individualism, 718Pentecost, 1094thanksgiving, 1093–96travel costs, 1095vineyard, 716

flag, 460flesh, viiiflood, 142flower children, 179–80


1518

food, 188food laws (see dietary laws)footstool, 1422foreign aid, 583, 1339–42foreign policy, 762–64foreigners, 85formulas, 227, 1231, 1236–39,

1251–52Forest Gump, 117nforgers, xxiv, xxvii, 662forgetfulness, 294, 299, 430Frankfurt, Henri, 409nFranklin, Benjamin, 199–200fraud, 953–54, 1055Free Kirk of Scotland, 1228nfree market

auction, 1330–31autonomy, 1081biblical law &, 18Christianity &, 614competition, 1069covenant &, 1080geographical mobility, 518hierarchy, 1080high bids, 1081open entry, 1081standards, 1068weights, 1074–75zero-sum game vs., 1356

free society, 393freedom

economic growth &, 314,392

Egypt/Canaan, 295

idolatry, 870obedience &, 1191price, 296zero-growth movement vs.,

314Friedman, David, 731nFriedman, Milton, 1325frontal assault, 1184frontlets, 420Frost, Robert, 694fruit/tree, 381fugitive slave law, 877nfundamentalism, 1161–62Fustel de Coulanges, 410n,

473n, 480, 1113–16future, 592–93future-orientation

class position &, 596covenant-keeping, 585covenantalism, 594–97discounting, 584dominion, 1362economic growth, 182interest rates &, 584levirate marriage, 720–21planning, 583saving, 596sow/reap, 719trade &, 584–85upper class, 584, 596Western outlook, 1349–50

Galbraith, John Kenneth,1245

Index

1519

Galton, Francis, 1125Gamaliel, 386–87games (Greece), 411gangs, 207, 805–6garden, 491gates, 160, 868–69Gates, Frederick, 126gateway, 422Geisler, Norman, 1085–87General Education Board,

126–27generation of vipers, 500generations, 37–38Genesis, xxxii, xxxv–vi, 20, 25,

278, 311, 1130, 1230, 1409genocide

Amalekites, 215annulled, 17, 463Arad, 215Canaan, 215–16, 326–27,

912, 924deicide, 446–49disinheritance, 229, 912division of labor, 235. 238dominion, 214heavenly warfare, 223–24holiness, 214Hormah, 215inheritance &, 213–39,

453–54, 912Jericho, 215jubilee law &, 1366, 1449mandated by God (once),

214, 224

resistance to, 1291reason for, 222–23, 224solidarity, 1291

gentilesadoption, 375, 383, 393civil oath, 700co-heirs, 331younger sons, 277witnesses, 698–700

geologists, 262Gerizim, 1111Germany, 666–67Getz, Gene

anti-economic success, xibusiness as urban, xviiidispensational hermeneutic,

xvi, 568–72dualism, xiv–xvhidden agenda, xxixpietism, xvii, 569tithe, xvi, xix–xxwealth, xix

ghetto, 182, 747, 1018, 1282,1295–96, 1313, 1414

giants, 73, 347–48, , 354Gibeonites, 452, 902, 903–4Gilchrist, J., 577Gilder, George, 309n, 310–11Gilgal, 159Gill, John, 536nGish, Art, 1021Gladwin, John, 1019–21gleaning

agricultural only, 999, 1008


1520

anti-compulsive, 1001charity, 993, 1000, 1004dominion, 992economics, 999-1001fallen humanity, 991, 1008grace, 999greed vs., 1001hard work, 1001–2insurance, 1000jubilee laws, 1003, 1007leftovers, 999,,1001lessons, 1009–10localism, 1003–4, 1008moral claim, 998–99ownership, 994rural only, 1007–8, 1443seed law, 1443skills, 1007, 1008–10tribalism, 1003State &, 998waste, 999–1000

gluttony, 324, 604, 787, 789,791n, 794, 807, 1388–89

goals, 34, 75God

anger, 327autonomous, 317, 319back parts, 147blessings, 603bribery, 388caretaker, 407casuist, 615city of, xxixcosmic, 85, 105

cosmic pipeline idea, 257covenant, 146–47covenant lawsuit, 492creation week, 165creator, xxxvi, 23, 229debt to, 143, 246, 479decree, 134, 403, 898, 1063,

1209delegates, 68deliverer, 299dwelling place, 691employer, 965face to face, 147–49, 152facts, 350faith in, 216fear of, viii, 57, 378, 398final judgment, 37, 213,

627–28firstborn &, 590forgetting, 293–95, 325glory cloud, 148hierarchy, 144history, 25image of, 359, 608impartial, 607imputation, 11–12inequality, 906intrusion, 134–35Israel’s commitment

(ethics), 252Israel’s inheritance, 372Israel’s owner, 367, 464jealous, 330, 455judge, 55, 56, 388, 627, 695

Index

1521

judgment, viii, 388, 607–8judicial agent of, 55, 56–57judicial presence, 688jurisdiction, 298king, 650law-giver, 24leftovers, 999memory, 115–16, 215mercy, 658name, 369–72, 1031, 1033name invoked, 903–5natural law, 1196negative sanctions, 1337obligations to, 193omniscience, 45, 65one/many, 465, 628original sovereignty,

xxxvii–xxxviiiowner, xxxvii, xlvi, 79,

378–79, 683, 788, 937ownership, lpersonal, 23plural, 546preamble, 22predestination, 1209predictable sanctions, 337presence, 23progress, 898promise, 38, 940, 951protector, 962rapid payment, 963realmless, 457Red Sea, 164reference point, 1053

reputation, 368, 1034sanctions, 496, 499, 508sanctions-bringer, 24, 27,

447son of, 370strategist, 77subjective/objective, 1249supreme commander, 65supreme judge, 56theocracy, 437thoughts of, 65universal, 230–32, 729,

1167wages, 972water supply, 411wiser than, 1019–24witness, 695, 713word of, 420, 896–97worship of, 487wrath, 408

God’s law (see biblical law,Mosaic law, theonomy)God’s sovereignty

Arminianism, 212civil oath, 234confession, 496, 553covenant’s structure, 281,

1135–39, 1200, 1225–26

creator, 23decentralization, 50, 73decree, 403, 595, 1209,

1268deism’s god, 23


1522

fourth generation, 10, 342Genesis, xxxvigleaning laws, 1005–6imputation, 11, 1200inheritance, 174Israel’s captivity, 447Israel’s deliverance, 27,

164, 401, 597Israel’s inheritance, 136,

224, 342, 448, 453kingship, 22–23, 26, 649–

51Kline on, 198, 620, 1098lots (casting), 684military courage, 724Moses’ song, 1203oath, 398original, xxxvii–xlowner, 382, 788, 1001pantheism’s god, 23poverty, 1127predestination, 134, 191,

1209predictable sanctions, 63,

895–96private property &, 871,

937progress &, 898Red Sea, 164salvation, 496, 858, 1330sanctions-bringer, 27, 337sanctuary nation, 872Solomon, 217theonomy, 276

unity of cosmos, 217visible, 653weather, 407

godsacademy, 1301–2Baal, 483bargaining, 317–18corporate religion, 484–85defeat militarily, 446–49empire, 483Hellenism, 484, 1283invocation, 483–84laws reflect, 479local, 442, 448, 1167–68marketplace, 1301modernism, 1283, 1287names, 482–83numerical relationships,

1284oath, 229–30threat, 482–83, 485warfare, 443–44, 485–86see pantheon

Godwin, William, xlviigold, 660, 661n, 1091gold mines, 392, 887golden age, 306golden calf, 130, 146, 337, 372,

375Goliath, 348good life, 1141, 1143Good Samaritan, 922–23, 929good works, 11Gorbachev, Mikhail, 474, 1372,

Index

1523

1395Gordon, Cyrus, 113gospel, xxii, 1130government (see self-government,State)grace

Adam, 789biblical law &, 244charity, 1005common (see common

grace)conditionality &, 133covenant, 298debt &, 964discontinuity, 253economic growth, 240Egypt, 413–14faith, 154, 253gleaning, 999good works, 12heirs of, 153judicial basis, 244kingdom inheritance, 11law &, x, 97, 151, 246–47,

479, 913legal basis, 777liberty &, 1201manna, 252merit, 244, 253Mosaic law &, 191normal events, 253paid for, 510Passover, 158precedes law, 246, 273,

280, 479, 649, 913,1010, 1191

promise, 246, 272Promised Land, 292remembering, 240sin &, 248something for nothing, 510special (saving), 10, 13success, 203token payment, 1099unearned gift, 253, 359wilderness, 252–54

grainbread, 468cattle, 1343–44foreign aid, 1340gleaning, 998–99India, 1339Joseph, 413–14, 469nmillstone, 947Pentecost, 1096sacramental, 919

grammar, 226grandchildren, 120grandparents, 120–21, 179–80grape juice, 1384grapes, 919grave, 300, 691graven image, 92, 130gravity, 493Great Commission

ascension &, 307, 1132,1224–25, 1430

Christendom, 461


1524

commission structure,418–19

comprehensive, 1403culture, xxiidenial of, 1224, 1404Deuteronomy &, 1234dominion covenant, 324fulfillment of, 1403–4kingdom grant, 273, 302kingdom transfer, 522pietism vs., xxiipreferred alternative, 1404reclamation project, 736rejected, 461sanctions, 424Second Coming &, 324social theory, 268witness (true), 695

Great Depression, 179Great Reversal, 303Great Tribulation, 346, 459,

1218Great Year, 306, 412, 415–16Greece

calendars, 411games, 411gods of, 233land, 688–90pantheon, 440

Gresham’s law, 1075grocer, 926–27growth

compound (see compoundgrowth)

continuity, 404, 1219details, 49economic (see economic

growth)exponential, 1213–23indefinite, 1223institutional structure, 49limits, 35, 37, 308–9, 311–

12, 1222morally mandatory, 1211population (see population

growth)rates, 92rejection of, 1223science, 305–7time &, 1214war on, 1178

guarantee as debt, 1147guerilla, 1184guilt, viii, xx, 1352guilt-manipulation, xx, 1352gunpowder, 757, 767Gwartney, James, 1236

habits, 595–96Hagar, 133Hamlet, xvHamlet’s mill, 306Hannah, 209Harrod, Roy F., 1256Harvard University, 106, 209harvest, 921, 995harvesting, 1000 (see also

gleaning)

Index

1525

haves/have-nots, 314hay fever, 260Hayek, F. A.

