GENOCIDE AND INHERITANCE When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire (Deut. 7:1-5).
The theocentric focus of this law is the final judgment, when God will cut off for all eternity all those who oppose Him. This focus was not clear to Israelites, for Israel had no concept of the final judgment, which is a New Testament doctrine. The final judgment is the ultimate example of inheritance and disinheritance. The bodily resurrection to eternal life and the bodily resurrection to eternal death (Rev. 20:14-15) are the models of earthly inheritance and disinheritance.
This law mandated genocide. Theologically, it reflected the final judgment: God's absolute, eternal disinheritance of covenant-breakers. What God told Israel do to the Canaanites is representative of what He will do in eternity to those who refuse to covenant with Him in history. There will be no post-resurrection covenants. Destruction will be total: worse than annihilation -- eternal damnation. Adam's broken covenant will remain broken for all eternity. This was the theological foundation of genocide under the Old Covenant.
Israel's inheritance of Canaan was to be complete. Therefore, so was the Canaanites' disinheritance. The existing inhabitants of the land were to be driven out of the land or annihilated, preferably the latter. The Israelites were warned by God not to make a covenant of any kind with them. This included the marriage covenant, but it also included ecclesiastical and civil covenants. The separation of God from the idols of Canaan was to be total. This separation was to be enforced by the sword.
God forbade them to show any mercy to the inhabitants. Genocide had to include infants and children. We know this because of God's requirements regarding Israel's subsequent dealings with the Amalekites. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (I Sam. 15:3). This was repayment for an event that had taken place four and a half centuries earlier: the refusal of Amalek to allow Israel to pass through their land at the time of the exodus. This established a condition of permanent warfare between Israel and Amalek. "For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Ex. 17:16). This was reaffirmed just before the conquest: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it" (Deut. 25:17-19). Samuel reminded Saul just before the final battle, over four centuries later: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt" (I Sam. 15:2). Saul lost his kingship for his refusal to destroy the animals and the king of the Amalekites (I Sam. 15:27-28). God has a long memory when it comes to imposing negative sanctions.
Total warfare against a city had already taken place outside Canaan: at Hormah, where the Israelites destroyed Arad's kingdom (Num. 21:3). It would happen one time inside the land: at Jericho. It was also to have taken place under Saul. In all three cases, there were to be no spoils of war; everything was to be destroyed. But with respect to capital rather than people, Canaan was not to be totally destroyed. Israel would lawfully claim the wealth of Canaan as an inheritance.
Idol Speculation Modern scholarship assumes that men's faith in God is based on deep-rooted psychological needs (which modern scholars have failed to overcome through the techniques of modern rationalism), tradition (which has been uprooted by modern society), and fear of the unknown (which has been superseded by fear of the known), rather than on the actual existence of a supernatural realm that affects cause and effect in history. The god of modern man is the noumenal god of Kant: dwelling impersonally beyond history in a realm of mystery that is related to history only through the autonomous ethical consciousness of individual men.(1) Scholars assume that primitive men, past and present, have been unable to recognize the random character of many seemingly coordinated yet improbable events in history. Primitives have attributed these improbable events to a supernatural being's active intervention in history.
The scholars have misunderstood both the events and the primitives. The ancients understood full well the distinction between a random, improbable series of events and supernatural intervention into nature. For example, after each of the cities of Philistia was struck by a plague whenever the Ark of the Covenant was brought inside its boundaries, the priests advised the rulers to perform an empirical test. "Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Beth-shemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us; it was a chance that happened to us" (I Sam. 6:7-9). It had not been chance, they soon learned: the oxen took the cart and the Ark back to Israel.
So, too, did Solomon understand the difference between a world governed by a combination of impersonal chance and impersonal fate vs. a world governed by a sovereign God. Solomon in his pain of recognition admitted what modern man prefers to suppress: belief in a world governed entirely by impersonal chance or impersonal fate or an impersonal mixture of the two leads to the madness of meaninglessness.
The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity (Eccl. 2:14-15).
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity (Eccl. 3:19).
All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead (Eccl. 9:2-3).
