48
DOUBLE PORTION, DOUBLE BURDEN If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his (Deut. 21:15-17).
The theocentric focus of this law is the principle of lawful service to God. The degree of service owed by someone to another person or group is always proportional to the amount of capital provided for him by the person or group to whom the service is owed. Jesus warned: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:47-48). The fact that much was given to the firstborn son meant that much would be required from him. Capital was promised to him by his father; thus, we conclude that he would owe his father and mother services proportional to the promised inheritance. No biblical text says this specifically, but it can be inferred from the principle of mutual obligation.
How did this inheritance system work? Rushdoony describes it: "The general rule of inheritance was limited primogeniture, i.e., the oldest son, who had the duty of providing for the entire family in case of need, or of governing the clan, receiving a double portion. If there were two sons, the estate was divided into three portions, the younger son receiving one-third."(1)
The context of this law was the law governing war brides, although the principle of inheritance stated here applied beyond the war bride. It applied to Israel as a society that allowed polygamy. It was a land law.
An Israelite warrior was allowed to bring home a woman from a defeated foreign city. In fact, these women had to be brought home. They would not be able to defend themselves if they stayed behind. The question was: Would they become permanent slaves or wives? That is, would they be adopted through marriage? If the captive woman consented to marry an Israelite by paring her fingernails, shaving her head, and mourning for her parents for a month (Deut. 21:12-13), it was legal for him to marry her. Immediately following these laws is the law of the double portion.
Legitimate Disinheritance: Full or Partial The eldest son had to receive the double portion under Mosaic law. This implied that he was to bear a double portion of responsibility in caring for his aged parents. But a father could lawfully disinherit a rebellious son, if he had the backing of a covenantal authority. This disinheritance could be accomplished through the civil imposition of physical death, as the very next section of Deuteronomy indicates (21:18-23). It could also be accomplished through the ecclesiastical imposition of covenantal death. Excommunication under the Mosaic law removed a man's eligibility to serve in God's holy army. This, in turn, removed his citizenship and his inheritance in the land. Strangers were not to inherit rural land, and an excommunicated man was a stranger, i.e., cut off from God's people.
The eldest son was to inherit a double portion. Nevertheless, the history of the patriarchs reveals something very different in practice: either full disinheritance or a single-portion inheritance of the firstborn son. This began with Adam, who rebelled against God, his father. Adam covenanted with Satan through the serpent by sharing a forbidden covenantal meal with his wife. He violated the boundary of death that God had placed around the forbidden tree. This covenantal act cost him his life. Through grace, however, God granted Adam and Eve time on earth to work out the dominion covenant (Gen. 1:26-28).
Adam had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain was the firstborn (Gen. 4:1). He was evil. His sacrifice was not acceptable to God (v. 5). He then slew his younger brother. Through grace, God extended Cain's life (v. 15), but He removed Cain from the covenant line. A third son, Seth, youngest of all, replaced Cain as the heir through which the promised seed (Gen. 3:15) would come (Luke 3:38).
Noah had three sons. The eldest was Shem (Gen. 6:10). Shem's line was the covenant line. This indicates that he had been a righteous man who did not warrant disinheritance. But Shem's first two sons did not extend the covenant line; Arphaxad, the third son, did (Gen. 10:24).
Abraham had two sons. The elder, Ishmael, was disinherited by Abraham because he mocked Isaac (Gen. 21:9), who was the true heir of God's promise (Gen. 17:16). Isaac was the second-born son.
Isaac had two sons. The elder, Esau, sold his inheritance to his brother, Jacob, for a mess of pottage (Gen. 25:33). God had already promised Rebekah that the heirs of the elder son would serve the heirs of the younger (v. 23). That is, the covenant line would be through Jacob, not Esau.(2) Jacob gained his deserved inheritance-blessing from Isaac (Gen. 27:28-29). Isaac later blessed Esau through a prophesy of Esau's greatness, but he had nothing left of substance to give Esau (vv. 37, 39). He had given Jacob the full inheritance, leaving nothing for Esau. By giving Jacob the full inheritance, believing that Jacob was Esau, Isaac had necessarily disinherited Esau, thinking that he was disinheriting Jacob. Esau was the ethically rebellious son. He had married Canaanite wives, against his parents' wishes (Gen. 26:34-35). After he lost his blessing, his father told him not to marry other Canaanites wives (28:9). His obedience was partial: he married a daughter of Ishmael (28:9), the disinherited son of Abraham. Esau's pattern of rebellion was continual in the key area of covenantal inheritance: marriage. Isaac had sought to escape his responsibility to disinherit his rebellious son by disinheriting Jacob instead. This tactic backfired on Isaac. It led to Esau's complete disinheritance.