Darwin’s roots, 1250division of labor, 944knowledge, 50Lange &, 1243nNobel Prize, 1071nprosperity, 614rule of law, 613–14, 1077,

1333nscoffers, 1071nvictimless crimes, 334

headquarters, 1436healing, 266–67health, 34hearing, 115–20, 129heart, 421–23, 429heat death, 255–56, 263, 1222heat loss, 255–56heat sink, 251heaven, 1435heaven/earth, 135, 137hedge (law), 492Heilbroner, Robert, 1242hell, 331Hellenism, 201, 233, 484, 494heresy, 331hermeneutics, xvi, xxi, 17, 625,

854–56, 880–81, 1012–18Herod, 446, 897, 901–2Hesiod, 415n, 1321nHesperos, 444Hezekiah, 142

high priest, 677–78higher criticism, xxiii–xxvi,

163, 436–37hierarchy

authority, 646, 647, 1080commitments, 714–23covenantal, 608creditor/debtor, 585–86dominion, 65, 884dominion covenant, 757,

832economic, 585education, 210grandparents, 179judgment, 629judicial, 45–46kingship, 646legal system, 610–11legitimate, 585lost animal, 820military, 65, 68–69, 71, 73–

74, 77–78ownership, 74–77, 79–80,

736plural, 51, 53–54politics, 338, 646representation, 646responsibility, 646, 784righteousness, 100slavery, 869–70social, 958–59two-way, 757voting, 646–47wealth, 995


1526

Hill, P. J., 1079–80history

comparative religion, 482conditions, 134continuity (oath), 403covenantal, 198, 403, 419,

1135–39cyclical, 302, 305, 322, 412,

415end of, 311, 324eschatological brevity, 322eternity &, 428–29, 1135–

36evaluated by God, 1063ideal of growth, 300–2, 324limits, 322–23linear, 300–1. 303, 322,

412–14, 629progress, 302prophecy &, 13325random, 198re-writing, 480study of, 38n, 198theory of, 1164

Hittite treaties, xxvHivites, 5holidays, 550–51, 598holiness

animal sacrifice, 588boundaries, 214, 588, 598,

852–53costs, 519–20degrees, 514–18genocide, 214–16

Jews, 386land, 517–18, 520–21laws, 214, 528, 714linen, 863residence, 519strangers, 514–18wastefulness, 529

holism, 1265, 1267holy army

chain of command, 725citizenship &, 714, 719,

722, 811exemption, 714, 723, 725festivals, 752flanks, 726judicially restricted, 422,

727post-exilic, 753priests, 722, 725small, 726, 733subordinate claims, 723tactics, 729thinned ranks, 726

holy commonwealth, 1321holy days, 550–51holy land, 517Holy Spirit

anointed Jesus, 918antinomianism’s view, 1132ascension &, 1028, 1132,

1224–25, 1423defeat, 1219, 1221empowering, xxix, xxxviii,

1225, 1419, 1427

Index

1527

Great Commission 1225Pentecost, 522promise, 10, 739nsealed by, 10, 739n

holy wastefulness, 529home, 716, 951homosexuality, 232, 526honesty, 583, 1233Hong Kong, 285, 288, 291hope, 273, 761–62, 1167Horeb, 28Hormah, 215, 326, 363, 737hornets, 281Horowitz, David, 1389horses, xxxi–xxxii, 351, 657,

658Horton, Michael, 249nhouse, 714how long, 1434Hughes, Archibald, 417human sacrifice, 480–81humanism

bog, 1178bus, viiiChristian intellectuals &,

1144civil government, 708clichés, 1178common ground, 1244confession, 1155final judgment, 1222god of humanity, 484man’s sovereignty, 1320neutrality myth, 1018

pietism &, 665salvation by law, 666seduction by, 1294theocracy, 1197theological liberalism, 455

humanism’s bus, viiihumiliation prohibited, 948humility, 299, 301, 376, 401hunting, 833–34Hutt, W. H., 788, 828Hutterites, 1025Hutton, James, 262Huyghe, Patrick, 108, 109hydraulic economies, 409hydrological cycle, 412

Ice, Tommy, xlvi, 339, 1406ideology, 1141idle resources, 828–29idolatry

autonomy, 321bondage, 870compulsion, 1001costs, 141–42death, 1179division of labor, 317empires vs., 139–40illegal, 439–40Israel’s, 139–40, 231, 452–

53Jeroboam’s, 466political, 466self-worship, 316transcendence, 494


1528

image (Daniel), 418idols

ancient, 201bondage, 870Canaan, 222-23captivity, 138–39chance, 37city’s walls, 201invoking, 218–21Israel worshipped, 316links, 219, 316local, 201, 870luck, 317nature/history, 166, 192,

301, 494paganism, 201pantheon, 746pre-exilic, 316post-exilic, 139–40, 231representatives, 201, 219,

222, 316, 494slaves, 870smashing, 201, 439, 441–42

illegitimacy, 439image of God (see God: image)immigrant, 384, 389, 393 (see

also alien)immigration

abortion, 237assimilation, 750birth, 393–94citizen, 235covenant, 234diet, 750–51

discipline, 750division of labor, 234evangelism, 397justice &, 1072language, 749–50laws, 875n, 876oath, 393–95opposition, 396universal gods, 234worldviews imported, 236

imprecatory psalm, 502imputation

Adam’s sin, 12Christ’s perfection, 12–13,

170, 1034declaration, 251economic value, 1246,

1248–50evaluation, 11grace/works, 12meaning, 1251name, 1044promises, 14sanctions, 11–12value, 1246, 1252

incarnation, 1423inclusion, 387income, 1126–27incorporation, 470, 470–71India, 1340individualism

anti-conscription, 718indeterminacy, 1265loyalty vs., 506

Index

1529

met hodolog i c a l ( s eem e t h o d o l o g i c a lindividualism)military tactics, 733Protestantism, 779suicide, xlviii–xlix

Industrial Revolution, 433, 624inefficiency, 994–96inequality, 1356information, 310, 1331–32,

1066–67Ingram, T. Robert, 337inheritance

abortion, 619adoption, 3, 383, 1032,

1042amillennialism, 1419antinomianism vs., 625baptism, 863basics, 425biblical law, 1208biblical sanctions, 36boundaries, 770Canaan, 11, 33, 327, 449,

454, 637, 841, 850casuistry, 607–26child sacrifice, 481–82Christ, 738nchurch, 231, 996–97, 1047,

1420–21church history, 997, 1419–

21circumcision, xliii, 7, 14–

15, 29, 241–45, 279–80,

382citizenship, 811common grace &, 33–35,

439conditional, 241, 330, 558,

996confession of faith, 1046conquest, 279continuity, 404corporate, 304covenant-breakers, 481covenantal, 228, 398–99,

403, 417cultural, 997, 1419–21daughters, 777–81, 859,

1003debt, 566destruction, 303, 481Deuteronomy, xxxvidissipated, 93, 119double portion, 275–76earth, xliecology, 764–66eldest son, 1358Esau’s, 80eschatology, xxxviii-xxxix,

7, 20, 400–1, 406, 417,426–27

ethical, 426–27, 996excommunication, 811family, 36, 115–16family land, 858–59fifth commandment, 622,

625


1530

firstborn, 176, 278–79, 375,770–86

foreign policy, 762–64genocide, 213–39, 453God’s sovereignty, 136grace, 11grandchildren, 36, 738heirs, 92–94illegitimate, 230increasing, 302inter-generational, 43–44Israel’s, 425Jordan, 467Joshua, 72jubilee, 462, 565, 672, 1440judges, 623judicial claim, 371–72king, 662kingdom, 11, 418, 447, 785kingdom grant, lvkingship, 680knowledge, 231land, 138, 621–22, 675,

685–86, 1208land reform, 1358landmark, 686, 1111law, 129, 785, 1205, 1206,

1208, 1440law/promise, 14leasing, 674legal basis, 1207legal claim, 785legal planning, 278–79levirate marriage, 1031–32

Levites, 539–40long life, 622–24, 833,

1174–76meaning, 1179meek, 997messianic, 329military action, 279, 717military exemptions, 717military spoils, 338Moab’s, 80Moses, 91, 368–69name, 1035, 1046national, 488, 558obedience, 197, 228, 243,

245, 383, 425–26older brother, 375–76oppressed, 996Paul, 622performance, 782pessimillennialism, xli–xliipost-exilic, 330–31, 442,

462predestined, 6–7, 10predictable, 247–48preservation, 717primogeniture, 1358–60progressive, 428promise, 153, 241–44, 857,

863proportionality, 782, 785reduced consumption, 83righteous, 637rival claims, 477roof law, 841–42, 850–51

Index

1531

salvation, 11sanctions, 55, 91, 171, 276,

478, 485, 616, 619seed laws, 1439–40separation, 670, 211, 635–

37servant to sin, 374servitude, 375shared, 798sons, 477, 1358sonship, 375–76, 380–83,

394spiritual, 1419stages, 428State, 783–84, 1360–61stewardship, xxxviistrangers, 330, 331, 396theological, 351theme, 10, 681thrift, 83transfer, 1045–46two-fold basis, 243–44verbal (memory), 116war over, 478whose, 231younger sons, 375–76, 773zero-sum game, xxxix

inheritance/disinheritance, 3,558

injustice, 1073inner city, 182intellectuals, 473–74intelligence, 1303interest

Aristotle, 886compound, 83delayed payment, 965–66,

982–83discount rate, 584, 687prohibition, 563, 878–80rent &, 886–87time-preference, 83universal, 885–89

intermarriage, 1291Interna t ional Bureau ofStandards, 1066n, 1067–78internship, 208interpretation, 350–51intrusion, 134–35, 1028, 1134–

35intuition, 1062–63invisible hand, 1234–35invocation, 219, 223, 229, 248,

482–83, 230–31, 484, 493,498, 485

Ireland, 928irrigation, 408Islam, viii, 41–42, 325, 876,

1362, 1410, 1408Israel

adopted, 298, 371aliens flourish, 390apostasy, 338, 1416, 1417arms race, 658army, 658blindness, 774borders, 233, 234, 415, 745boundaries, 549


1532

calendar, 410captivity, 233, 385, 689–90chosen nation, 378civil covenant, 234commerce, xviiicommitment to God, 252common confession, 470,

476continuity, 403–4decentralized knowledge,

410, 411defeat, 1415decentralized politics, 653defensive, 745deliverance, 197, 295diaspora, 549disinheritance, 330, 369,

373, 377, 997, 1034disinherited Canaan, 4–5dispersion, 1168–69division of labor, 228dominion, 169Eden-like, 548–49emigration, 187–89, 548empire &, 656, 727, 742–

43, 746–47, 751–53ethics>piety, 691exile, 200–1, 1436exporting society, 582eviction, 385family, 660festivals (see festivals)firstborn, 1036future-orientation, 596

generations, 1165genocide, 201, 453–54gentiles &, 277God’s dwelling place, 691God’s inheritance, 367, 369,

371–72, 376God’s name, 369–72God’s son, 275–79grace, 292Hellenism, 201, 233, 484, hierarchy, 585holy army, 224, 744, 925,

1184 (see holy army)holy land, 517, 924–25humbled, 273, 299, 301humility, 401idolatry, 452, 453idols, 140, 142–43, 145,

200–1immigration, 234incorporation, 471, 476inheritance, 375, 558intolerance, 229judges, 454judicially, 371–72legal claim, 80liberation, 298–99mediatory nation, 373milk & honey, 187–89miracles, 252–54model nation, 99money, 80moral authority, 100national inequality, 862

Index

1533

natural resources, 286–87,291–92

oaths, 476one/many, 471, 475pluralism forbidden, 234plurality, 465polygamy, 743polytheism &, 483population, 186population growth, 389positioning, 87–88post-A.D. 70, 386post-exilic, 656, 744poverty, 284–85preserved, 196priest to nations, 372rebellion, 137rebellion prophesied, 1202,

1210remnant, 140removal, 329–30representative nation, 99–

100represented God, 367reputation, 100residents, 1194restraint, 84return, 231rule of law, 600–1rural laws theory, 567–68sanctions, 275sanctions-bringer, 447sanctuary, 872seed, 1034

separation, 211, 746sharecroppers, 912slaves in Egypt, 389snare, 448specially owned, 684spies, 65–66supreme court, 627–28subordination, 376sonship, 375, 1172stagnation, 189stranger, 389synagogues, 744syncretism, 201testimony to nations, 103–4theocracy, 590, 914tombs, 690transition in government,

656trade, 81–88, 84, 112–13,

291–92trade surplus, 580–82, 585trading nation, 84–86, 88,

582trade routes, 86unity, 464–65unrighteous, 354–55walls (enemy), 201welfare economy, 297–98welfare society (wilderness),296welfare State, 541wilderness, 26, 297

Jacob, 413, 761, 774–75, 973,


1534

1331jade, 108Jaki, Stanley, 108, 218n, 221,

305Japan, 205, 651Jehoram, 741Jeremiah, 131Jericho, 201, 2154, 452, 736–38Jeroboam, 466–67, 654, 664Jerusalem, 344–45, 373, 446Jesus

Abraham &, 15adoption, 383ascension, xlii, 16, 273,

429, 1419–21atonement, 243begging for, 553blood of the lamb, 445Boaz &, 1045–46Calvary, 16circumcision, 243conditional promises, 170,

243, 1209conquest by, 1431corn (grain), 914–15count the costs, 349–50country’s flag, 460covenant life, 640crucifixion, 380, 1172culture &, xxii, 1433denial of, 905dominion, 1435equal time, 462, 1085eschatology, 269

faithfulness, 170firstborn son, 777God’s name, 371ghetto, 747good shepherd, 820healing miracles, 300heir, 243, 427image of God, 221incarnation, 1423inheritance transferred, 427intercession, 1435jubilee, 373king of culture, 1433kinsman redeemer, 872,