Solomon, speculating as a philosopher, looked at death and saw it as the great leveling agent. He argued that if temporal life is all there is, then nothing has meaning, for one life cannot be distinguished from another, one species from another. To divinize the temporal by denying the supernatural is to surrender all meaning to death: the death of meaning.
The ancients were far wiser than modern man, for they tried to structure their lives in terms of a ritually responsive supernatural realm rather than an inherently incomprehensible impersonal realm.(2) They believed that local gods governed their lives rather than distant butterflies.(3) They did not deny what their eyes occasionally showed them, namely, that the supernatural can directly influence the course of history. They understood that priestly magic was not always trickery.
This understanding was the basis of their worship of local deities. Idols served as links in history between demons and men. The Bible speaks of idols as blind and deaf, but it does not speak this way of demons. It makes the point that an idol is not a god. The idol merely represents sources of supernatural power that men invoke by covenant oath and correct ritual procedure. Israel was warned not to establish covenants with the Canaanites, for the Canaanites invoked demons through their idols. God told Israel to destroy the idols of Canaan, not because idols can see and hear but because they represent covenantal links between men and the occult realm of the demonic.
Because there are demons who act in history, they persuade men to believe that by invoking this or that deity, men can manipulate the cosmos. "As above, so below" is magic's statement of faith. The usual perception of the one who believes in magic is that procedurally precise rituals performed here below can invoke power from on high to affect things here below. This is correct only insofar as Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). In fact, magic invokes power from below.(4) Men can manipulate local things, such as a voodoo doll, in order to produce specific effects at a distance. This is neither mind over matter ("telekenesis") nor words over matter. It is the invocation of demonic beings that have been given limited powers in history, such as the effects produced by Satan in his testing of Job.
The ancients knew that these powers can be invoked and manipulated by men for the ends of men. Idols of the ancient city represented demons who participated in the covenantal life of the family, clan, and city. This is why Paul warned that to participate in cultic feasts is to participate in devil worship: "What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" (I Cor. 10:19-21). This clear warning regarding covenantal meals is in the chapter preceding his description of the church's covenantal meal.
Modern rationalists interpret the Bible so as to remove all traces of supernaturalism. They view the realm of the demonic as nonexistent, as impotent in history as carved idols or as impotent as God. They view the demonic as a self-serving invention of priestly magicians. Even a few Christians assume this: specifically, certain sleight-of-hand artists known today as magicians. They are not magicians; they are illusionists. Magic uses ritual to link supernatural forces to history: "as above, so below." But modern magicians view the supernatural as an illusion and their illusions as real.(5) I exchanged a long series of detailed letters with one such Christian illusionist who insisted that Satan and his demons have never had any supernatural power in history. This man denied that the magicians of Egypt possessed supernatural powers, denied that the sticks they threw down actually turned into snakes, despite the clear statement of the text of the Bible that this took place (Ex. 7:12). No, he insisted, they merely used trickery to make it look as though they had conjured up snakes. On this point, he insisted, the Bible cannot possibly mean what it specifically says. I pointed out to him that this is the humanist's hermeneutics: interpreting the Bible in terms of modern man's anti-supernatural presuppositions, dismissing the God of the Bible along with the priests of Egypt. He did not change his mind. He viewed the priests of Egypt simply as skilled tricksters, as he is. That is, he chooses to believe that he and his humanist peers are every bit as clever as they were.
Modern man wants it both ways: to be as clever as the ancients but far wiser. Modern man may be as clever; he is surely less wise. The priests of Egypt and Phoenicia could distinguish among chance, demons, and God. They could devise accurate tests to evaluate which was the dominant factor in particular situations: "Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said" (Ex. 8:19). Modern man is more like Pharaoh than his magicians. As Jaki says, that which parades as modern scientific cosmology does not include the fear of God, which is the beginning of all wisdom.(6)
Localism or Cosmos What holds the world together? The New Testament makes it clear: He who was born of God and woman does, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:14-17). The unity of the cosmos is secured by the sovereignty of God. Behind the seemingly infinite and therefore humanly immeasurable particulars of history and nature is cosmic personalism: a Creator-Sustainer God who has counted the hairs of every head (Matt. 10:30), or as modern man would put it, the subatomic particles of every galaxy. Butterflies and hurricanes are all part of God's decree.
