36 CONSUMING CAPITAL IN GOOD FAITH All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep. Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy household. And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart (Deut. 15:19-22).
The theocentric principle here is simple: God got paid first. He was entitled to the unblemished firstborn males. A secondary theological principle, which governed the blemished firstborn, was this: the covenant's positive sanctions were predictable for covenant-keepers. Covenant-keeping Israelites had to consume their capital publicly as a way to testify to their confidence in the truth of this covenantal principle.
This law was a land law. It was part of the Passover's requirements:
And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee, That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem (Ex. 13:11-15).
The negative sanction of the slain animal was to testify against covenant-breakers. Pharaoh was the archetype of every covenant-breaker. Those under his covenantal authority saw their firstborn sons die: the ultimate negative sanction in Old Covenant history, and in most other cultures as well. The slaying of the firstborn animal represented God's negative sanction against sinners: death. It represented Adam: the firstborn son who rebelled against God and who brought forth God's negative sanctions.
These laws of sacrifice were ecclesiastical. Biblical civil law does not threaten negative sanctions for men's refusal to extend positive sanctions to others. Biblical civil law threatens negative sanctions against those who impose negative sanctions on others.
This does not mean that these laws had no civil implications. They did. The violator could be excommunicated, and an excommunicated man lost his citizenship. He moved from the legal status of Israelite to the legal status of stranger. He therefore could not serve as a judge. No longer being under the negative sanctions of the church, he could no longer remain eligible to impose negative civil sanctions on others. Israel was a theocracy. Dual confessions, ecclesiastical and civil, were required from those who possessed lawful civil authority.
Sacrifices Mandated an Immediate Loss God owned the firstborn. When the firstborn males of clean animals arrived, they had to be consumed before the Lord in Jerusalem. The firstborn were the sign of God's blessing. This law required men to consume the tokens of their economic future. These animals could not be trained to do any work. They were purely consumption items. They were not to become capital assets. The people of Israel were required to squander a portion of their assets to the glory of God.
Clean, unblemished firstborn animals were set apart as holy sacrifices. Clean, blemished firstborn animals were set apart for a meal of celebration locally. As with the tithes of celebration,(1) this was an aspect of holy wastefulness. Israelites were to rejoice in complete confidence: "There's lots more where that came from!"
The donkey was set apart for execution, although it could be redeemed with a lamb (Ex. 13:13; 34:20). Presumably, this could be a blemished lamb that was not itself a firstborn male, since it was not replacing an animal that could lawfully be sacrificed. The donkey was not a sacrificial animal, nor could it be lawfully eaten, since it was unclean. It was a work animal, a beast of burden. It could be ridden or hooked up to a cart. It was symbolic of the covenant-breaker, most notably the Gibeonites (Josh. 9). Thus, its substitute could be a less valuable animal: a lamb that was fit neither for sacrifice nor breeding.
What of unclean animals other than donkeys? They had to be redeemed by a money payment, just as a firstborn son was. "Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD" (Num. 18:15-17). The point was, there had to be either death or redemption.
Regarding an unblemished clean animal: "Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy household." This applied to the unblemished firstborn. These belonged to God. They were an economic liability: they had to be transported to the central city of sacrifice. It was likely that this would be done during one of the three annual festivals. In the meantime, these firstborn animals had to be cared for. They would absorb capital.
An unclean beast could not be lawfully consumed or offered. For these, the Israelite had to pay the market price plus 20 percent to the priest. "And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the LORD, then he shall present the beast before the priest: And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be. But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation" (Lev. 27:11-13).
The clean beast without a blemish was eaten by its owner, but only after it had been taken to the central city. The clean beast that had a blemish was eaten by its owner in the gates of the nearby city. A donkey either had to be redeemed by a money payment or a lamb had to be sacrificed in its place. These were consumption goods, not visible testimonies of the future. They could not become capital goods except in the case of the donkey, for which the owner sacrificed a lamb.
Such acts of consumption acknowledged publicly that God is in control of history. He deserves a sacrifice. He will also bring additional wealth into the households of faithful Israelites. The economic loss involved in the sacrifice testified to a man's faith in this system of covenantal cause and effect, a system of covenantal causation that operates predictably in history.
With respect to blemished animals, the law was less burdensome: "Thou shalt eat it within thy gates." This saved transportation costs. These animals were not sacrifices in the sense of burnt offerings. They were communal meals: "the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike" (v. 22). The word "unclean" applied to those who ate the meal. It could not have applied to the food eaten. Israelites could not lawfully eat unclean foods. But they could lawfully eat with strangers in certain ritually required meals. More than this: they were required to eat with strangers. They even had to pay for the meal. The foreigner was more likely to dwell in a walled city, where he could buy, sell, and inherit real estate. He was to be invited to share in the festivities. He was to be made welcome. He was to be made aware of the fact that Israelites regarded themselves as under the protective covenant of God. The positive sanctions associated with the productivity of the firstborn could be safely squandered in a festival meal. Here was a nation that had such confidence in the reliability of God's covenant sanctions that people were willing to consume their firstborn animals at a party in which covenant-breakers were invited. This was clearly a form of evangelism.
A Statement of Faith When God required the Israelites to eat the firstborn male animals, He was requiring them to make a statement of faith: they had confidence in the future. God would enable the female animal to bring additional offspring into the world. Even miscarriages could be overcome through national covenantal faithfulness. "There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil" (Ex. 23:26).
God was with Israel. Israelites were required to acknowledge this ritually and economically. A way to acknowledge their confidence of the future was to consume capital in partying.