1045lawful heir, 243, 427lending, 1157Lord of sabbath, 918messiah, 375Moses &, xiii, xvnot a bigamist, 346“not guilty,” 12oaths, 906p a r a b l e s , x x i i – x i i i ,xxxiv–xxxv, 380Pharisees vs., 500perfection, 12, 13, 243–44post-exilic, 462prophet, 499redemption, 1431representative, 15, 251representative rule, 1430,

1432resurrection 257, 273, 307–

Index

1535

8, 429sanctification, 1416seed, 241, 370–71sonship, 244subdues enemies, 1427–28suffering servant, 1426taxation, xiiithrones, 611welfare, 296wine, 1386world order, 346

Jesus Is Coming, 1408Jethro, 45–46, 49Jews

conversion, 1290–91covenant (NT), xlivdiamond trade, 1075nintelligence, 1303legal discrimination, 1296secularization, 1304–5Tennessee’s archeology,

113United States, 1296–1301worry, 1290

Job, 219, 1103Johnson, S. Lewis, 571n, 1390Johoida, 655Jonah, 6, 277, 488, 1210, 1211,

1029Jordan, James, 22, 246Jordan River, 2, 187, 176, 464,

467Joseph, 389, 414, 776Josephus, 344, 536

Joshuaauthority, 90, 92circumcision, lvcourage, 169, 1183heir, 44inheritance, xxxiv, 72, 1182leader, 29, 31, 68, 90, 1207Moses &, 90, 94representative, 90, 94testimony, 349

Josiah, 163jubilee

annulment, 684anti-rural, 548calendar, 411commercial loans, 568emigration, 548empty-handed, 564–65families’ boundaries, 685,

693genocide &, 1366, 1449gleaning law, 1007inheritance law, 1440Jesus fulfilled, 373land law, 548, 684, 926,

1007, 1440land’s title, 562law is read, 1192leasehold, 542priestly inheritance, 672sabbatical year &, 1191–92,

1441separation, 924stewardship, 685


1536

year of release, 1191–92Judah, 774–75Judah-ha-nasi, 387Judaism

assimilation, 1300–1courts, 386culture of, 1310disinheritance, 1293education’s lure, 1282,

1302–5emigration (Europe),

1298–99excommunication, 1310free market, 1301ghetto, 1282, 1295, 1313humanism vs., 1294Karaites, 1313leadership, 1285–86loss of sacrifices, 373, 449mothers, 1292–93New York City, 1297, 1299Orthodox, 421–22, 1295–

96, 1311n, 1314Pharisees’ triumph, 344–45,

1292Reform, 747, 1295–96,

1307, 1313reproduction, 1308–9State &, 1285status, 1300Talmud, 1282, 1291toleration, 1310–11

Judas, 712njudges

bribes, 615casuistry, 615church, 611delegated authority, 53–54deliverance, 454era of, 138Moses’ decision, 46–47not omniscient, 986officers, 644, 1194rule of law, 615witnesses, 700

judicial blindness, 1262judicial continuity, xxijudicial theology, 329judgment

casuistry, 611corporate, 1249day, 254day of the Lord, 342dominion &, 819–22God’s image, 608hierarchy, 610honest, 607impartial, 615, 695righteous, 1056works, viii

Julian the Apostate, 1279–83jungle, 323, 837justice

biblical law, 114blessings &, 389casuistry, 611civil, 56competitive, 1071

Index

1537

conscience, 101dominion &, 607emigration, 1071–72goal, 101–4immigration &, 1072imperfect, 46, 1061-62,

1092judges, 611–12leaven, 1073Moses/Jethro, 45–46precedents, 611predictability, 612–16,

1077–78quantification, 1054rule of law, 390, 611sanctions, 60–61, 332–33scale, 1054, 1070–73, 1084theory, 332victim’s rights, 56wealth &, 1123weights, 1066work of the law, 1023

juvenile delinquents, 803–6

Kant, Immanuel, 218n, 311,318

Karaites, 345nKessel, Reuben, 975nKeynes, John Maynard, xii, xiv,liv, 297Keynesianism, 1367kibbutz, 1022kidnapping, 326, 434king

annulled office, 649babylon, 650biblical law, 661–62boundaries, 654budget, 664divine, 651forgery (law), 662God’s warning, 650gold, 660grace, 649–50inheritance, 680Israelite, 654judicial interpretation, 667–

68literate, 662Mosaic law, 650, 662–63noise and power, 664ordination, 654political defeat, 652restraints on, 650taxation, 663–64wives, 651, 659–60World War I, 669

kingdomascension &, 1425biblical law, 1135–36capitalized by covenants,

1156church, 828competition, xxxixconflict, 425Daniel’s prophecy, 418,

1271decentralized, 650


1538

dominion, 1156expansion, 1215extension, 83, 404, 1156–

57, 1162grant (see kingdom grant)headquarters, 1434–37Holy Spirit, 1427inheritance, 447, 785Jews &, 826–28neutrality, 457oath, 461–62pessimillennialists, 457pluralism, 456–57politics, 709prayer, xxiiipriests, 669property, 871rule vs. realm, 456Satan’s, 425transferred, 427, 522two stages, 457warfare, 1018

Kingdom grantbiblical law &, 18, 97, 325blessings, 1164circumcision, 379conditional, 132, 244, 289–

90ethics, 382Great Commission, 273maintaining, 18, 119, 132,

152–54, 171, 244–47,273, 289–90, 380,479–80, 1177

kingship, 649–69kinsman redeemer, 872, 1035–43,1051, 1444Kirk, Kenneth, 507Kirzner, Israel

aggregates, 1259ah, ha, 1268nalcoholic Frenchman, 1263classical economics, 1262–

63capital, 1266entrepreneurship, 1268equilibrium, 1235, 1243policy, 1260–61

Kline, Meredith G.Bahnsen vs., 1227causation, 198Christendom, 1134circumcision, 381ncorporate success, xxx, 624covenantal continuity, 620culture, 198Hittite treaties, xxv, 22house-building, 716nintrusion theory, 134n,

507n, 1028n, 1135n,1227

point five, 1181point two (prologue), 24random causation, 198,

249n, 1063n, 1098, 1133sanctions, 507, 624, 1063n,

1073, 1097–98Sutton &, xxiv, 24

Index

1539

tablets, 164n, 677ntheory of history, 1135–36

Knight, Frank H., 1242knowledge, 50, 75, 229, 699,

320Korah, 328Kristol, Irving, 60–61Kurzweil, Raymond, 184, 309n,

310Kuyper, Abraham, 747

Laban, 973labor, xlix–liLachmann, Ludwig, 1264nlake of fire, 1108lamb, 590–91, 919–20land

agent, 1441boundaries (see covenant)captivity, 385–86commerce, 517–18faith in, 385farmer &, 926Greece, 688–89grocer, 926holy, 517, 520–21, 526inheritance, 139, 671–22,

675Jewish law, 386–87jubilee (see jubilee)lease, 541–45leaseholds, 687, 912mobility &, 518ownership, 384–85, 911,

922, 1358poor residents, 558–59positive confession, 1102purity, 519–20rent, 886resources, 287rest, 532sacred, 385, 687–88semikah, 386shrinking plots, 675, 693State-ownedstewardship, 539subdivided, 685ties to, 516, 519tithe, 539

land lawsannulled, 521–22anti-ritual, 548covenantal, 575daughters, 859dietary laws, 512family, 858–59firstfruits, 1094jubilee, 684, 1441–42Judah, 923–24sabbatical year, 574self-destruct clauses, 548–

49, 675summary, 1441–43tribes, 924

land reform, 1357–61Landes, David, 1064nlandmark, 683, 686–87, 692–93,

1111–12


1540

Lange, Oskar, 1235, 1239–44language, 749Lapin, Daniel, 1nLas Vegas, 223Latin, 206law

Adamic, 361administrative, 846, 851autonomy, 318–19ceremonial, 1448civil, 318–19, 335, 601, 824common, 318costs/benefits, 848cross-boundary, 1445–47,

1448daily living, 194dietary (see dietary laws)division of labor, 596, 613education, 1194enforcement, 58, 821eschatology, 1087–88evangelism &, 99–114fathers & sons, 194grace &, x, 97, 151,

246– 47, 479, 649grace confirmed, 247grace of, 1337grace precedes, 246, 273,

280, 479, 649, 913,1010, 1191

habit &, 595–96holiness, 513–14imparted, 695–96impersonal, 320

inheritance, 129instruction, 194intent, 844internal/external, 595–96interpretation, 712justice, 61–63land (see land laws)land/seed, 413language, 1061–62liberty, 61military, 714–13moral, 1448–49nature, 492natural (see natural law)negative sanctions &, 357neutrality, 456–57, 709,

1085–86oral, 345power &, 320predictability, 61–62, 612–

16, 683, 1077, 1332–33priestly, 1444–45, 1448promise &, 14, 250protection, 104recapitulation, 149, 175–75reinforcement of ideals,

595–96salvation by, 296, 595, 666sanctions &, 168–77seed, 1443–44self-government, 821spirit/letter, 844subordination to, 320time preference, 59–62

Index

1541

tool of dominion, 154unequal orders, 361–62utopian, 849victim’s rights, 56wisdom, 99work of, 101–2, 358–59

law of 73, 182–83lawyers, 1078leadership, 1183leasehold, 543, 687, 910–11Lee, F. N., 1403nlegalism, 494, 572, 1390–91legislation (see law)leisure, 314lending, 36, 1157leniency, 60Lenin, 468n, 1357–58Letwin, William, 1233–34,

1325Levellers, 646Levi, 863levirate marriage, 720–21Levites

adoption, 677Ark of the Covenant, 674–

75. 677, 682authority, 677bread administrators, 469celebration, 529decentralization, 672disinheritance?, 532–33,

539excommunication, 540families of, 673

festivals, 468–69, 471, 538,540

God’s inheritance, 675God’s promise, 674inheritance, 532, 539–40intermediaries, 676judicial specialists, 612,

679, 680landless, 670–72legal claim, 680–82local funding, 673–74monopoly, 681–82national unity, 1193participation, 540priests, 541, 635sacrifices, 676separated, 670, 676–77tabernacle, 673, 674theological influence, 673tithe/bread, 469tithe, 469, 471, 532, 534,

671, 676–77urban, 673, 675–76

Leviticus, x, xxxvi, 479–80Lewinsky, Monica, 1394–95Lewis, C. S., 230Lewis, David, 250, 1418lex talionis, 617, 696, 699–70liability, 840, 849–50liberty, 61libel, 702liberalism, 455, 1372–73liberation, 160, 161, 166, 298–

99, 874


1542

liberation theology, 1373liberty

biblical law, 63, 874–75,1085, 1198–99, 1201

Cromwell, 642economic growth, 286, 392foreign gods vs., 138–39grace &, 1201justice, 61–64law of, 430loss of, 296–97neutrality, 1084rule of law, 61, 874–75sacrifice, 297sanctuary society, 875self-government, 565slavery, 373, 1414taxation, 665technique vs. ethics, 643Tertullian, 1279under God (Egypt), 298,

389wealth formula, 286worship, 642

life expectancy, 35, 171, 177,259, 423–24, 623–24

life insurance, 624Lightfoot, John, 536nlimits to growth

biological, 185eschatology, 322–23final, 323politics, 323spatial, 187

time, 183, 192linear history, 300–1, 303,

322–23, 412–23, 1129linen, 862literacy, 779literalism, 569–71liturgy, 671–72, 751loans

aliens, 563–64, 572–73,575, 579, 868, 880,883–84

cancelled, 1191charitable, 557–605, 572–

73, 879, 880–81, 1191collateral (see collateral)commercial, 562–65default, 945dominion, 884head/tail, 942mastery, 583moral claim, 564, 881–82New Covenant, 893–94risk, 889–90, 892, 941Willingale, 567two kinds, 882zero interest, 563–65, 574

lobbying, 1079–80localism, 858, 1008, 1193Locke, John, xlviii–liii, 907,

913locusts, 928Lord’s Supper, 525, 919–20,

1108Los Lunas Stone, 106–7, 114

Index

1543

Lose, David, 248nlost animal, 816–17, 819–22,

824–25, 830lost child, 818, 830Lot, 457–58Louis XIV, 661nLouis XVI, 661nlove, 572loyal opposition, 1395, 1401–2lubricant, 256, 259Lucifer, 444luck, 317Luther, Martin, xv, 102, 103,