Ancient religion did not emphasize the coherence of the cosmos, for the primary categories of ancient religion were pantheistic and animistic. The gods of Canaan were regarded by the inhabitants as local gods. They were cultic gods in the sense of familistic, clan-based, and civic. This was the common theological outlook of the ancient world, including Greece and Rome.(7) The boundaries of a city marked the limits of a local god's sovereignty. Beyond those boundaries he could extend his reign only through military triumphs by members of his cult. When Ben-hadad's advisors explained the defeat of Syria by Israel, they invoked the localism of Israel's God (I Ki. 20:28). This public theological assessment led to the destruction of Syria's army by Ahab's troops. Evil as Ahab was, God gave him the victory rather than to allow Ben-hadad imagine that the God of Israel was some local Near Eastern deity whose sovereignty was threatened by the military forces of Syria. God controlled events outside the geographical boundaries of Israel. The kings of the earth were required to acknowledge this. Adam had known and was required to acknowledge this verbally and ritually; so are the rest of us.
The idols of Canaan were representational. They mediated oath-bound covenants. This was why Israel was required to destroy the idols, groves, and other representations of demonic authority. The nations of Canaan were in covenantal subjection to covenant-breaking supernatural beings represented by idols. These beings promised power to men and delivered on the promise enough of the time to keep the power-seekers in covenantal bondage. God did not require the death of every man, woman, and child in Canaan merely because a handful of professional illusionists had used their skills to establish local priesthoods. Had the cults of Canaan been, cosmically speaking, nothing more than income-producing enterprises of prestidigitators who today would be entertaining crowds in Las Vegas gambling casinos, God would not have mandated genocide.
God promised to give Israel victory over the inhabitants of the land. This meant that every human covenantal agent of demonic forces had to die, so that there would be no further invocation of local demons. The demons of the ancient city operated inside geographical boundaries imposed by God. No demon could exercise its powers at will across the face of the earth. Thus, when a city fell to an invader, the participants on both sides recognized that the gods of the victorious city had participated in the defeat of the gods of the defeated city. Jesus made it clear that civil war is characteristic of Satan's kingdom.
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you (Matt. 12:22-28).
Annihilation: Sanctions Applied Israel's defeat of the cities of Canaan was to reflect God's defeat of the demons that were worshipped in those cities. To this extent, the magical formula, "as above, so below," was correct.(8) What men would see on earth would reflect the warfare in heavenly places. This is why God required total annihilation. There would henceforth be no reasonable doubt: the God of Israel is sovereign. But Israel always doubted. This is why Israel failed to drive out or destroy all of the inhabitants. Israel's doubt regarding the trustworthiness of God's promise of total victory, as manifested by Israel's comprehensive negative military sanctions in Canaan, laid the foundation of Israel's subsequent bouts with idolatry.
The military sanctions were comprehensive, but they were not total. The army of Israel drove out most of the land's inhabitants, but it did not drive out all of them (Josh. 15:63; cf. 17:12-13). This failure gave a foothold to the few remaining Canaanites to lure the Israelites into idol worship. The idols of Canaan represented demons whose power had not been totally extinguished by God because Israel had failed to destroy every trace of their places of covenant renewal and the people who were under these pre-invasion covenants. Just before his death, Joshua announced: "Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you" (Josh. 23:13). Thorns in your eyes: here was a powerful image to warn men of the effects of idolatry.
The Israelites had to move from word to deed. God's word specified total annihilation. This was the mandatory deed. By removing the idols and the inhabitants, Israel would inherit everything worth inheriting.
Human Capital and Technology The division of labor is basic to wealth. To increase the division of labor, men save -- restrict their present consumption -- in order to produce capital goods that they expect to produce consumer goods and services in the future. Thrift finances the increase of goods and services.
In recent decades, it has become more clear to economists that human capital is a very valuable resource.(9) Genocide is the antithesis of the division of labor: the systematic destruction of highly developed human capital. While Israel was promised the vineyards and houses of their enemies, there was no doubt that the skills used to produce such wealth would perish with the destruction of the inhabitants. Nevertheless, God required annihilation. This would reduce the division of labor compared to what it could have been through local trade.
