Chapter 6
THE CITY ON A HILL Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16).
The theocentric focus of this passage is an aspect of God: light. "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:5-7).
The first image is that of a world-illuminating light. The second is a city on a hill. The third is a candle in the darkness. The entire passage clearly rests on the imagery of light, including the image of the city. The imagery of the city implies a city at night, a place surrounded by darkness. Men light candles for their homes, and these lights testify at a distance to the existence of a city. At night, men cannot see the buildings of the hilltop city, but they see its lights. A candle is singular and can barely be seen at a distance. Together, a city full of shining candles testifies to the existence of the city. Similarly, an individual does good works, testifying to his own righteousness, but taken together, those who do good works testify to something larger than any one individual: the city of God.
Jesus called each of His listeners to a life of good works.(1) He reminded each of them of the power of a candle in a dark house. It gives light to everyone in the house. That is, one person's good works improve life for those around him. The righteous individual positively affects others. But in calling many men to good works, Jesus reminded them of the corporate effect of their good works: to illuminate the city on a hill. Those who do good are not alone. They are part of a larger entity. Good works are cumulative and reinforcing.
Positive Corporate Sanctions A candle's light is a positive thing in a dark place. In the brightness of the day, men do not light candles. Flames on candles can barely be seen in the daylight. But at night, one candle can keep many people from stumbling. The darker the surroundings, the greater the positive sanction of light. To a community in great darkness, a candle makes life easier. Men will be less likely to stumble, to grope slowly in confusion, and to be rendered nearly powerless. The positive sanction of one candle becomes a benefit to many. This is what Christ's analogy of the single candle was intended to convey.
There is a famous saying: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." But for some, darkness is a blessing. It hides their evil deeds. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John 3:17-21). For evil-doers, light is a negative sanction. This is another good reason to light a candle.
The candle imagery emphasizes the benefits to many from the righteousness of one. But there is more to the corporate aspect of the sanction of light than what is provided by the solitary candle. In a city, many people light candles. The light of one candle has positive effects beyond the room of the house. Windows allow a light to shine outside the house. The distant traveller can see many household lights on the hill. He knows the location of his destination. He is not yet at the gates of the city, but he can see it.
One candle benefits many in the house. Many candles in the same city benefit those at a distance, if that city is on a hill. Jesus was conveying to His listeners the idea that they would not be alone in their righteousness. The good deeds of one person would have a greater effect because of the good deeds of another. How much light is sufficient to be seen at a distance? Not much. Consider military strategy. It was the policy of the Germans and the Allies in World War II to bomb cities from the air, despite the presence of civilians. Saturation bombing was a standard tactic of both sides in Europe. Bombers that flew at night were harder to shoot down than those that flew by day, but their bombing was less accurate. It was difficult for them to identify their targets. A light in a window identified a potential urban target. A cluster of lights made the area a target. This is why European cities had blackouts. No one was allowed to light a light in his home unless the home's windows were sealed by black curtains or black paper. If a light could be seen from the street, it was illegal, for it could be seen from the sky.
The Free Rider Problem The person who lights a candle benefits himself. He makes his own way clearer. But there are "free riders" in his house: beneficiaries who do not pay. They, too, are able to see more clearly. Because of their status as family members or guests, the man with the burning candle is content to let them enjoy the light as a gift. But there may also be beneficiaries outside his house. Those on the street outside have a little more light because it shines through his window. Also, while one candle may not be seen at a great distance, many candles can be seen. Men in a city on a hill who light their individual candles thereby produce an unintended consequence: those travelling to their city can locate it. This is a free benefit to the travellers and to those who rent out lodging in the city.
The free market economist struggles with the theoretical problem of the free rider. He believes with all his heart, mind, and soul that there is no such thing as a free lunch or a free light. Someone must pay. If some people benefit from another person's expenditure without paying for it, they will tend not to provide that service for themselves. Thus, less of it will be produced than people are willing and able to buy. The economist sees this as an inefficient solution to society's problem of allocating scarce resources.
His conclusion is theoretically unjustified because he cannot measure interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility. No such collective scale exists. No unit of measurement exists even for the individual. The person is unable to measure exactly how much more he values A over B. Therefore, the economist has no way to speak scientifically of a society's benefits or losses. He has no way to measure aggregates of subjective utilities.(2) To put it bluntly, he is faking it, but he gets away with this deception because all of his peers are faking it, too. They pretend that their individualistic epistemology can lead to State-imposed solutions for collective problems.(3) This is not to say that the real-world problem of the free rider does not exist. It does exist, but humanistic economic science is unable to solve it and also remain consistent with its presuppositions.