248, 551, 1437Lutheranism, 248, 572Lyell, Charles, 262

Madison, James, 236, 708magic

above/below, 219, 220, 224accomplice, 493below cost, 495causation, 493, 495creation’s limits, 497defined, 492–93economic growth, 497equilibrium, 1234–38invocation, 492–93miracles, 510risk, 498, 1231–32ritual over ethics, 498something for nothing,

225–26, 497–98voodoo, 493

magician, 220, 222–23, 497–98,510, 1232

Maimonides, Moses, 1nMaine, 109Malthus, T. R., 188managers, 47, 74Manasseh, 776Mann, Horace, 434manna, 29, 253, 273, 295, 999maps, 107Marah, 1231Marcion, 806, 813, 1231marker stones, 436marriage, 296, 861, 1291–95Marshall, Peter, 640mathematics, 430maturity, 575–76, 1062–63Mayans, 108McCartney, Dan, 1016–17McDonald’s Corporation, 702McGee, J. Vernon, 1286, 1409nMcPhee, John, 262meals, 550, 593meaning, 1251, 1267measure, 1052measurements

landmarks, 686language of, 1055laws, 1081limits of, 1059objective, 1064, 1121–22time, 1064

medicine, 208Medo-Persia, 239


1544

meat, 512, 513, 515, 517, 604meek, 622, 636, 997memory hole, 266Melchizedek, 552, 553, 652Mendenhall, George, xxiv–xxvMenninger, Karl, 61merciless, 447, 736–37mercy, 215, 281, 797–98merit, 244messiah, 329, 416Metcalfe’s law, 309nmethodological covenantalism,

1159, 1268–69methodological individualism

anti-aggregates, 1259anti-biblical, 1153, 1269–70anti-family, liiianti-policy, 1199, 1246–49Locke, John, liiinational wealth, 1263right-wing Enlightenment,

xlixRobbins, Lionel, 1246,

1255–56socialists vs., 1323

Methuselah, 35mezuza, 422Michael (angel), 445Microsoft, 288middle class, 187, 1124Midian, 153milk and honey, 187–89Miller, Jack, xxxi–xxxiiMiller, Roger Leroy, 1236

military, 68, 69, 75, 1183–84,1185–86

millstone, 942, 944–47mind, 318minority groups, 104miracles

abnormal, 253deliverance by, 26entropy vs., 257, 271, 312familiar, 252–53impersonal/impersonal, 263Jesus, 300magician, 510subordination, 294welfare, 295–98wilderness, 299

Miriam, 25miscarriages, 675Mishan, E. J., 415Mishnah, 344–45, 387Mishneh Torah, 1Mises, Ludwig

capital, 1266economic calculation, xlvii,

1239, 1378evenly rotating economy,

1244nLange, &, 1239–44Montaigne dogma, 1354Röpke &, 932subjectivism, 1266value-free economics, 1325

missionaries, 1349missions, 32324

Index

1545

mixing (laws), 856Moab, 482, 741, 1052modernism’s gods, 202, 216,

1283–85monastery, 1022money

Aristotle, 886central banking, 1090–91defined, 80, 1068demand for, 534–35exchange, 81inedible, 81wilderness, 81–82

money-lending, 578–82monogamy, 855–56monopoly, 68182Montaigne dogma, 1354, 1356moon/stars, 343Moore’s law, 184, 309Moorehouse, George, 107Morgenstern, Oskar, 1059“morning to night,” 194Morris, Henry, 258, 260–61,

271Mosaic covenant, 374, 414–19Mosaic law

annulments, 173blessings, 1212–13capital, 154categories, 1439–50ceremonial, 1448civil, 1448–49common bond, 1194continuity, 149, 152, 1119

copy, 662decentralized politics, 664grace &, 191higher criticism, 437inheritance, 129, 785, 1205,

1206king, 662–63liberty &, 1198moral, 1448promise, 171reading, 159, 599,

1190–1201sanctions, 1448–49unfair?, 1086

MosesAbraham’s replacement,

369authority, 52, 153chief of staff, 77confession, 496death, 95delegated agent, 22, 1193delegation, 53face shined, 147faith, 141–42inheritance, 91, 368–69Jesus &, xiii, xvJethro &, 45–46, 49, 52Joshua, 90, 94–95lawsuits, 49leadership, 1182memory, 162–63Mt. Nebo, 1205new covenant, 154


1546

new inheritance, 368–69new order, 465–66noise, 49other side, 2Pentateuch, xxiii–xxiv,xxv–xxviPharaoh, 157prophecy, 132, 136–37, 144prophet, 24, 27, 137, 496,

678, 1193recapitulation, 1, 8representative, 99rod/rock, 91, 1231sanction against, 91snakes, 495–96song of, 1202–5sonship, 368spies &, 72supreme commander, 94

mosquito, 837mother bird, 833Moynihan, D. P., 121Mt. Sinai, 690multiplication, 303, 308murder, 480Myers, Ellen, 266mysticism, 319, 1132

Nachmanides, 870–71naked public square, 462, 505name

god, 232–33, 369–70, 439,482

imputation, 1044

inheritance, 1035surrender, 1046preservation, 1033–34

Naomi, 1038–40narrow path, 1185–86Nashville agrarians, 931nation, 1153, 1155National Council of Churches,

1371national wealth, 1122natural law theory

assumptions, 1195–96autonomy, 102biblical law vs., 103, 438blessings, 102Christianity, 710, 1084,

1196civil order, 1196, 1198common grace &, 361common knowledge, 336,

1195condemnation, 102confession, 1196conscience seared, 103corporate, 102Darwin, 1196doomed, 102dualistic, 103Fatherhood of God,m 1196Geisler, 1085–87God’s sanctions, 337humanism, 1196–87illegitimate, 1200legitimacy, 1195

Index

1547

Lutheranism, 102, 249myth of neutrality, 337,

1084outside man, 318political theory, 359Protestantism, 249, 643Reed, Ralph, 1198n, 1400sanctions, 337special creation, 1196Stoic, 641, 1197–98work of the law, 102

naturalism, 262nature

autonomy, 836–37domesticated, 837dominion, 836escape from, 319fear of, 529fruits, 838jungle, 837lever over, 320manipulated, 320normative, 413ownership, 836, 838productivity, 832–34rights, 836nsubordinate to God, 415

nature/nurture, 1044Nebuchadnezzar, 321, 329, 418,

667negative sanctions

Canaan, 356–59captivity, 449circumcision, 381, 383

continuity, 1117death penalty, 487, 491disinheritance, 330eviction, 325–26, 330, 338–

39genocide &, 3, 356Israel, 499law &, 356–57national destruction, 355sabbath-breaking, 506sins, 339threat, 320–21see also curses

negotiation, 1331Negroes, 180nneighbor, 693–94, 921–22,

928–30, 937neighborhood, 929Neuhaus, R. J., 505nNeusner, Jacob, 344, 449nneutrality

abortion vs., 617apologetics, 43biblical economics vs.,

1199Canaan’s gods, 439civil government, 509civil oath, 463common view, 455confessional, 456economic theory, 1326–27education, 208, 434epistemological, xlviiequal time, 462


1548

eschatology vs., 456flag, 460humanism, 1018kingdom, 456–57knowledge, 698–99law, 709liberty &, 1084loss of faith, 1326myth of, 231, 462, 617,

1018, 1073, 1400, 1405natural law, 337, 1084opinion today, 1229pluralism, 457, 508zone, 1403

New Covenant, 383–84New England, 1359–60New Heaven/Earth, 416new order, 465–66New Testament, xii–xiii, xvii,xvi–xvii, 422new world order, 346–47, 1272,

1396Newton, Isaac, 125, 507, 1124Nile River, 408–9, 414, 415Nineveh, 6, 142, 488nirvana of selflessness, 319Noah, 773, 1322, 1436noise, 49, 664Noebel, David, 434nnomads, 295, 1347–49Noonan, John, 577nNorway, 111noumenal/phenomenal, 218,

311, 1267

numbering, 1122Numbers, xxxvi

oathallegiance to God, 643authority, 896, 899–906biblical law, 403blessings, 644circumcision, 1207citizenship, 280, 395, 461,

463, 644, 700-1civil, 238, 390n, 416, 463,

700confession (Israel), 470,

861continuity, 402, 403contract &, 895, 906covenantal, 643–45, 896defense of, 238democratic, 1112family, 394–95gang, 207, 805generation, 1163Gibeonites, 902–4god, 230inescapable concept, 461Israel’s, 476, 669judge, 644kingdom, 461–62legal claim, 238loyalty, 643New Testament, 645pledge, 940predictable, 895–96

Index

1549

Roman Empire, 1276sanctions, 405, 699, 899self-maledictory, 899sonship, 279, 394–95stipulations, 899State, 461subordination, 230swear by, 230third tithe, 1102Trinitarian, 395–96United States, 708nvow, 895witnesses, 699–700yoke, 861

oath-sign, 381, 384, 878obedience

blessings, 171–72, 1232circumcision &, 381confession’s test, 494–95conquest, 250continuity, 1106courage, 94–95faith &, 154faithfulness, 241fear, 378, 487freedom &, 1191God’s ownership, 378hearing, 118–19, 193inheritance, 197, 228, 243,

245, 303, 425–26, 435,488

Israel’s fame, 1106land grant, 464love of God, 487

Mosaic law, 421orthodoxy’s test, 494–95power over nature, 415prosperity &, 1162, 1183restoration, 1172sanctions, 400, 435sonship, 367, 383strangers, 384subordinates, 165wealth &, xvii, 284, 286,

1122–23, 1131obesity, 605objective/subjective, 1060, 1063occultism, 219, 229, 495, 1064oceans, 836nOg, 2, 21, 24, 27, 85, 144, 348Ogam consaine, 111Old Covenant, 167, 172, 419Olmecs, 108Olympics, 76–77, 411omniscience, 1122, 1236, 1329Onan, 775, 1036one/many, 465, 471, 475, 476,

628Ophir, 343oppression

delayed payment, 980classes, 873courts, 1442forbidden, 86future, 987jubilee, 1442theft, 873–74wages &, 962–90


1550

optimism, 1186–88, 1362orchards, 834ordination

Bahnsen, 1227church, 637civil agents, 63covenant, 646, 680Deborah, 656hierarchy, 646honest word, 55imprecatory psalms, 502income, 679–80judges, 54, 655kingship, 654–55monopoly, 1080oath, 680priests, 635prophet, 490, 679rabbi (U.S.), 1298Robertson Pat, 1298Samuel/Saul, 653sanctions, 174, 612, 1076tithe, 552

orthodoxy, xiii, 493–95overharvesting, 836, 838ownership

animals, 835baptism, 830biblical law, 330boundaries, l–libranding, 831bundle of rights, 818care, 835circumcision, 823, 831

consumption &, 835, 836corporate, 74delegated, 814–15diffuse, 75earth, 1415ecology, 323economic theory,

xxxvi–xxxviiexclusion, 437, 683–86,

689, 817–19fences, 694free riding, 1010–11fundamental issue,

xxxvi–xxxviigleaning, 994hierarchy, 79, 736land, 385legal basis (land), 913limited, 872Locke, xlix–liii, 913management, 74marks, 822–23nature, 836original sovereignty, xxxviirepresentative, 815responsibility, 823Rothbard, xlviiiSmith, xlviisovereignty &, 910terms, 330tools of production, 945tragedy of the commons,