Why did God require this? What cost-benefit analysis informed God that it was better for Israel to reduce the division of labor by destroying the inhabitants of the land? We can only guess, but our guesses can be informed guesses.
The essence of magic is the principle of something for nothing, or at least something costly for something seemingly inexpensive. Light a few candles, recite some incantations, paint a design on some convenient surface, and presto: you get what you want. There is no requirement that the participants plan and save for the future, or select the proper mix of land, labor, and capital. There is no doubt that the Canaanites had understood conventional economic planning, which is why they left a legacy to Israel. But undergirding their concept of scientific cause and effect was their reliance on supernatural forces that promised something for practically nothing. The demons required covenantal subordination. Their covenants elevated magical formulas and rituals above rational planning and prayer. The productivity of economic planning was assumed by Canaanites to require rituals such as human sacrifice and temple prostitution. Power from below was understood as necessary for power in history. It was this invocation of magical power through debauchery and murder that God would not tolerate.
Rational planning there was in Canaan. The physical capital left by the inhabitants proved this. But technology is not neutral. Technology is applied cosmology. It is governed by assumptions regarding cosmology: cause and effect. These assumptions govern the development and application of technology. The assumptions governing Canaanite technology were so demonic that God wanted Israel to destroy all traces of that cosmology by destroying all those who professed it. The ultimate resource is not the human mind, contrary to modern economists. The ultimate resource is a confession of faith which acknowledges the God of the Bible as the master of the universe and the source of man's abundance (Deut. 8:18). The theological content of the Christian confession of faith and the scientific worldview that it produces are the source of long-term economic growth.
Modern technology is the outworking of what the world called technology before the seventeenth century: grammar.(10) Modern technology rests on the grammar of science. So did late medieval technology, which was highly sophisticated both in theory and application.(11) Modern man invokes the repeatable wonders of science through written formulas governed by a series of assumptions regarding cause and effect. The grammar of mathematics underlies modern technology, but this grammar is not autonomous; it rests in turn on a host of presuppositions regarding the coherence of man's reasoning processes and the relation of this coherence to the external world.(12)
To what extent is the grammar of science and number dependent on the grammar of faith? Canaan's buildings did not fall down. Canaanites planted fields continued to produce food despite their denial of God's sovereignty. Their accumulated capital was transferrable. How was this possible? Because man is made in the image of God. This common humanity brings with it common knowledge by means of common grace.(13) Such knowledge, like the knowledge of cooking, is affected by time and place; it produces recognizable variations, but like recipes, it is repeatable and therefore transferrable. Accurate scientific formulas are valid whenever invoked, or so the theory of modern science announces. Their accuracy is not immediately dependent on a personal confession of correct theology. This is what distinguishes chemistry from alchemy. But scientific formulas are not invoked outside of the processes of history. These processes are always covenantal. Scientific formulas and their applications are influenced by covenantal cause and effect in history. Some societies inherit; others are disinherited. The point is, because scientific formulas and the knowledge that underlies them are transferrable -- universal, in other words -- they and their products can be inherited. This is why the wealth of the sinner can be laid up for the just (Prov. 13:22).
Economic Growth Through Imported Knowledge Economic growth is a process of compounding.(14) The division of labor is extended over time, not just across borders. The extension of per capita wealth through the extension of the division of labor is dependent on the maintenance of social order. It is not just free trade across borders that makes men rich. There must be saving, wise investing, and scientific discovery.(15) There must be social development, which includes a progressive commitment to the moral boundaries imposed by biblical law. What the conquest of Canaan teaches us is that God calls to a temporal halt the path of economic development of certain social orders. This is not a random cessation of development. Inheritance and disinheritance are linked covenantally. Jeremiah announced: "Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them. And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land. And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people. But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD" (Jer. 12:14-17).