A shared meal was extremely important in several ways. First, it pointed to the gentile as a co-laborer under the dominion covenant. He, too, had a legitimate role in the subduing of the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). His work is acceptable to God.(2) Although the uncircumcised stranger was not a recipient of special grace, he was a recipient of common grace.(3) The shared meal of the blemished animal was a means of common grace. The animal could not be used on God's altar, but it had to be used to benefit the uncircumcised resident. His judicial status as a covenant-breaker was his lawful claim to access to the meal. As to which covenant-breakers would be invited, this was up to the Israelite, but someone from among the class of unclean men had to be invited.
Second, it pointed to the need of the Israelite to maintain contacts with uncircumcised residents within the gates of the city. If a man eats a meal with another man, there is a degree of fellowship present. Those who eat together normally talk together. The obvious question from the covenant-breaker would have been: "Why did you invite me? I'm not an Israelite." This would have served as a means of testimony regarding God's deliverance of Israel in history, just as the young son's question did at the family's Passover meal.
Clearly, the blessings of God were to pass down to covenant-breakers who lived in Israel. The blessings in this case were paid for by the sacrifice of a capital asset. This was another example of Israel's uniqueness in the ancient world. The stranger was to participate ritually in the life of the nation. This did not entitle him to citizenship; only circumcision and inter-generational covenantal faithfulness could do that (Deut. 23:2-8). He could not participate in the Passover meal apart from circumcision. But people of his judicial status were entitled to participate in ritually required meals. I am aware of no other nation in the ancient world whose code of law offered the foreigner equal access to the civil courts (Ex. 12:49), real estate ownership (Lev. 25:29-30), ecclesiastical membership (Ex. 12:48), and fellowship. The law of God served as a means of evangelism (Deut. 4:5-8).(4)
The Future-Orientation of Biblical Covenantalism The sacrifice of the firstborn was an act governed by a worldview that was future-oriented. The Israelite was told to suffer a present loss for the sake of the covenant. The covenant imposed economic costs in the present, but it promised positive sanctions in the future. Participation in ritual sacrifices and meals was an external requirement that was to encourage covenant-keepers to think in terms of costs and benefits over time. This particular sacrifice -- the firstborn male -- was uniquely geared to imparting this message. The primary Old Covenant sign of God's blessing in history -- the firstborn son(5) -- had to be redeemed, and the firstborn animal had to be sacrificed, paid for, or, in the case of the donkey, redeemed by the slaying of a lamb.
The sacrificial system, like the tithe, was a means of manifesting God's future-orientation. He is sovereign over history. He brings His decree to pass. Israel was supposed to look to the future for the culmination of the inheritance. "For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Ps. 37:9-11). The here and now is important, for it is the locus of decision-making and responsibility, but the future is important as the locus of fulfillment. The righteous man will sacrifice the wealth of the present for the sake of fulfillment in the future. The sacrificial system was designed to compel the public honoring of this principle by individual covenant-keepers. Participation in public rituals was supposed to reinforce men's faith in this principle. External observance was supposed to reinforce internal acceptance; internal acceptance was supposed to reinforce external observance.
This system of circular reinforcement between external and internal law-keeping is a fundamental principle of all law-making. Laws do not make men good. Man is not saved by law in a special grace sense, but good laws reinforce good ideals. Laws that most people accept as moral and legitimate create habitual patterns of behavior. Habits make certain behavioral patterns less costly to individuals, more automatic, and therefore more predictable by others. By increasing men's predictability, good habits extend the division of labor. Other men trust their fellows to perform in predictable ways. This lowers risk. It lowers costs. Economics teaches that when the price of something valuable is lowered, more of it will be demanded. Social cooperation increases when men's good habits become ingrained. This increases the division of labor and therefore increases total output per unit of resource inputs. Wealth increases.
Economic Class and Future-Orientation
A future-oriented person is an upper-class person.(6) He makes decisions in terms of a lower rate of interest than a present-oriented person. He discounts the present value of future goods by a lower rate.(7) A future-oriented person is willing to forfeit present consumption (i.e., save) for the sake of future income at a rate of interest that does not lead a present-oriented person to save. A society filled with future-oriented people will have a faster rate of growth, other things being equal, than a society of present-oriented people.
Israel was supposed to be future-oriented. Their assignment was to extend the kingdom of God on earth. This is every person's assignment (Gen. 1:27-28; 9:1-17), but Israel was to honor it. Nevertheless, future-orientation was not sufficient to enable them to achieve this goal. They had to put God first. They had to acknowledge ritually that God was the source of their blessings. It was not their future-orientation alone that provided their blessings; it was God.
Conclusion The sacrifice of the firstborn animal imposed an economic loss on every Israelite family. This loss had to be borne without complaint for the sake of the future. The sacrifice of the animal was to serve as a testimony regarding God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt. It therefore was a testimony to God's sovereignty over history. God would continue to deliver Israel if Israel remained faithful. The covenant's negative sanctions had to be imposed on the firstborn so that the covenant's positive sanctions would continue to be showered on Israel. For the sake of present testimony to sons and strangers, as well as for the sake of future blessings, the present loss of the firstborn or its redemption price had to be borne, preferably enthusiastically. "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (II Cor. 9:7).
Footnotes:
1. Chapter 34.
2. This means that his work is acceptable to covenant-keepers. The wealth supplied by his productivity can lawfully be purchased by covenant-keepers, thereby increasing their wealth.
3. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).
4. See Chapter 8.
5. "Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power" (Gen. 49:3). "He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength" (Ps. 105:36).
6. Edward C. Banfield, The Unheavenly City: The Nature and Future of Our Urban Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), pp. 48-50.
7. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962), pp. 323-33. Reprinted by the Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, in 1993.
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