835–36tree, 910, 936–37

Index

1551

wilderness, 835–36ox, 814, 914, 921, 933–34, 1012

paganism, 316–17, 452pantheism, 23, 222, 319pantheon, 483, 85, 746, 1117,

1272–75, 1288–89paper making, 108–9Pareto, Vilfredo, 1125–30,

1257, 1259parricide, 713parables

buried coin, 586good Samaritan, 929, 1006njudicial blindness, 352kingdom of heaven, 825–

26, 828laborers, 1328, 1330murderous servants, 376,

380prodigal son, 375–76, 785rich man poor man, 137,

451stewards, 871, 1157talents, xxxiv–xxxv, 1157two sons, 380unjust steward, 997wealth, xii–xiiiwheat/tares, 346

parents, 196–97, 794participation (festivals), 594–

95, 600parties, 593Passover

continuity, 158evangelism vs. 744fall of Jerusalem, 1440grace, 158Paul, 744rest/liberation, 161rite of passage, 158wilderness, 150–51

pasteurization, 13084, 1388patriarchy, 94Paul

adoption, 383carnality, 1413case law (ox), 1013, 1015,

1027–28circumcision, 379death/sin, 356fifth commandment, 177,

423–24, 622harvesting men, 1014inheritance, 857judging angels, 611judicial blindness, 353living sacrifice, 440Mars Hill, 440ox, 933–34, 1013–14,

1027–28Passover, 744resurrection, 584, 1137sabbath, 574seed, 370–71, 857service, 440servitude, 585two Adams, 776


1552

work ethic, 576work of the law, 358–59yoke, 860

payment of wages, 1026, 1046payments system, 956–57, 960peace, 698, 734“peace, land, bread,” 468nPentateuch, xxiii, xxvii, xxxvPentecost, 1094P e o p l e s B i c e n t e n n i a lCommission, 1449perfect competition, 1243nperfection, 13, 243–44, 429,

1103performance, 782–83perjury

accused, 705criminal, 697–98lex talionis, 711penalty, 695peace vs., 698subsidizing, 705

perpetual motion, 254–56persecution, 1274persons (respect for), 695–96persuasion, 977–78pessimillennialism

asymmetric theologies,1432

entropy, 264, 267Great Commission, 1403implications, 1410–18inheritance, xli–xlii, 1216,

1218

social theory, 264, 267,269–72

pessimism, 419Peter, 523Petroglyph Park, 111Pfeiffer, Robert, 106Pharaoh

archetype, 669covenant-breaker, 589divine bureaucrat, 161hardened, 496oppression, 389ownership, 298predestined, 897npriests &, 414response to Moses, 157

Pharez, 775, 776Pharisees

court rules, 712nholiness of Jews, 386Jesus vs., 223, 499–500,

914–18Judaism, 1292legalism, 484, 1390oral law, 345, 387, 1389

Phelps, E. H., 1237Philistines, 216–17, 390philosophy, 301, 494photography, 116–17physicians, 975physicists, 256physics, 184, 254, 272pie in the sky, 172pietism

Index

1553

antinomianism, 569–70,1017

anti-responsibility, xxiiiconfession, xxxix–xxxculture surrendered, xxii,

1413Engelsma, 1413Enlightenment &, 234, 437grape juice, 1386hermeneutic, 569–70humanism &, 664McCartney, Dan, 1016–17neoplatonism, 1413rival law, 1017Satan’s dominion, 1429Tertullian, 1274, 1279Toon, 1426, 1428, 1429

piety, 691plague, 186, 1355Plato, 306play, 751pledge, 439–42, 939–46plowing, 860–62plural of majesty, 465pluralism

abortion &, 618acceptance, 641assimilation, 1314Canaan, 233, 456captivity, 438Christian, 505denial, 749, 1230empires, 233, 744, 746–47,

752, 1272

Enlightenment, 618, 639–41, 754–55

evangelism &, 752illegitimate, 1200immigration, 235, 236, 876neutrality, 456, 457, 618no Christian treatise, 461political (see politicalpluralism)polytheism, 461Rhode Island, 238theocracy vs., 618yoking, 861–62

pole star, 306policy-making, 1246, 1248,

1256, 1260–61political pluralism

anarchy, 237baptized, 43Bible vs., 461biblical law vs., 438, 1073cacophony, 236–37captivity, 457Christians accept, 335n,

1088, 1144, 1277covenant, 462, 861Enlightenment, 234, 638,

1144equal time doctrine, 461–62eschatology &, 1087God’s sanctions vs., 336illegitimate, 1200illusion, 1273immigration, 234–36


1554

Madison, 1282n, natural law theory &, 236,

1200neutrality theorem, 461,

638, 1144, 1230no Christian treatise, 461oath &, 238, 461pietism, 335, 1279polytheism, 461, 507Rhode Island, 238separation, 861Tertullian, 1277–79theocratic, 57toleration, 1278Williams, Roger, 238, 385nyoke, 861

political religion, 234political theory, 236, 332–36,

359, 472, 473, 476politics

centrality claimed, 466classical religion, 1276common ground, 459compromise, 1392–1402covenants, 234–35decentralized (Israel), 664dispensationalism vs., 1286,

1409dominion, xxii, 1396empire, 139, 1117, 1289Enlightenment, 634evangelicals, 1370–71,

1400factions, 236

fundamentalism, 1409golden calves, 466hierarchy supreme, 338international, 1156Jeroboam, 466–67justice, 332kingdom of, 709language of, 1055limits to growth movement,

323Madison, 236messianic, 786modernism’s god, 1283,

1305, 1312National Council ofChurches, 1371neutrality theorem, 709oath, 235pietism &, 1286–88, 1429Reformation, 641Rome, 1117revenge, 64Rousseau, 236sanctions, 332sexual morality, 1394sinking ship, 1395–96syncretism, 201, 1117Unitarianism, 236voting, 647winning, 1286, 1400

(see also politicalpluralism)

pollen, 257, 260polls, 76, 78

Index

1555

pollution, 845, 852polygamy, 659, 781, 855–56,

1057–50polytheism

academic, 484Canaan’s culture, 465Classical, 1114, 1117, 1197empire, 483foreign wives, 659pluralism &, 461, 507, 509polygamy &, 659

Pontius Pilate, 897poor

alien, 572, 892bad habits, 1004captivity, 329, 385nchurch judgment, 696ncivil judgment, 615, 1056,1083, 1150, 1332deliverance, 993deserving, 573, 575, 993,

995, 1006Ecclesiastes, 284economic growth benefits,

1216envy, 390foreign aid, 1341, 1353God’s sovereignty, 1127guilt &, xx, 1379industrial nations, 188inefficient, 995jubilee, 1447land reform, 1357–59Levites, 538

loans to, 558–60, 563–65,574–75, 579, 879–82,888–90, 892, 942, 952localism, 927, 1003–4Pareto curve, 1126–28permanent class, 283–84population distribution,

1126sabbatical year, 558sanctions, 1362Sanger vs. 237sharecropping, 1359Sider on, 1367–68slavery, 390Soviet leaders, 76subordination, 878, 959,

1145, 1150theft &, 187, 1024, 1130wages of, 962–90welfare State, xvii, 1010,

1341, 1366see also gleaning

poor tithe, 538population

Israel, 45curve, 1126Europe, 41growth (see populationgrowth)rural land, 548urban, 1003–4

population growthapostasy vs., 185blessing or curse, 49


1556

dominion, 49, 1176economic growth &,

188–89, 1176–77exponential, 183food &, 1177fourth generation, 245hostility to, 313–15Israel, 183, 1212kingdom competition, xxxixlaw of 73, 182–83limits, 183, 185–86, 308New Covenant, 188plot size, 675positive sanctions, 182–83promise, 182, 186, 1212replacement rate, 41, 786

pork, 520, 527pornography, 181positional goods, 314positive feedback, 1213, 1322positive sanctions, 415, 420,

423, 560postmillennialism, 428, 455,

1397potato famine (Ireland), 928potter, 131pottery, 108poverty

abnormal (Israel), 285bastardy, 181causes, 286, 560, 564, 573,

1004covenant-breaker, 1139curse, 1162

cycle, 1128deserving poor, 993, 995,

1006few choices, 1152labor market, 971sabbatical year, 283–84scarcity &, 284servitude, 959silliness, 284socialism &, 1140temporary, 565time perspective, 995

powerabove/below, 226autonomy, 318calendars, 409–10Canaan, 216clocks, 1065Holy Ghost, 1422knowledge &, 320law &, 320 occultism &, 226, 1064

price, 650prophet, 501responsibility, 815, 1177technology, 226

power from below, 219, 226power religion, 140, 453, 1180,

1274, 1277–79Poythress, Vern, 227npragmatism, 1140–41, 1143prayer breakfasts, 467npreamble (covenant), 22precession of equinoxes, 306

Index

1557

precious metals, 660–61predestination, 6–7, 9–10, 11,

134, 496, 1034predictability

cooperation &, 898costs of production, 633–34division of labor &, 596legal, 612, 632oath, 895–96progress, 897risk &, 596

premillennialism, 1216, 1081n,1218, 1417–18, 1424, 1432

present-orientation, 58–59, 82,141, 143–44, 179–80, 304,401, 1151

preterism, 570price

alchemical wealth, 297array, 75bride, 610, 778, 780consumers, 75criminal behavior, 59death, 59demand &, 59, 596, 613entrepreneurship, 829, 1236entropy &, 271equilibrium, 1238, 1243exchange rates, 1075expected, 960food, 188, 534–35, 1340freedom’s, 296, 314gold standard &, 890nillegal drugs, 335

index number, 1054–55,1254, 1270

inflation, 1260information, 75, 829, 956–

57interest, 516, 563jungles, 322just, 1368labor, 391, 943, 1089Lange vs. Mises, 1239–41level, 1054managerial talent, 47Marxist books in 1991,

1140meat, 527objective, 75perfect safety, 846–50priestly, 925, 974–76raw materials, 391redemption, 597restitution (land), 687scarcity, 15, 284–85simple life, 52specialization, 956stolen asset, 687system, 50, 75, 957theft &, 1334–37

priesthoodabolition, 709–10adoption into, 1445authority, 662, 678believers, 645, 647calendar, 1065changed, 1448


1558

counsel, 712court, 627–48, 706–7, 710,

711defensive weapons, 651demise of, 344festivals, 599holy army, 725inheritance (land), 1445judges, 647, 668jury, 647kingdom, 653law-keepers, 662legal advice, 706Levitical, 1448linen, 863Melchizedek, 552–54, 1448sacrifices, 635supreme court, 635, 644–45tabernacle, 635unilateral veto, 727war or peace, 364, 722

priest/king, 646priestly laws, 1444–45primogeniture, 1358–60prison, 62privacy, 641private property, 397, 693–94,

936, 871, 1114–16prodigal son, 375–76production, 82–83production goods, 581profane, 514–15profit and loss, 74, 76, 1355progress

attitudes &, 1351Bury, 304–5corporate, 43, 302–4, 1155covenant, 357, 896–97dominion, xxixeconomic growth, 302–3Enlightenment’s view, 124entropy, 265–66, 271faith in, 273, 305God, 897–898history, 302–3, 898, 1132idea of, 302–7inheritance/disinheritance,

xxxix, 36–37, 174, 281,428, 451, 1142

Jaki, 305kingdom grant, 302loss of faith, 304resurrection, 266social, 228, 273, 357, 1142wheat/tares, xl

Progressive Movement, 268progressive sanctification

blessings, 1092corporate, 228, 302–4,

1225, 1416, 1420n, 1431deliverance, 299dominion, 16, 311economic growth, 301–2Great Commission, 418–19,

1224personal, 13, 14, 429–30,

1427pessimillennialism, 1431

Index

1559

sin’s rule, xxixproletariat, 1004promise, 15, 133–35, 170,

353–54, 367, 900–1,1035–36, 1208–11

Promised Landcapital, 153circumcision, 170commandment, 170conditional, 170–71, 177,