The inheritance law helps us to answer the ethical and judicial question: Was it wrong for Rebekah and Jacob to deceive Isaac? The answer is no, it was not wrong. Isaac's physical blindness reflected his moral judgment. Jacob and Rebekah took advantage of his physical weakness in order to overcome his moral weakness. They were facing a morally blind old man who would not acknowledge the legitimacy of God's prophecy to Rebekah concerning the two sons and their respective covenant lines, nor would he honor Esau's sale of his birthright to Jacob. Isaac was willing to defy God for the sake of his delight in the taste of venison stew (Gen. 27:3-4). In this, Isaac was as short-sighted as Esau had been when he sold his birthright for a pot of stew. Rebekah was morally and legally justified in undermining her husband's evil plan to disinherit Jacob, and through this act of rebellion, disinherit God's promised covenant seed.(3)
Jacob's first four sons were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. All were born of Leah, the unloved wife (Gen. 29:32-35). One aspect of the double portion was rulership. Jacob gave permanent civil rulership to Judah (Gen. 49:10). He had legitimate covenantal reasons for skipping Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. Reuben had defiled his father's bed by having sex with Jacob's concubine, Billah (Gen. 35:22). Simeon and Levi had slain the Shechemites after the Shechemites had submitted to circumcision (Gen. 34:25). This ruthless act of revenge had brought reproach on their father (v. 30). These sons inherited single portions. This left Judah as the primary heir, which involved exercising rulership. The promised seed's covenant line would come through Judah (Luke 3:33).(4)
The case of Judah's sons is the most convoluted of all. His first son, Er, was wicked. God killed him before he conceived a son of his own through Tamar (Gen. 38:7). That is, God cut off Er's covenant line. To restore it biblically, Onan his brother had to marry her.(5) But Onan was also wicked; he married her, but then refused to bear a child with her in his brother's name (v. 9). God killed him, too. The third son was too young to marry. It is clear that Tamar was the victim of her two husbands' evil ways. She was being denied legitimate seed. Tamar then tricked Judah into fathering twin sons with her after the death of Judah's wife. Her son Zarah was the second-born, yet he had very nearly become the firstborn (vv. 28-30). In this case, the promised seed came through the firstborn son, Pharez (Luke 3:33). Yet Pharez was not legally the firstborn son. Shelah, the third son of Judah's first wife, should have been the heir. But the evil of his two older brothers, coupled with his young age, as well as the evil of his father in lying with Tamar before marriage, thinking she was a prostitute, transferred the covenant line to the surviving second-born son, Pharez. This was done by God for Tamar's sake, who had twice been cheated by evil husbands. Through her the promised seed would come.
In the case of Joseph, the firstborn son of Jacob's beloved wife, Jacob transferred Joseph's single-unit inheritance to Joseph's two sons. He did this prior to his final accounting with his other sons. Manasseh was the firstborn, but Jacob gave the blessing to Ephraim. Joseph tried to correct this, but without success. "And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations" (Gen. 48:19). Jacob offered no reason for this. The second-born son would receive the double portion of Jacob's blessing: authority and population. But this did not necessarily imply that Ephraim would receive a double portion of Joseph's inheritance. In the land distribution under Joshua, the two sons received separate portions based on their military prowess. There is no indication in the text that Ephraim's inheritance was double the size of Manasseh's.
Mosaic law was not formally in force prior to Moses. The patriarchs did not go to priests and civil rulers to legitimize their decisions regarding their sons' inheritance. They made these decisions on their own authority as household priests and rulers. After Moses, however, the law mandated a system of confirmation for the father's disinheritance of a particular son, which the next section of Deuteronomy reveals. The parents had to bring their rebellious son before the civil magistrate.
The Two Adams
The New Testament provides a reason for the persistence of this pattern of inheritance among the patriarchs. Paul refers to Jesus as the last Adam. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (I Cor. 15:45). The first Adam had forfeited his lawful claim on the inheritance from his father, God. Adam was disinherited. But God then showed grace to Adam. On what legal basis? Because of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. On this basis, God gives common grace to all mankind and special grace to His chosen people: a common salvation (healing) and a special salvation. "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (I Tim. 4:10).(6) Adam and his heirs have received the gift of life on the basis of the work of the second Adam. Yet even here, the true pattern exists: the firstborn son inherits. Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. He is the only begotten son of God. "But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62).