Canaan's division of labor was soon to be cut off. It was about to be replaced by Israel's division of labor. Canaan's approach to science and technology had to end. A new social order would use Canaan's physical capital to extend God's dominion. The genocidal disinheritance of Canaan would provide the physical inheritance of Israel. This inheritance was not to include knowledge that was in any way dependent on the invocation of Canaan's gods. "And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place" (Deut. 12:3). Israel failed in this exercise of religious intolerance, which is why Joshua warned against invoking the names of regional gods. "That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the names of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them" (Josh. 23:7).
God is the Creator, the source of all accurate knowledge. His universalism gives His people an enormous advantage. They are in a position to make productive use of the discoveries of other nations and other religions. But the use of such information is limited by biblical law. To the extent that such information is dependent on the invocation of the name of any other god, it may not be used by His people.
This means that occult knowledge is forbidden. Knowledge that is available only to the initiate into a cult or secret society is not valid, although this knowledge may be true within limits. But if such knowledge can be separated from the name of the god invoked by the cult, it is eligible to become part of the covenant-keeper's inheritance. An example would be the mathematical knowledge developed within the confines of the Pythagorean cult. Initiation into that oath-bound cult would have been forbidden to covenant-keeping Israelites, but both studying and applying the Pythagorean theorem regarding right triangles would have been legitimate activities. The truth of the theorem is not dependent on the ritual practices of the cult. The theorem became part of the inheritance of the West, which for a millennium meant Christendom.
The key issue is the oath: to swear by. The oath places man covenantally under the god invoked by the oath. Wealth, including knowledge, that is obtainable only through such oath-taking is not part of a legitimate inheritance. If the secrets of the cult pass into the public domain, as Pythagorean mathematics did, then covenant-keepers may lawfully put them to good use. Using Euclidian geometry is valid because there is no oath involved. But to seek membership in the cult in order to gain inside knowledge of its economically advantageous secrets, even to make them public, would be valid only as part of a government-directed spying operation in a war effort, such as was used in the conquest of Canaan: the spies (Josh. 2). It would then be a matter of military conquest, not economic gain. It would be a matter of the sword, not the purse. Industrial spying is therefore invalid, even if done by governments, as it surely is in the modern world. So is joining a secret order that promises business or political success. C. S. Lewis called this the desire for membership in the inner ring, and he warned against it.(16)
Universal God, Regional Capital God is not threatened by other gods. Over time, His people become less threatened by other religions. The Israelites were forbidden to speak the names of other gods. "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth" (Ex. 23:13). Is this law still in force? If it is in force, is it to be taken literally? Or is it an injunction against invocation? The prophets mentioned the names of other gods. So did Stephen at his stoning (Acts 7:43). This was an aspect of the study of comparative religions: announcing the superiority of God to His rivals. The prohibition against speaking the names of other gods must have been an injunction against another kind of speaking, namely, covenantal or magical invocation.
After their return from the Babylonian captivity, the Jews did not again go after other gods. Their susceptibility to idolatry had ended. Hellenism and legalism became national problems, but idolatry did not. The threat today is the threat of syncretism, also known as pluralism: the acceptance of anti-theistic presuppositions by the covenant-keeping community.(17)
The universality of God and His covenants makes it possible for covenant-keepers to accept the non-oath-bound findings of rival religious worldviews. God's church is not regional, nor was it ever intended to be. It crosses the boundaries of geography and time. The church in the broadest sense is the means of absorbing new information and making such information even more productive. It is to disseminate information and vision. Christendom's productivity is supposed to undermine all covenant-breaking social orders, bringing them face to face with the sanctions of God in history: positive and negative. This offensive conquest is not by the sword but by faith and productivity.
Discoveries always cross borders. Useful knowledge cannot be monopolized for long. The question is: Will covenant-keepers gain and retain the dominant influence in the interpretation and applications of these discoveries, or will their covenantal enemies gain control over Christians by means of these discoveries? In other words, whose inheritance is it? There can be no neutrality. One side or the other will inherit. The idea that these discoveries are covenantally neutral is incorrect. Truth comes only from God, and this includes the interpretation of theories and facts. Meanwhile, truths that are accepted by covenant-breakers are always misinterpreted because they deny God as the origin of all truth. As time goes on, this misinterpretation becomes more consistent, i.e., more consistently wrong. Truths are not regarded by covenant-breakers as testimonies to the God of the Bible (Rom. 1:20-25). Such truths are always held down through unrighteousness, which brings God's judgment in history: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). The visible sign of such judgment is open homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-27). Legalized homosexuality in any society is a curse of God for corporate unbelief. It is a prelude to corporate destruction.