If someone can benefit from another person's actions, should he be compelled by the State to compensate the other person? In most cases, says the free market economist, the answer is no. But, he asks, what about those cases where the capital owner will not perform the service unless he is paid? If all of the beneficiaries of his action are not compelled to pay, why should any of them pay? But if none of them pays, the service will not be provided. Society -- a conceptual aggregate -- obtains less of the service than its members would be willing to pay for if all of them were compelled to pay. The classic example is national defense. If money spent by citizens A through M to defend their city also protects citizens N through Z, why shouldn't citizens N through Z be compelled to repay citizens A through N for N through Z's share of the costs of the defense project? If they refuse to pay, citizens A through M may not pay. The city will then be defended less effectively.
The economic problem here is the identification of ownership. Citizens A through M do not own all of the property that the enemy's bombers may target. If citizens A through M cannot protect their portion of the city from bombing without also protecting the lives and property citizens N through Z, shouldn't the latter be asked to pay their share of the anti-aircraft equipment and operations? Citizens A through M cannot establish ownership of the territory owned by citizens N through Z. They also cannot effectively protect just one part of the city. But without the funding by citizens N through Z, the anti-aircraft system is too expensive for citizens A through M to build, i.e., they are unwilling to fund it. Everyone is less safe because members of the second group refuse to pay. If anyone can easily escape the economic burden, few men will voluntarily contribute.
Negative Civil Sanctions
To solve the dilemma of who should pay under which conditions, we must invoke biblical covenant theology. We begin with this presupposition: the State does not have the authority to bring positive sanctions. Its God-given task is to impose negative sanctions on convicted evil-doers. In this light, the invading military force is an evil to be destroyed, i.e., placed under negative sanctions. An anti-aircraft system is a negative sanction against enemy bombers. It is the civil government's function to protect everyone under its jurisdiction from foreign governments that would otherwise impose negative sanctions against the legitimate State and the residents it protects. Defense expenditures buy the implements of negative covenantal sanctions, i.e., the means for the suppression of evil. The expenditure-reducing effects of the free rider must be reduced. The free rider must be compelled to contribute his share of the defense against evil.
This is not an argument against the legitimacy of the free rider in the area of positive sanctions. If I want to paint my home, thereby improving the value of other real estate in my neighborhood, this is not a legitimate reason for me to threaten civil sanctions against those neighbors who do not choose to pay me to paint my home. It is also not a legitimate reason for me to seek government intervention to force every neighbor to improve his home, so that my expenditure will not be wasted. There is no covenantally legitimate reason that would justify the State's coercion in this matter. The free riders should be allowed to enjoy the ride.
When those living in a city on a hill light candles to light their homes, travellers at a distance become free riders. The men who light those candles have no legal claim on the income of those being guided by their lights. Besides, how could any traveller know how much to pay any particular candle owner?
The government could collect a "candle tax" at the gates of the city, distributing a prorated share to all candle lighters. This would create a bureaucratic nightmare, with candle-lighters adding unneeded candles if the subsidy is made on the basis of candles actually lit. Also, there would have to be a candle police unit to search the town for cheaters who collected the light-a-candle subsidy without actually lighting all of their candles.
Because of the private property system, a free rider lawfully enjoys access to a positive sanction paid for by someone else. As long as this sanction is positive and no fraud or violence is being imposed by the beneficiaries on the provider of the benefit, the civil government has no legitimate role in allocating access to or payment for the benefit. But when the sanction is negative against outsiders, such as invaders, the State sometimes has a legitimate role in imposing defense costs on free riders.
The Positive Sanction of Grace
This text imposes an obligation on the recipients of God's grace. They must light candles. They light them for themselves, but they must rest content that others may freely benefit from the light. In this way, the city on a hill will remain a beacon to the lost.
The entire world is a free rider on God's grace.(4) The fact that God did not immediately kill Adam and Eve testifies to their status as free riders in history. Common grace is the doctrinal basis of free rider economics. God grants life, power, knowledge, and time to covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers alike. He then calls on His people to do the same. Good works to others are visible signs that God's people acknowledge their status as free riders. "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give" (Matt. 10:8).
Cumulative Good Works The more candles burning, the less the darkness. Each person's individual candle removes some darkness. The farther away from the source of light, the dimmer the surroundings. For someone to get through the town without stumbling, every household must light a candle close to a window. The more burning candles, the safer the wanderer. There will be fewer lost people and fewer crimes committed by the haters of light.(5)
The spread of the gospel is to be accompanied by the spread of good works. These good works add up. They make life in the community of saints more pleasant. Even those who do not share the confession of faith are benefitted. They see the good works of the faithful, and they glorify God (v. 16). This is what God wants.
Darkness is driven out by light. Darkness is not the equal of light. It cannot withstand light. The power of light is positive; darkness is a negative factor. Darkness exists only where there is no light. God dispelled darkness on the first day of creation (Gen. 1:3). It took a positive act to accomplish this, but this positive act was triumphant.