186, 189, 1208conditional/unconditional,

5–6, 179–71faith, 143grace, 246inheritance, 153, 241–44,

857, 863judicial, 243law &, 14pledge, 940stipulations, 14unconditional, 328

Promised Landboundaries, 408described, 407double portion, 277evidence, 490excluded generation, 3giants, 73law &, 250milk & honey, 187–89negative assessment, 67oath to Abraham, 28population growth, 182, 186

promised Seed, 19prophecies, 407–8scarcity, 283under covenant, 321

promises to pay, 1146property, xlvii, li–lii, 871property rights, 15, 88, 101,

391, 874–75, 1079, 1114,1335

prophecyantinomianism, 134calling, 681conditional, 132–35death penalty, 499ethical boundaries, 130–31,

492false, 499, 502–3linear time, 412messianic, 329New Heaven/Earth, 416–17

prophetannulled office. 490–91,

501, 503, 511authority, 489, 492, 501,

679A.D. 70, 503Bible’s authority, 501, 503court, 489, 680–81covenant lawsuit, 196, 510covenant model, 131execution, 488, 491false, 487, 490, 499, 502–3,

679Jesus, 499


1560

judicial function, 488Mosaic, 487–91Moses, 496, 678non-priestly, 489orthodoxy, 493power, 501sanctions, 490, 491, 502–3signs & wonders, 490revolutionary, 489supernatural, 490task, 137, 141temporary office, 678test of, 487, 499true, 499–503

proselyting, 234, 504prosperity

called to, 1160–65covenant, 1163obedience, 1162, 1183predictable law, 1077resources, 287–88sanction, 1160valid goal, 1162

prostitution, 235nProtestant ethic, 1352Protestant Reformed Church,

360nProtestantism

abdication, 639–43activism, 618casuistry, 507deadlocked, 642–43Enlightenment politics,

639–43

meat on Friday, 525pietism, 618pluralism, 506sabbath, 551social theory, 509

proxy fights, 74pseudo-family (State), 783public education, 809Public Law 480, 1339, 1340public works, 660punctuated equilibrium, 262–63Punic Wars, 110Puritan work ethic, 389Puritanism, 436–37, 551purity, 518–21pyramid, 686, 1340Pythagorean cult, 229

quantum physics, 184, 309–11, 493

queen, 655quest for more, 166

Rabbi Akiba, 387race, 395race track, 1187–88Rahab, 1044rain, 413, 414, 416, 419rain forest (jungle), 322–23, 837Randi, James, 220nrandomness (entropy), 256,

257–58, 260Rapture, xliiirats (India), 1339

Index

1561

Reagan, Ronald, 1373–74real estate, 82, 314–15rebellion

Adam, xxii, xxxvii, 15, 259,278, 492, 589, 713, 772,787–89, 1436

antinomianism, 331, 1131–32

autonomy, 102bad estimates, 363Bar Kochba, 186, 386–87,

1169Canaan, 452, 453, 486captivity, 447, 548conquest generation, 355cost, 141–44covenantal, 198, 202, 358,

1121, 1131, 1203–5crucifixion, 380disinheritance, 320, 343ethics &, 656exodus generation, 8–9,

28–30, 65–67fear of the State, 668final, 1108, 1141–42firstborn, 278, 589future generations, 132,

137–38, 1201–5gangs, 207gluttony, 604–5, 789God departs, 148idolatry, 452Job’s wife, 1097knowledge suppressed,

101–2no circumcision, 151, 176older brother, 375, 785princes, 1057–58Protestantism, 1086Puritans, 638reverses growth, 93, 548,

1320“roaring ‘twenties,” 179salvation by law, 296Saul, 654son (see rebellious son)special, 450, 452, 454spies, 71, 77, 152tares, 347temporal limits, 366

rebellious sonAdam, 787adult, 790, 792Cain’s soncontumacy, 796, 800covenantal stranger, 790,

798disgrace, 799disinheritance, 790dissolute, 793non-criminal, 793parents’ testimony, 791–92prodigal, 798Rushdoony’s view, 803–6

rebellious daughters, 813Red Cross, 364red paint people, 109Red Sea, 117, 164, 168, 263


1562

redactors (forgers), xxivredemption

adoption, 364ascension &, 1419bondage, 563conditional/unconditional,

15continuity, 150culture, 1419firstborn animal, 591repurchase, 428three phases, 1431world, xxxviii

Reed, Ralphanti-Moses, 1398–99Christian Coalition, 1392,

1400Enron, 1393ignorance, 1397–98loyal opposition, 1395,

1401political professional, 1293public education, 1399

Reform Judaism, 747Reformation, 504, 645–46,

1407–8Reformed Baptists, 174refrigerators, 846–48regeneration, 13, 265regression to the mean, 1125–30rehabilitation, 62Rehoboam, 650, 651, 653relativism, 484remnant, 436

Renaissance, 306–7, 504rent, 235, 886–87representation

Adam, 1421conquest generation, 32continuity, 30–31contract, 907covenant, 1421defenseless people, 388delegated authority, 79dominion, 1429–30Egypt, 161eschatological, 1421family, 179idol, 316, 494Israel/God, 367Moses, 99ownership, 815political, 332, 646–47sabbath, 161, 167sanctions, 646Satan’s rule, 1430, 1432servants, 161sheep/goats, 161visible/invisible, 300weights, 1059

resident alien, 516–17, 542resources (Hong Kong), 286respect of persons, 55–56, 53,

615, 621, 696responsibility

authority, 679avoidance, 1221blessings, xi

Index

1563

corporate, xidelegated, 685, 815dominion, 1179escape from, 710firstborn, 276footstool, 1422hierarchy, 784ignored, 267jubilee, 685kingdom, xxiiimilitary, 73ownership, 823pietism vs., xxiiipower, 815, 1177prosperity &, 1161seller, 1065–66service, 770–71supreme commander, 78transferrable, 685

rest, 9, 161, 166–67, 557, restitution

animals, 1012–13civil court, 629execution, 631monetary, 686percentages, 740

restoration, 1167, 1169, 1172,1173

resurrectionascension &, 1422discontinuity, 1137entropy, 257historical, 1431linear history, 307–8

ownership of world, 1415power, 273, 429, 1422social theory, 266victory, 1421–22

Reuben, 774, 797revelation, 122revenge, 59–60, 64reversal, 303revival, 122, 128revolution, 489, 664–65rhetoric, xiii, 329, 1364–65,

1373, 1375, 1378Rhode Island, 238, 636, 642Ricardo, David, 47Rich Christians (see Sider)riches, viii, xx (see also wealth)Rifkin, Jeremy, 259–60rights, 1195Rio Grande, 392risk

common, 926debt, 565delayed payment, 972dispersal, 908employer, 972–73, 985ethics, 929loan, 889–90, 941man/God, 941pooled, 929predictability &, 596roof design, 844shared, 929uncertainty vs., 890–92

risk premium, 890


1564

rite of passage, 158ritual, 219, 225, 380, 384, 691,

1064, 1231rock/water, 1231Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 126–

27rooftop law, 840–41, 850Roosevelt, Teddy, 745roads, 660nRobbins, Lionel, 1246, 1255Robertson, Pat, 139293Roe v. Wade, 617Roman Catholicism, 525, 1437Rome

Christianity vs., 1273–74education, 1280–81human sacrifice, 480idols, 1275Julian, 1279–83land’s boundaries, 690oath, 1276pantheon, 1272–75pluralism, 1272–73power religion, 1276–79Punic Wars, 110Republic, 657, 661nsyncretism, 1272–74, 1277taxation, 661nTertullian, 1274–79trade, 110–11

rope/hanging, 649–51Röpke, Wilhelm, 932Rostow, Walt, 190nRothbard, Murray, xlviii, liii,

1255–60Rousseau, J. J., 236, 472–73,

708, 907rule of law

foreigners, 100, 160God’s sanctions, 388–90Hayek on, 613–14immigration, 393–97inequality of outcomes,

613–14, 874liberty &, 61Mosaic law’s origins, 55, 56theolomy, 1193–95

Rushdoony, R. J.amillennialism, 1216ancient politics, 1273case law, 1015–16, 1024circumcision, 857–58dietary laws, 1396double portion, 771, 1358Institutes, 436law’s source = God, 337Levites’ tithe, 469nneoplatonism, 1414ox, 1013, 1015rebellious son, 803–6State as heir, 1360–61smorgasbord religion, 17Van Til &, 616

Ruth, 1038Rutherford, Samuel, 641Ryrie, Charles, 570n

sabbatarians, 506

Index

1565

sabbathcreation, 156, 164Deuteronomy’s version,

156–67Egypt, 160enforcement, 574, 577Exodus version, 156first day, 167jubilee &, 1191–92justice, 156liberation, 160–62New Testament, 167Paul’s injunction, 574Protestantism, 551reasons for, 156–57, 162,

164, 165sanctions, 506, 574servants, 160, 165–66shewbread, 915–18test of, 165year, 10, 557–58, 574, 577,

1441year of release, 283, 283

sacraments, 644, 1098sacred fire, 480–81, 1113sacred space, 688, 1114sacred/profane, 514–18sacred space, 688–89sacrifices

aliens, 594altar, 449blemish, 588bond, 470clean beast, 591

commitment, 1096confession, 471, 1096, 1097dedication, 716donkey, 590firstborn, 588–90future-orientation, 595God’s demand, 440home, 716human, 480Judaism, 373laws of, 589Levites, 469liability, 591loss, 590–92, 597meals, 592–94Mosaic, 475officer, 637priesthood, 635, 710redemption (money), 591sanctions, 597Solomon’s, 716temple, 345, 346n, 446,

522, 536, 679, 1169–70,1172, 1440

token payment, 1096, 1098–99

sacrilege, 1275safety, 841–52safety net, 927, 933Sahel, 1347–49Salamanca, 641salvation

judicial basis, 15soul, 11


1566

knowledge, 415, 809law, 102, 809power, 415State, 1010

Samaritans, 239, 690sampling, 76Samuel, 209, 489, 650, 653Samuelson, Paul, 77, 1241sanctification

amillennial, 1417corporate, 302–4, 1431eschatology &, 1416Great Commission, 302history, 311progressive, 302, 1420n,

1427, 1431three phases, 1431

sanctionsAdam/Christ, 16Adamic covenant, 357–58authority, 55biblical law, xli, 211, 331,

424–26, 478, 1107, 1121blessings, 36–37boundaries, 1112–19captivity, 211charity, 559–60church, 509circumcision, 381–83civil, 280, 331, 463, 508,

511, 609, 612, 629, 869,998, 1017, 1077

conditional, 137confidence, 1423–24

corporate, 357–58, 361–62,451, 1104counsellors, 76court, 700–1covenant, 137, 141, 143,

171, 202, 300covenantal reinforcement,

400crime, 701, 791day of the Lord, 365definitive/progressive, 430delayed, 248denied, 1121Deuteronomy 28, 1120,

1144discontinuity, 1130–31disinheritance &, 211, 451economic growth, 603Egypt, 496eschatology &, 276, 637excommunication, 864false witness, 698–700forgetfulness, 294future, 1100historical, 508, 1104–5,

1121, 1424individual, 560inheritance &, 55, 91, 171,

276, 451, 478, 485, 619inheritance/disinheritance,

782, 1175intuition, 1063inward, 1121Israel, 275

Index

1567

judgment day, 254justice, 332–33Kline, 1073, 1097–98,

1133–34law &, 168–77military, 717, 729mixing, 864Mosaic law, 997multiple sources, 337multiplication, 399, 405national, 211, 343oath, 280, 405obedience, 200, 202, 211,

435, 478objective, 1121, 1143Old Testament, 300overcome, 16past, 1104perjury, 698–699positive, 608, 620–25, 626postmillennialism, 173–74,