So, the benefits of science and technology are always dependent on the proper use of knowledge. If covenant-keepers are unable or unwilling to set the terms of discourse for new discoveries and the application of old ones, then the wealth generated by these discoveries will eventually undermine faith: "And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth" (Deut. 8:17). This will eventually result in negative sanctions: "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God" (Deut. 8:19-20).
Open Borders The Israelites were not going to be welcomed by the Canaanites. Even if they had come peacefully, they would not have been welcomed. They represented a threat to the Canaanite social order. They were people who were covenanted to another God. Religious pluralism was impossible. One side or the other would win.
Israel later welcomed strangers from other lands. Why weren't those immigrants a threat to Israel, just as Israel had been to Canaan? First, because immigrants entered Israel on Israel's terms: open obedience to God's civil law was required. Proselyting for a rival god was a capital crime (Deut. 13:6-10). Second, because the gods of such immigrants would not be local gods. These immigrants had left the domain of their regional gods. Idols of non-universal gods were not a major threat to Israel. As for gods making universal claims, there were none in the pre-captivity, pre-empire Old Covenant era. All rival gods were local. After the Babylonian captivity, the gods of a series of empires shared their pantheon with conquered deities of conquered nations. These were not universal gods in the sense that Israel's God was: a God who shared no pantheon space with rivals. The gods of Greece were local and animistic or else politically contrived Olympian gods. In contrast, Greek philosophy made universal claims, and Hellenism did become a major problem for Jews and Christians. But Hellenism was not tied to idols.
Israel allowed open borders because God did not allow public proselyting or public observance of rival religions. The civil order was established by a covenantal oath to God. He, and He alone, was the acknowledged sovereign of Israel. In Elijah's day, this law was being violated by priests of Baal. His confrontation on Mt. Carmel was designed to end this practice. "Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there" (I Ki. 18:38-40).
The main threat of immigration is covenantal, not economic. The increase in the national division of labor that takes place when immigrants arrive is a net benefit. The judicial problem arises because of the rival gods and rival philosophies that immigrants bring with them. The religious pluralism of modern Western politics relegates non-political covenants to adiaphora: things indifferent to political religion, so long as they do not infringe upon the realm of political religion. But we have found that political pluralism is as theocratic as any other religion. It will not tolerate challenges to its final authority from any realm outside of politics. Decade by decade, political religion extends its claims over all the other areas of life.
The modern immigrant brings with him gods that are as universal in their claims as the God of the Bible is. The local gods of ancient paganism are barely remembered, let alone understood. How can a society survive the claims to authority of the representatives of rival universal gods? How can these universal claims be harmonized with the universal claims of modern political religion? Harmonizing these claims has been the long-term national experiment of the Enlightenment era, beginning around 1700.
A businessman likes to have a growing supply of laborers who compete against each other to sell him their labor time. Immigration is a blessing for the employer. It increases the supply of labor, thereby lowering costs. But what if, after five years, these immigrants could vote themselves a share of his business? Then he would be more careful about who gains access to the nation. Naturalization makes the immigrant a participant in the modern welfare State: a citizen. He can lawfully exercise the civil sanction of voting. He can therefore gain legal entitlements to other people's wealth. So, modern political pluralism, when combined with the welfare State, creates a state of affairs in which those who already have the vote and capital resist the arrival of immigrants who bring rival philosophies regarding what constitutes the good society and the legitimate means of obtaining it. In 1650, Northern Europe had been battling invading Turks for two centuries. Today, there are so many Turks living in Germany that the Germans could not expel them even if they wanted to: the Turks would take too much money out of German banks. Turks do not become secular humanists just because they live in Northern Europe. The differential in birth rates make it clear where pluralistic Europe is heading: toward Islam. Islam is not pluralistic. When they at long last have the votes to do so, Muslims will change the rules. They always do. It is part of their religion.