There is a problem with light, however. As more candles are lit, each one provides a reduced percentage of the total light. The law of diminishing returns sets in. In the initial phase of the candle-lighting process, each candle reinforced the growth of light, driving away shadows that the first candles produced. But as more and more are lit, they may even bother the guest. All he can see is a sea of candles. There comes a point when it does not pay to light another candle, other things being equal. But down the road, things are still dark. There, the brightness has not penetrated. Men are to take their candles to dark areas where there is no light. The extent of the darkness is so great that any extra candles always have a role to play, though not in the local area. We are to export light by exporting our candles.
Jesus was calling for world evangelism. It was not merely that His listeners were to light their candles. They could carry their candles, nicely lit, to help others light their candles. Like a torch used to light other torches, so is the gospel. The light of candles can also light a candle-producing factory throughout the night. Two or three shifts of candle-makers can be employed in winter months, when the nights are long.
The law of diminishing returns is even a factor in the production of righteousness. It leads to a kind of apathy about doing more good works. As the environment in which we live gets less threatening, we become complacent. But there is so much darkness in this world, so much work to be done, that there is always a place for another candle. It just may not be in the house or city where candles are common.
As good works multiply, society is transformed. Just as candles placed in the windows of every home will throw light onto the streets, thereby reducing crime, so are good works. They have a spillover effect. As each person follows God's lead, those around him are benefitted. There is no way that Christianity can transform souls only. Souls-only evangelism is an impossibility. The cumulative effect of good works is to reform society.
A Model for Other Cities A well-lit city on a hill will attract visitors. This will decrease income for residents of dark cities in the valleys. Those who see the benefits of living in a city on a hill will move to one. Others will try to imitate it. The competition for righteousness grows because of the positive effects of righteousness. Good works have good consequences.
Actions that produce positive sanctions are worth imitating. This is why light is superior to darkness. The forces of darkness have an advantage only because men are born sinners. But this advantage is offset by the negative effects of sin. The consequences of sin are such that people seek to avoid them. More and more, they seek the fruits of righteousness without the ethical roots. Bank robbers like to drive on safe streets, even if they drive too fast after their bank robberies. Criminals like access to physicians when they get sick or shot. No one wants to live in darkness all of the time.
The city on a hill stands out. It becomes a working model for other cities. So does righteousness. That was Jesus' point. It was not that righteousness brings persecution every time. On the contrary, those who persecute the righteous will eventually fail. In a world of liars, truth-tellers have an advantage. In a world of slothful people, industrious people have an advantage. In a world of sloppy work, the careful producer has an advantage. That anyone should put a candle under a basket is foolish: the only way that any light will be generated is if the basket catches on fire. What good is a candle under a basket? Similarly, what good is salvation without good works? Salvation without good works is as foolish as a candle under a basket. It takes an act of stupidity to place a burning candle under a basket. It defeats the purpose of lighting the candle, and it also threatens the basket. Similarly, it takes an act of stupidity to hide one's salvation by refusing to do good works. It is not merely that personal salvation will always produce good works, i.e., positive sanctions; it is that it takes a self-conscious act of stupidity to restrict salvation-generated good works. Such an act is contrary to the essence of salvation. Jesus told His opponents: "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:11-13).
The city on a hill is supposed to reveal God's grace in action. Good works are attractive to fallen men. Good works are a form of evangelism, just as God's law is. God told Moses: "But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deut. 4:4-8). Rare is the man so judicially blind that he does not appreciate good deeds -- if not shown to him, then at least to his children.
Members of other nations, other religions, and other ways of life are to see the good works of Christians, and say: "This is a better way." Light is better than darkness.
Conclusion The imagery of light applies to the city as well as the candle. It is corporate as well as individual. Individual salvation is to produce social salvation (healing). The difference between Christianity and its rivals should be as clear as the difference between light and darkness. The city on a hill is worth imitating. The burning candle is worth removing from under the basket.
Christians are to let their lights shine, despite the free rider problem. Those around Christians are supposed to be the recipients of common grace: the crumbs that fall from the tables owned by Christians. If others are blessed because of the righteousness of covenant-keepers, God is pleased. What the economists call externalities -- unowned overflow -- should increase in the presence of covenant-keepers. These should be positive externalities. Negative externalities we call pollution. The civil government should act to reduce negative physical externalities -- at some price.(6)
This passage's top priority for Christians is to produce light, not to get others to pay for it. This light is both spiritual and visible. "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matt. 7:17). The goal is an increase in the production of good fruit. "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit" (John 15:2). Put another way, the goal of the passage is the increase of positive externalities. In a godly city, these become cumulative. The wealth of all is increased by the willingness of covenant-keepers to allow free riders to share the blessings of righteousness. The darkness surrounding covenant-breakers is reduced at no extra charge. It is more important for the covenant-keeper to increase light than to collect a fee from everyone who benefits from it.
Footnotes:
1. These are predestinated by God: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).
2. Murray N. Rothbard, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics" (1956), in Rothbard, The Logic of Action I: Method, Money and the Austrian School (Lyme, New Hampshire: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 235-40.
3. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 4.
4. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).
5. There may be more fires.
6. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), Appendix D.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com