Sons and Daughters Mosaic Covenant fathers had the responsibility of assessing the moral character of their sons. Their allocation of the inheritance had to conform to the law of the double portion. They could not, on their own authority, depart from this law. But the law gave no autonomous claim to rebellious sons. God's law does not subsidize evil. Either of the other two covenantal authorities could confirm a father's decision to disinherit a rebellious son. The civil government could enforce such a claim through execution of other, lesser, penalties for lesser infractions; the ecclesiastical government could enforce it through excommunication.
This law says nothing about daughters. It was assumed that daughters would not inherit if a son was still alive at their father's death. Why? To find the answer, we must understand the principle of economic support. Daughters married into another family. Their office as helpers of their husbands meant that their efforts would go to provide support for their husbands' parents. Wives were adopted into their husbands' families.
A father provided a dowry for his daughter in marriage. If he failed to do this, she was a concubine, not a free wife. But a son-in-law provided a bride price to the family of the bride. This kept the dowry from depleting the inheritance of her brothers. This payment exempted the bride from any obligation to support her aged parents. This obligation was her brothers' obligation. By forfeiting any claim on an inheritance, the daughter escaped any future economic burden for supporting her parents.(7) There was a balance to the Mosaic inheritance system.
Modern Times
The traditional description of wives as "barefoot and pregnant" implicitly justifies a system of inheritance that passes all of the parents' assets to sons and their wives. Daughters for millennia did not receive dowries in the form of formal education. But on the day that a family hired a tutor to teach a daughter to read, that family began to alter the economics of inheritance. As soon as the ability to read meant access to income-producing occupations, an investment in a girl's education began to undermine the traditional system of inheritance. Those traditionalists who long ago opposed formal education for daughters may have sensed the revolutionary social and economic implications of what it meant to have literate women in a society. But that resistance is long gone. From the Reformation until the late nineteenth century, the ability to read in the West meant the ability to read the Bible. The Protestant religion's individualism and its biblicism, coupled with the mass production of printed materials, made literacy cost-effective for the masses. This change in the investment-return ratio for basic education inevitably undermined the traditional system of sons-only inheritance. The daughters received a dowry through education. They were thereby brought under the biblical obligations for supplying a proportional share of parental support if their husbands failed to supply a bride price comparable to the cost of their wives' educations.
Prior to the nineteenth century, women had few options to work for money outside the home. Labor was more clearly allocated in terms of physical strength, with the resulting division of labor within the household and within society. This has changed dramatically with the extension of the division of labor and the substitution of mechanical and especially electrical power for human and animal power.(8) When a woman can flip a switch as easily as a man can, the ability to use electrical tools to perform specialized labor then becomes more a matter of skill and temperament than physical strength. Also, there is not much evidence, if any, that indicates that women as a class cannot perform such highly skilled tasks as eye surgery as readily as men can.
Women have entered the work force by the hundreds of millions in the West since World War II. This has been a matter of social convention. This social transformation has been going at least on since the early nineteenth century, when unmarried women were brought into the textile industry as seamstresses. They had been involved in this industry as wool spinners from ancient times. The division of labor provided by mechanized sewing equipment moved the location of their work. This was part of a social revolution, no doubt, but it was not a revolution in basic skills. It was a revolution in capital formation.
As women have become a source of family monetary income, their ability to support aged parents financially has raised the question of inheritance. Should all of their income go into their husband's family? This raises the question of education. Who paid for their educations? Mass education has enabled women to enter fields that had been closed to them. More to the point, mass education has created new fields that did not exist a century ago. If parents pay for a daughter's education, they provide a dowry. If the son-in-law provides no bride price comparable in value to this investment in the bride's education, compounded at a market rate of interest as if it had been a student loan, then her parents have a moral claim on a portion of her wealth and time. To argue otherwise is to argue for the disinheritance of her brothers. If she gets equal funding in her education, but they are alone legally and morally responsible for the support of their aged parents, then the biblical principle of proportional responsibility is violated. Brothers have been decapitalized by sisters.