The economist reduces everything to economics: cost-benefit analyses. Economics is as relentless in its extension of its reductionism as any other academic worldview. What is significant politically for an economist is whatever he can reduce to fit economic concepts.(18) The economist is unwilling to acknowledge that politics is covenantal even though it is based on a binding oath of allegiance under a monopolistic legal order, which in turn has its origin in God's common grace civil covenant. Marriage and the church are also covenantal and so do not readily lend themselves to economic reductionism.(19) This is why the economist sounds unbelievable when he discusses immigration as if it were little more than international job-seeking. The immigrant no longer brings idols with him. Instead, he brings a worldview tied to another religious order. This worldview has legitimacy equal with all others in a pluralistic political order. Idols in Mosaic Israel did not. When he becomes a naturalized citizen, the modern ex-immigrant can work to impose this worldview by voting.
American Constitutional political theory relies on some version of Madison's theory of factions in Federalist 51 to save republican democracy from Balkanization. Madison argued that political factions would cancel each other out, leaving commitment to the common civil order as the binding national confession. This implicitly assumed that there is a widely agreed-upon common source of justice, although Madison, like the U.S. Constitution, did not mention natural law. His argument was very close to Rousseau's argument for the absolute sovereignty of the General Will, expressed only through politics, over all other voluntary contracts and institutions. Madison's theory privatizes non-political relations, removing them from issues of State; Rousseau's absorbs all other relations into politics. I call Madison's view political Unitarianism.(20) The end result is the same: the common bond of politics.
Because covenantal consensus breaks down when the census reveals diversity, modern pluralistic society faces a crisis: cacophony. As Cornell University professor W. Pearce Williams put it in a 1983 letter to the New York Times, "we live in a consensual society in which we often have to do things we don't want to do, or even think are wrong, because we have agreed to abide by majority rule. Destroy that argument, and the result is not freedom but anarchy -- a condition which the United States seems rapidly approaching."(21)
Immigration is from two sources: foreign countries and mothers' wombs. The abortion movement is an anti-immigration movement of unique commitment. The abortionists resent the welfare implications of motherhood, but they also resent it with respect to the State. They see babies as welfare cases. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, still the best organized pro-abortion organization in the United States. In her book, The Pivot of Civilization (1922), she criticized the inherent cruelty of all welfare states. She insisted that organized efforts to help the poor are the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents."(22) Such charity must be stopped, she insisted. The fertility of the working class must be regulated in order to reduce the production of "benign imbeciles, who encourage the defective and diseased elements of humanity in their reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning."(23) Swarming (like insects), spawning (like fish): here was marvelous zoological rhetoric from the lionized founder of Planned Parenthood. "If we must have welfare, give it to the rich, not the poor," she concluded.(24) "More children from the fit, less from the unfit: that is the chief issue of birth control."(25) For abortionists, the womb is an open border. They seek to kill all those who would cross it without authorization.
What is the biblical solution? Respect for covenantal oaths. The marriage oath creates a claim on open entry for the biological fruit of marriage. This legal claim must be defended by the civil government if mothers seek to revoke it. Second, the civil oath grants authority to impose God's sanctions. Those who are not under the terms of the civil oath should not be allowed to impose its terms on others. Thus, immigration is economically legitimate. What is not legitimate as a Christian ideal is a civil oath that does not bind men to allegiance to the God of the Bible. God brings negative sanctions against all rival civil oaths, and open immigration leads to two such sanctions: the breakdown of society (anarchy) or the substitution of a theocratic oath to a rival god. Roger Williams' experiment in tiny Rhode Island -- a civil order without an oath to God -- became the first operational model of the Enlightenment's much larger experiment in religious pluralism. We can safely predict concerning how this professedly neutral civil covenant will end: broken.
Conclusion God told Israel to conquer Canaan by force. The Israelites were prohibited from making any sort of covenant with them. The best way to prevent this was to destroy every last one of them, so that the nation would not be in a position to make additional covenants.