438predictable, 137, 173, 177,

248–49, 332, 358, 401,428, 451, 492, 508, 588,1098

profit and loss, 76prophet, 501–3prosperity, 1160random, 1063n (see Kline)rebellious children, 810religion, 484representation, 646restitution, 629

sabbath (NT), 574sin &, 339social, 337social theory &, 249, 331–

32, 339, 509, 1133–35society’s god, 337source (god), 337State, 511subjective, 1121theonomy, 16–17time preference, 59–62unpredictable, 338, 1130violations &, 617voting, 280vow, 899worldwide, 424see also blessings, curses,negative sanctions, positivesanctions

sanctuary, 867, 871, 1072,1073, 1088

sanctuary society, 871–72, 875–77

Sanger, Margaret, 237, 393–94Santeria, 1076Sarah, 133Satan

Adam’s allegiance, xxxviiagent of (serpent), 608bureaucrat, 846cast out, 445city of man, 740ndisinheritance, xxxviiidominion by, 1429


1568

Job, 219judgment, 608loosed, 1214physical absence, 1430rebellion, 1141–42representative rule, 1429–

30, 1432pietism’s view, 1429theft, 685, 1416top-down rule, 846

Saul, 215, 441, 637, 903–4savings, 304Sawyer, Tom, 204scales, 1070–73, 1083–84, 1092scarcity

definition, 284-85economic theory,

xxxvi–xxxvii, xlviimilitary, 726miracles &, 298point four, 15poverty, 284Promised Land, 283theft, xlviii

Schaeffer, Francis, 458–59,617, 618n

schizophrenia, 618Schlossberg, Herbert, 494Scholasticism, 641Schrödinger, Erwin, 272Schumpeter, Joseph, 475nscience

autonomy, 493–94causation, 493

dominion, 203experiments, 117linear history, 305technology &, 226treadmill, 1284

science fiction, 309Scofield, C. I., xlii–xliii, 124,

791nScopes trial, 125Scottish Presbyterianism, 642search costs, 822–23second commandment, 303secrecy, 703–4Seed (Jesus), 19–20, 241, 857–

58, 1034–35, 1042, 1045seed, 136, 370–71, 374, 860seed corn, 1350seed laws, 923–24, 1031, 1034–

35, 1443–44seed line, 19, 857–60, 864seeds, 865seeing/believing, 349–52self-government, 821, 841–45,

908, 1077self-worship, 316seller, 1056, 1066semikah, 386seminaries, 126, 526sensate culture, xxxiseparation

animals, 860–61captivity, 211church/State, 627–48, 658,

708–10, 1192

Index

1569

circumcision, 857–58clothing, 857, 862–63confessional, 858, 1283covenantal, 857division of labor, 681eschatological, 635–36, 865families, 858final judgment, 635–36geographical, 211, 674–76humanist education, 1283inheritance &, 211, 635–37,

670jubilee, 924Levites, 671, 676–77, 863modernism’s gods, 1283national, 862–63plowing?, 861–62politics, 861–62sacrificial, 863tribes, 465, 670–71, 686,

857–59, 865yoking, 861

Septuagint, 1serpent, 608servants, 161Servetus, Michael, 504nservice, 51, 672, 676, 770–71,

1216servitude

debt, 573, 584–85poverty, 959sabbath, 160sonship, 371–76

Seth, 773

shared meal, 467, 476Shawmah Israel, 193Shechem, 761sheep, 820, 878shepherd, 878Sheridan, Philip, 769Sherman, William T., 769shewbread, 915–18Shiloh

eschatology, 418inheritance, 19messianic prophecy, 328–

29, 412–13, 855, 1036seed laws, 413, 620, 686,

859, 864–65, 923–24,1439

tribal separation, 692, 859,1035–36, 1046

unconditional promise, 369Sider, Ronald

anti-beef, 1343–44apology, 1375backtracking, 1367–69debate with, 1369, 1371food crisis predicted,

1342–43memory hole, 1369Montaigne dogma, 1355publishing history, 1363tract of the times, 1162welfare State, xi, xiv

siegecity of man, 740nconstrained warfare, 745,


1570

758–62costs, 763disinheritance, 748, 765foreign policy, 763holy army, 753imagery, 759–61modern, 756no retreat, 739–40, 758obsolete, 767surviving children, 743trees, 758–62years, 759

signs and wonders, 490, 495Sihon, 2, 4, 21, 22, 24, 26, 85silicon (sand), 290silliness (antinomianism), 284silver, 660, 1057Simmel, Georg, 703–4Simon, Julian, 285simplicity, 51sin

compounding, 33, 35cultural power, 1419grace exceeds, 247–48liberation from, 166redemption &, 1419retarding effects, 740n

Sinai, 154skills, 943–44, 1007Sklare, Marshall, 1307Skousen, Mark, 1072n, 1090nslave, 868–69slavery

Canaanites, 452

foreigners, 562–63fugitives, 867–77hierarchy, 869–70, 873limited, 754, 868protected, 873redemptive, 872safety net, 873sonship, 372–74

smallpox, 323smell (entropy), 260Smith, Adam

Burke &, 473ndeism, 1123, 1234ethics, 1123–24Franklin &, 199frugality, 1124–25invisible hand, 1234moral vision, 1123scarcity, xlvii

smoke detectors, 849–50smorgasbord religion, 17snakes, 495–96Sobran, Joseph, 17–18social action, 362social change, 5152social complexity, 5152social contract theory, 906–8Social Darwinism, 270Social Democracy, 269, 666social entropy, 264–72Social Gospel, 18social order, 51, 153, 228, 259,

263–64, 268, 802–3, 1250social reform, xxiii

Index

1571

social theoryascension, 266, 1219, 1419–

34baptized, 42–43, 1144biblical, 42, 620, 900Christian, 42–43, 335, 339,

362, 424, 435, 620,1134, 1144

common grace, 362, 1143covenantal predictability,

247–49Darwinism, 270Deuteronomy 28, 1133–35,

1144dispensationalism, xlv–xliv,

269–70, 572Enlightenment, 1134entropy, 264–69eschatology, xxxix–xlvi,

267, 269–72, 1135–38,1421–23

ethics, 1327humanist, 42–43, 634, 1134imputation, 1249judicial, 900Lutheran, 249motivation, 362pessimillennialism, 267,

269–72, 1135–38, 1423sanctions &, 249, 331–32,

339, 509, 1133–35Scientific Creationism,

264–65silence (Creation Science),

266see also natural law theory

social utility, 1256–64socialism

anti-biblical, 818baptized, 1020biblical law vs., 18Christian, 437–38Egyptian model, 497god that failed, 1141loss of faith, 1140passé, 1141poverty, 1140vegetarian, 1343

sociology’s law, 1379Sodom, 457–58soil, xlix–li, 932, 1116Solomon, 217–18, 650, 900–1Somary, Felix, 475nsomething for nothing, 495–99,

510song of Moses, 1202–5sonship

adoption, 12, 394baptism, 387chastening, 281circumcision, 242, 380, 396ethics, 380inheritance, 375, 380–83,

394Israel, 375, 1172land ownership, 385Moses, 368oath, 279, 395


1572

obedience, 367, 380–84servanthood, 371–76strangers, 383–88

Sorokin, Pitirim, xxx–xxxisoul/desire, 946–47soul/world, 427sovereignty

consumers, 74, 75, 82,1066, 1068

degrees, 900diffuse, 75ecclesiastical, 653final, 483, 1076–81God (see God’s

sovereignty) God/man, 937, 1268god’s geography, 483human, 338, 1277man, 338original, xxxvii–xlownership, 910partial (God), 212personal, xlviiipolitical, 338, 1341sanctions, 212State, 338, 708visible, 653

Soviet Union, 53, 76–77, 288– 89, 473, 497, 1074, 1241

Sowell, Thomas, 614sow/reap, 717, 719, 783Spain, 392, 551special grace, 1107specialization, 205, 943–44

speed limits, 1067, 1082spies

counting the cost, 350fear of giants, 347, 349–50hidden agenda, 72interpreted facts, 350lawful, 230retreat, 65–66vetoing God, 71

sprinkling, 691stalemate, 404–5standards

boundary ranges, 1068competition, 1069–70enforcement costs, 1068free market, 1068predictability, 1077rival, 1084unofficial, 1068

star of Bethlehem, 446stars, 343, 442–46State

abortion, 619arbitrary, 949–50autonomy, 630, 639, 653charity, 1008–10, 1342checks on, 635church &, 627–48, 651,

708–10, 1192coercion, 668contract law, 539, 648, 907de-capitalization of, 323decentralization, 52, 653,

657

Index

1573

double portion, 784dowry, 781education, 781, 786evolution, 1078false prophet, 502–3fear of, 668final authority, 472foreign aid, 583, 1339–42gleaning &, 998god, 461healer, 60, 296, 786heir, 1360–61humanistic, 458inheritance, 783–84Judaism &, 1285judicial interpretation, 668legal immunities, 1195legitimacy, 708limited power, 51marriage &, 1294meat, 515messianic, 296, 334monopoly of violence, 1010negative sanctions, 629,

817, 869, 885oath, 461omniscience, 1122planning, 1324positive sanctions, 885preserver of peace, 333prosecutor, 697pseudo-family, 686, 783public works, 660safety codes, 845

salvation by, 665, 1010,1078

sanctions, 511, 608–10, 629secular, 639–42social contract, 906–8taxation, 780–81, 783–84,

786, 1338tight chain on, 800tithe enforcement, 530, 537,

541, 546–47true son theory, 784twentieth century, 665wealth redistribution, 393welfare (see welfare State)

statistics, 76, 891, 1122, 1254status income, 315steamship, 1298Stecchini, Livio, 410nstewardship

Adam, xxxviiieconomics, xxxivexclusion, 683firstfruits, 716hierarchy, 28, 79inheritance, xxxviiland, 539resident aliens, 543transferrable, 685

Stoicism, 641, 1197–98stones, 690stones into bread, 297stoning, 609–10, 660, 700–1,

808, 810–11Stott, John, 1366


1574

strangersadoption, 393commerce, 512common grace, 593courts, 388festival attendance, 390,

1194Firstfruits, 1095–96flourish, 389, 391gates, 160holiness laws, 515–16inheritance, 396laws of sacrifice, 1149lenders, 1150mankind, 991meal with, 592meat sales, 512, 513obedience, 384protected, 601rebellious son, 798residence, 519rich, 390ritual participation, 594sanctions, 1149–50sonship &, 38388subordination, 1150Tabernacles, 599two kinds, 883–84, 1149

strategy, 69–70, 71, 78strong drink, 1384–91subjective/objective, 1276subjectivism, 1270, 1267subordination

circumcision, 381

debt, 878–79God, 1251idolatry, 226, 317nature, 1251tithe, 1101–2

subversion, 659success

Abraham, 172Adam, 172Christians, 1286corporate, xi, xxxcovenant, 202–3Deuteronomy, xigrace, 203Moses, 172obedience, 16970paradox, 1322

succession, xli, 43suffering, 279suffrage (voting), 1073sugar, 188–89suicide, xlviii, 481, 1176, 1178sun, 343supernatural, 218–20supreme court

authority, 634, 647church & State, 630, 647contract law, 648divine right, 54execution, 630Israel, 627–48legislative, 54modern, 644–45New Testament, 634

Index

1575

obedience to, 630–32representation, 643sanctions, 627, 634, 647United States, 641, 643, 648voters, 54

surrender, 761Sutton, Ray, xxxvSuzuki, D. T., 319Switzerland, 84sword, 752, 760synagogues, 678, 752–53syncretism, 201, 231, 442, 456,

1272

Tabernacles (Booths), 530–31,555, 715, 1190–91, 1193– 94

Talmud, 345, 387, 1282, 1291,1389

Tamar, 775tares/wheat, 346taste, 750taxation

control &, 663–65Egypt, 414“noise,” 664public works, 447, 660tithe &, 1338tyranny, 665–67women’s wages, 781working wives, 786

tea, 1054–55Teachout, Robert, 1387team effort, 48technology

applied cosmology, 226Canaan, 226, 228capitalism, 1129Club of Rome, 1354computer, 290cultural devolution, 108economic value &, 83grammar of science, 226–27information costs, 184npasteurization, 1384photography, 117–18responsibility, 1082this-worldly, 1433unneutral, 226

telekinesis, 219temperature, 255, 1066ntemple

captivity’s loss, 141, 1168–69

church, 861destroyed, 181, 344, 345,

373, 386, 449, 682, 1172dimensions, 570faith in, 141festivals, 549–50Gibeonites, 452, 902God’s home, 716holy status, 925Jericho’s gold, 452Jesus vs., 1169Judaism &, 373, 386, 1292Jupiter, 1115political, 1312prophecies, 570