Since 1973, family income has become stagnant in the United States. One reason is because wives have entered the work force and are forced to pay taxes into State retirement systems. The State pays for the education of daughters. It therefore taxes daughters when they enter the work force. The State collects taxes to support existing retirees. The system of proportional responsibility is honored to some degree by this system. But as taxes for retirement systems and State health care rise, the wives become, in effect, the supporters of the aged parents -- and not so aged parents -- of other families. The share of national income going to pay taxes today is close to the share of income earned by women in the work force. To fund the faceless aged, husbands have sent their wives out to work. This is not the way that husbands and wives think of this financial arrangement, but the numbers reveal that this is essentially the nature of the bargain. The State has paid for the education of women -- the wife's dowry -- so it collects money from women for the support of the aged. We can call this process the statist bureaucratization of the dowry.
New Testament Applications Is the allocation of a man's inheritance still governed by Deuteronomy 21:15-17? To answer this question, we consider the fact that there have been judicial alterations. First and foremost, there is no longer polygamy in New Covenant times. The church has rejected the idea that polygamy is a valid form of marriage except under highly unusual circumstances.(9) Second, the Mosaic seed laws and land laws have been annulled by the coming of Jesus Christ. Land no longer has a covenantal-prophetic role to play in the history of salvation. Third, the State no longer enforces the laws against rebellious children. Whether it should or not is an issue I deal with in the next chapter. But the fact that the mandated civil sanction of execution no longer threatens a rebellious son has had effects on the administration of this law. Fourth, as we have seen, daughters now inherit.
Daughters have a new legal status under the New Covenant. Females are baptized in the church. The formal mark of covenant blessings and covenant cursings is placed on both sexes. This means that, covenantally speaking, the benefits of inheritance and the threat of disinheritance are presented formally to both sexes. Covenant sanctions ultimately are sanctions of inheritance and disinheritance: in eternity, but also in history.
Then what remains of Deuteronomy's inheritance law? Only the principle of proportionality. Of those assets bequeathed to the children, there should be a double portion for the heir who accepts primary responsibility for the care of the aged parents. If all of them accept equal responsibility, then all should inherit equal portions. Similarly, the son or daughter who abandons every aspect of this family obligation thereby abandons any moral claim on a share of the inheritance. In a biblical commonwealth, this would also mean abandoning a legal claim.
Parents need to make this principle clear to their children. Before the parents are infirm, they should know which children have agreed to accept which burden. This is analogous to an insurance policy. The death benefits paid to the survivors are proportional to the premiums paid. The common Western practice of parents who refuse to talk about the size of the inheritance, the details of the will, and the obligations of the children is biblically perverse. God has set forth this rule of inheritance: rewards are determined by performance. This rule applies to each man's eternal inheritance, too. "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward" (I Cor. 3:12-14). "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (Gal. 6:7-8).
Disinheritance by the State In my discussion of the fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother" (Ex. 20:12a), I pointed out that the modern messianic State has substituted its claims on men's inheritance for the claims of the true sons. The State has become a pseudo-family, educating children according to its standards and presuppositions, funding health care, paying for men's retirement, and so forth. To do this, the State must decapitalize the family through taxation. The State, unlike a biblically defined family, does not create wealth. It consumes wealth as it redistributes it from one group to another.(10)
The State is an interloper in the lawful system of inheritance. It had presented a false claim, and in the twentieth century, men have believed this claim. Through graduated taxation schemes (called "progressive"), the State places an ever-greater economic burden on the more productive members of society. The principle of the tithe is denied. The principle of theft by majority vote is substituted. The State demands the double portion, and far more than the double portion in the case of the rich, in the name of its compulsory programs of healing.
This process of disinheritance rests on the covenantal principle that the State the true son. This disinheritance honors fathers and mothers in the name of the State. It releases children from the burdens of supporting aged and sick parents. But having been persuaded of the legitimacy of this new hierarchy of responsibility, voters cannot morally resist the claim of inheritance. Who is the son who deserves the double portion? The one who provides the double portion of support for the aged parents. This means the State. The greater the percentage of support provided by the State, the greater the proportion of the nation's inheritance that is demanded by the State. Why should men expect anything different? The principle of the double portion sets forth the relationship between support and inheritance.
For a son to argue that he is completely responsible for his aged parents is to assert a legal and moral claim on the parents' inheritance. The younger brothers who accept the oldest brother's offer have thereby acquiesced to the implication: a forfeited inheritance. Voters do not recognize the cause-and-effect relationship between the State's offer of support for the aged. They do not recognize the implicit legal claim which the State is making: reducing the ability of economically successful men to pass on wealth to their heirs. As voters transfer more and more responsibility to the State for the care of the aged, the State steadily becomes the substitute heir.