This reduction in the available division of labor obviously was a threat to the transfer of local knowledge: either saving knowledge to the Canaanites or destructive knowledge from the Canaanites. The benefits of whatever technical knowledge possessed by the Canaanites would not offset the liabilities of the covenantal worldview which accompanied their technical knowledge. Israel was more vulnerable to the knowledge possessed by Canaan than Canaan was to the knowledge possessed by Israel. This would not always be true, but it took the captivity and the occupation of the land by outsiders -- later called Samaritans -- to reduce this vulnerability. Any surviving post-conquest local gods of Canaan had by then been visibly defeated by the gods of Assyria, Babylon, and Medo-Persia. In terms of the theology of the ancient Near East, this defeat had removed them permanently as historical forces to contend with or contend for. No society invoked the gods of Canaan after the rise of the empires.
Footnotes:
1. Richard Kroner, Kant's Weltanschauung (University of Chicago Press, [1914] 1956).
2. Kant's noumenal realm is incomprehensible to the mind of man, yet it is held in dialectical tension with the partially knowable phenomenal realm. Man's mind supposedly holds the two realms together.
3. The "butterfly effect" is modern science's latest phrase to describe the effects of unknown. A butterfly's fluttering wings can supposedly set up wind patterns that produce a hurricane a continent away. Men probably do not believe this about literal butterflies and literal hurricanes, but they do believe that unnoticed, seemingly random, and incalculably undetectable causes produce measurable results. The first kind of event is too small for man to control; the second may be much too large to control. Man is trapped in a cosmic maelstrom not of his own or anyone else's making. The phrase "butterfly effect" was popularized in James Gleik's best-selling book, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Viking, 1987). For a cogent rebuttal, see Stanley L. Jaki, The Only Chaos and Other Essays (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990). Jaki is a Roman Catholic priest, physicist, and historian of science. Gleik is a New York Times reporter. Gleik is far better known than Jaki. (And, because of his development and sale of the New York City local Internet service, the Pipeline, far richer.)
4. R. J. Rushdoony, "Power from Below," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, I (Winter, 1974).
5. The most prominent illusionist denier of the supernatural is known professionally as the Amazing Randi.
6. Jaki, The Only Chaos, p. 7.
7. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, [1864] 1955).
8. The request in the Lord's Prayer, "in earth, as it is in heaven," is a call for ethical correspondence, not metaphysical. It is preceded by "thy will be done" (Matt. 6:10).
9. Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981).
10. Jaki, The Only Chaos, p. 124.
11. Ibid., ch. 3.
12. Vern S. Poythress, "A Biblical View of Mathematics," in Gary North (ed.), Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective (Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 1976), ch. 9; cf. Eugene Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, XIII (1960), pp. 1-14.
13. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).
14. See Chapter 14.
15. John Jewkes, David Sawyers, and Richard Stillerman, The Sources of Invention (2nd ed.; New York: Norton, 1969).
16. C. S. Lewis, "The Inner Ring" (1944), in Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1980), pp. 93-105.
17. See Chapter 15, above: section on "New Gods for Old."
18. See, for example, James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962). Over two decades later, Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in economics, presumably for this work more than his subsequent studies. (Tullock, a lawyer with no formal economic training, was not mentioned publicly by the Nobel Committee.)
19. One of the unresolved problems in economics is the economic analysis of prostitution. While the economist argues that "everything has a price," no unmarried economist acknowledges publicly that he much prefers sex from a prostitute to sex in marriage because of prostitution's tremendous cost savings. "Don't buy: rent!" Few men say that renting sexual favors from strangers is a better deal for them than bearing the burden of supporting a wife. Sex available for hire makes it inherently less valuable in most would-be buyers' eyes than marital sex.
20. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), pp. 450-52.
21. Cited in Jaki, The Only Chaos, p. 43.
22. Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano's, 1922), p. 108; cited in George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 2nd ed. (Franklin, Tennessee: Adroit, 1992), p. 27.
23. Sanger, ibid., p. 115; cited in Grant, ibid.
24. Ibid., p. 96; cited in Grant, ibid., p. 28.
25. Sanger, "Birth Control," Birth Control Review (May 1919); cited in Grant, ibid., p. 27.
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