1576

sacrifices, 345, 346n, 446,522, 536, 679, 1169–70,1172, 1440

veil, 52, 373Ten Commandments

blasphemy &, 505case laws &, 436, 611, 616,

1015continuity, 128, 623n, 1228covenant, 149, 420Deuteronomy, 156, 162discrepancies, 162doorposts, 421Enlightenment, 504–9forger, 163fundamentalists vs., 571,

1085, 1034, 1390gates, 422Los Lunas stone, 106, 114Moses’ sermon, xxvsanctions, 177tablets, 162, 164–65

Tennessee, 113termini, 690, 1113–16terrorism, 473Tertullian, 1274–79testimony, 699, 712ntextile industry, 780thankfulness, 29485, 1093–96theft

bicycles, 701case law, 1015costs, 1336David, 915–18

disciples (grain), 915disinheritance, 687eighth commandment, 79false weights, 1052, 1091–

92God’s property, 692hierarchical ownership, 79increased costs, 1334injustice, 1056insecurity &, 1334land, 687landmark, 686–87nations, 80oppression, 873–74preaching vs., 1334–35price of, 1337productivity, 1335–36restitution, 687risks, 822Satan, 685, 1416scarcity, xlviiitithe vs., 531wealth redistribution, 1334

theistic evolution, 1408theocracy

biblical sanctuary, 875, 936federalism, 708“God rules,” 437, 709,

1283, 1392Great Commission, 709humanism, 1134, 1197inescapable concept, 618,

1392Israel, 547, 590, 914

Index

1577

natural law vs., 1195–99open borders, 936pluralism, 618, 935Schaeffer on, 459

theology, 329, 1406–7theonomy

Bahnsen, 1226–27biblical law, 1617covenant model, 16–17,

276, 1225–27Ephesians 2:8–10, 7hermeneutics, xxi, 854opposition to, 249package deal, 16–17, 276,

1226postmillennialism, 173–74,

1437sanctions, 16–17, 336social theory, 335structure, 1225–27

THEOS, xxxvthermodynamics

apologetic tactic, 261denial of, 256–57Eden, 259laws, 312, 322misused concept, 254smell, 257two laws, 254–55universal, 1062

thorns, 224Thompson, W. M., 408thrift

biblical principle, 41

corporate, 1154covenant-keeping, 585division of labor, 225dominion, 1153, 1156economic growth, 225economic value &, 83faith in, 531future-orientation, 389, 585,

596, 1349immigrants, 389, 400inheritance, 83moral obligation, 83planning, 583–84rules of, 35Smith on, 1124–25wealth &, 58, 1147, 1164

Thummim, 678Tifinag, 111time

astronomical, 312cosmic, 322covenant &, 322cyclical, 412, 1164end of, 186, 203, 308eschatological, 312, 323growth &, 1214irreplaceable resource, 192limit to growth, 192limits, 308, 323linear (see linear history)measurements, 1064preference, 37, 58–59, 1153unlimited, 183

time’s arrow, 185, 253, 3132


1578

time-preference, 37, 58–59tires, 945–46tithe

agricultural, 544celebration, 83, 528–56church, 553–54, 556, 1357civil law, 672commission structure, 419family control, 534festivals, 529first, 532–33, 539–41, 551–

52Getz on, xvigraduated, xx, 1357, 1374–

75guilt &, viiiinheritance, 671, 681involuntary, 671–72, 676land-based, 531, 539Levites, 469, 471, 532, 534,

539, 671–72legal claim, 671–72liturgical service, 671–72local, 536majority vote, 784Melchizedek, 553–54permanent, 715poor, 538representative, 1102second, 533–35State &, 530, 539–41, 545–

49, 555storehouses, 673subordination, 1101–2

taxation &, xiiitheocentric, 552third year, 530, 535–38,

545, 550, 1101–2, ,1108–9

thrift vs., 531tribal, 550, 672welfare economics, 537

Tobit, 535token payments, 1099toleration, 802, 807, 1276,

1278–79, 1310–11tombs, 690–91Tönnies, Ferdinand, 930–33tool, 941–46, 1064Toon, Peter, 1425–34tortoise/hare, 40toy, 817Toynbee, Arnold, 1346trade

Asia-Mesoamerica, 1089 Carthage, 109–10Celtic, 112coasts, 104–5conquest, 753credit/debt, 1154economic equals, 80foreigners protected, 100–1,

105honesty, 583international, 8385, 105–14,

291, 580lending, 579–80national, 1154

Index

1579

Roman, 110–11Scandinavian, 111surplus, 580, 586Switzerland, 84unpolluted, 450voluntary, 83–84, 291wilderness, 79–81, 84–85

trade route, 86–87trade unions, 551, 1331transcendence, 494transfer society, 1079transaction costs, 1337transportation costs, 535travel, 189treason, 505–6, 1278treasure, 825–29tree, 689, 788, 910, 936–37tree/fruit, 33, 381tree of life, 760trees, 756, 758–62, 765, 934trial and error, 1241trials, 1077tribes

boundaries, 411, 924, 1440civil law, 470–71continuity, 1035festivals, 466Jesus’ era, 925land laws, 924landmarks, 693localism, 858Seed, 1034–35seed laws, 924, 1035separation, 465, 470, 670–

71, 686, 857–59, 924,1035

Shiloh, 1035third tithe, 550unity, 924

tribute, 735Trinity, 1200, 1248–50, 1407Trinkaus, Charles, 248ntriumphalism, 455, 997trust and obey, xtruth, 123, 232tutors, 433Twain, Mark, 204typist (army), 47–48tyranny, 334, 356, 665–67

ultimate resource, 285–87umpire, 1061uncertainty, 890–92, 1329uncircumcision, 380nunclean, 515unconditional election, 170unemployment, 1089unemployment insurance, 1089uniformitarianism, 262, 269unions, 551, 1331Unitarians, 462, 465United Nations, 1353United States, 179–80, 389–90,

637n, 639university, 1295Uriah, 729–30urbanization, 204–5, 931Urim, 678


1580

USSR, 53, 76–77, 288-89, 473,497, 1074, 1241

usury, 563–64, 577, 579, 586,826, 878–94, 966, 1157–58

vaccination, 532, 453value

absolute, 936aggregate, 1265collateral, 949contracts, 633, 898creation, 887estimated, xxxiv, 498ethical, 1244–45exchange, 580–81, 1336idle resource, 828imputed, 288n, 1200, 1246,

1248–50, 1270income, 687, 908increased, 83inheritance, 44, 676, 687,

842, 1007labor, 562, 965, 972land, 548-49, 556, 675, 687,

762measurement, 1254money, 81–82, 584, 889,965, 1075sacrifices, 1097scales, 83, 1199, 1246–47,

1254social, 1247socially objective, 1249subjective/objective, 1199–

1 2 0 0 , 1 2 5 4 – 5 5 ,1264–65, 1270

theory, xxvii–xxviii, 980n,1199, 1245–50

theft &, 1334–36see also present-orientation,time-preference

value added, 44, 83, 1157–58value-free economics, 975,

1123, 1200, 1235, 1244,1247–49, 1258

Van Til, Cornelius, 350, 430–32, 616, 698–99, 1136, 1138

Vatican, 1437Vatican II, 525Velikovsky, Immanuel, 443vendetta, 907venue, 629–30Venus, 443veto, 646Vesta, 481, 448 vestal virgin, 480–81victim, 62, 803victimless crime, 333–34, 530,

793victim’s rights, 56, 62, 546–47,

703, 789, 797victory

Communism, 1140continuity, 1137, 1219costs, 749expectation, 732growth &, 39history/eternity, 1137–38

Index

1581

invisible, 1411, 1419military, 75, 723, 1186optimism &, 1186–88

vineyard, 716, 852visible/invisible, 300voodoo, 219, 493voting, 646, 1073vouchers, 211vow, 895, 898–99, 908–9 (see

oath)

wages, 962–90Wagner, Richard, 1345–46walled cities, 757Walras, Leon, 1235. 1243–44wandering, 279, 403 (see alsowilderness)war

ancient cities, 223astrology, 443boundaries, 742captives, 747–49churches, 364, 653civil, 223civilians, 768–69centralization, 657costs, 749, 753debate, 365, 725declaration, 364defensive, 733empire, 657exemptions, 714, 725extended life, 757evangelism, 754

gods, 223, 446–49holy, 727, 757just, 725offensive, 733peace offer, 734, 739precious metals, 661npriesthood, 364, 722Rome vs. Christianity, 457Satan’s kingdom, 223survivors, 747–49spoils, 449–50veto by citizens, 721

war brides, 749, 771–72war on drugs, 808warehouse receipt, 1088–89warrior, 720–21, 726–27wastefulness (holy), 529, 590water, 408–9water/rock, 1231WCTU (Women’s ChristianTemperance Union), 1389weakest party, 974weeping, 416wealth

autonomy, 202Canaan, 216church, 36compounding, 34–35continuity, 1164covenant-breakers, 35covenantal, xvii, 298, 301,

1096, 1125creation, 1164danger, xvi, 1125


1582

debt &, 1147deliverance, 299diaspora, 35dominion, 36, 1162, 1176ethics &, 1124, 1132formula, 189–91, 285, 288–

90gospel &, 1130grace, 1125health &, 34ideas, 190justice &, xiii, 1123laws of, xixleadership, xilife expectancy, 35lure of, 41measurement, 1254middle class, 1124multiplication, 298national, 1263–64obedience &, xvii, 284, 286,

1122–23, 1131redistribution, xi, xivsecrets of, 1128, 1163service, 1216theft, 232tool of dominion, 1162verse, 298wrath, 1125

weariness, viiiweights, 1052–92Welch, Thomas, 1384, 1389welfare, 237, 195–98, 1002welfare economics, 537, 1256–

57welfare economy, 297–98welfare State

Bismarck, Otto, 666–67healer, 296–97entitlements, 823Getz praises, xviiGladwin, 1020gleaning law, 1008–9immigration &, 235, 393origins, 1078perverse, 1008stones into bread, 297tax level, 1338–39

wells, 390Wells, David, 124–26West, viiiWestminster Assembly, 638–39wheat/tares, xl, 346Whigs, 710white horses, xxxi–xxxiiWigner, Eugene, 227n, 1251,

1284Wildavsky, Aaron, 1001wilderness

circumcision, 1–2, 7commons, 835–37covenant renewal, 151end of, 25manna, 273miracles, 253, 299money in, 81, 82Passover, 150–51sacred, 425, 427

1583

Williams, Roger, 335, 641–42,1198

Williams, W. P., 23637Williams, Walter, 978Willingale, A. E., xvii–xviii,

567–68wine, 1384–8, 1444–45wise men (star), 446witnesses

capital crime, 699, 700, 702court’s agents, 700court’s authority, 696–97defense, 697double, 135–37false, 695–713gentiles, 698–701heaven and earth, 1174judges, 700oath, 699omniscient God, 135–36sanctions, 699two, 702, 797

Wittfogel, Karl, 409nwives/kings, 651wool, 862women, 203–6word/commandment, 420word/deed, 751, 898–900word magic, 1343work, 750workers, 962–90works, 11

world/soul, 427World Council of Churches, 18World War I, 364nworship

boundaries, 450, 492Canaanites, 454centrality of, 465fear of God, 487God’s law, 487lawful, 490legitimate, 439

wrath to grace, 416, 430Wright, G. Ernest, 1333Wyoming, 110

yoke, 860–61, 866

Zareh, 775zero growth, 298, 1223zero-growth movement, 313–15,

1178zero-sum economy, 1354–57zero-sum game, xxxix, 66Zionism, 517zip code, 1154zipper, 52Zeus/Athena, 443zoning, 315

An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy Volume 4 Gary North · 2016-07-13 · An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy Volume 4 Gary North Dominion Education Ministries, Inc. Harrisonburg,

Documents