Conclusion The Mosaic law of inheritance specified that the allocation of the inheritance was by legal right, not by parental discretion. The firstborn son inherited the double portion. This did not mean that a rebellious firstborn son would inherit a double portion or any portion at all. Both the church and the State had the authority to alter an inheritance through covenantal sanctions: excommunication and death, respectively. This law restricted the right of a father, on his own authority, to alter the inheritance to his sons.
The biblical principle of proportional rewards and the biblical principle of proportional obligations were combined in this law. There were reciprocal obligations between fathers and sons. The promise of a double portion of the inheritance imposed the obligation of a double burden of responsibility to care for aged parents.
The general principle that the firstborn son should inherit a double portion was honored in the breach from Adam to Jacob's twelve sons. Firstborn sons did not inherit in many instances. This indicates that there was covenantal rebellion among the oldest sons, generation after generation. This pattern of the rebellious older son who had to be disinherited was continual in Old Covenant history. It culminated with the Jews of Jesus' day, who resented the heart-felt welcome and celebration given by the Father for the rebellious but repentant younger brother (Luke 15:29-30). The younger brother in the parable represented the gentiles. The result of this hard-hearted rebellion was the disinheritance of the eldest son. As God's covenant-keeping firstborn son, Jesus prophetically announced the coming disinheritance of the covenant-breaking firstborn son, Old Covenant Israel: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:43). The gentiles would soon inherit the kingdom. The church as the gathering of the saints would soon replace Old Covenant Israel as the true son of the covenant.
In our day, the State has begun to replace the family as the provider of welfare, from womb to tomb. The State asserts its right to educate the children according to its covenant-breaking religious presuppositions. It has gained this authority by offering parents free education, i.e., taxpayer-funded education. The State offers food for the poor, medical care for the young and the aged, and pensions for all. To fund this comprehensive messianic program of social healing, the State has taxed its subjects vastly beyond the limits of the tithe (I Sam. 8:15, 17). Men pay the State a quadruple tithe or more, while Christians pay the church far less than a tithe.
One result of the rise of messianic politics has been the disinheritance of covenant-keeping children, as the State has de-capitalized the covenantal family. Another result since the 1940's has been the wife who works outside the home: forced into the labor market in order to pay these taxes. Without the taxes provided by these working wives, State-run pension systems would already have collapsed in bankruptcy. If they do not collapse in the year 2000, these retirement programs will be revised by the politicians, but then they will collapse later, when the economy itself breaks down, or when working wives retire and demand to collect their pensions. These working women have borne few children -- below the demographic replacement rate of 2.1 children per family -- so a shrinking work force will be called upon to support these long-lived pensioners. The overburdened taxpaying heirs will eventually rebel politically. Finally, this system of messianic politics has led to the emasculation of the church, which has turned into a beggar.(11) This cannot go on indefinitely. And, to cite economist Herbert Stein, trends that cannot continue eventually stop.
Footnotes:
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1973), p. 180.
2. This prophecy extended down to the days of Christ. Herod was an Edomite, an heir of Esau: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XIV:I:3. He sought to destroy the promised seed. He failed. Joseph and Mary had removed themselves and their son from Herod's jurisdiction (Matt. 2:13-15). They returned when Herod had died (v. 19).
3. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 19.
4. It is not clear from the text that Judah received a double portion. It is also not clear from the allocation of land listed in the Book of Joshua. Rushdoony argues that Jacob awarded a double portion to Joseph, for he gave a blessing to Joseph's two sons. The reason for this, he says, is that Jacob was under Joseph's care in Egypt. Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 180. The problem with this argument is that Joshua did not recognize this claim to a double portion in allocating land in Canaan. When the two tribes came to him claiming a right to the double portion -- a right based on their numerical strength, not a promised double portion -- Joshua told them that they would have to prove their claim on the battlefield by defeating Canaanites who were armed with iron chariots (Josh. 17:13-18). That is, they would have to disinherit the Canaanites, not their brethren, to gain their double portion. Gary North, Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), pp. 223-25.
5. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel" (Deut. 25:5-6).
6. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 1.
7. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), pp. 253-55.
8. To this should be added the advent of popular contraception techniques. With fewer children, women have reduced their household management burdens. While they fill up their days with activities, no doubt, they bear fewer children because they believe they could not bear the added household burdens.
9. When a man is converted to Christ in a polygamous culture, if he renounces his marriages to all but the first wife, these abandoned wives would become pariahs in the society. They would have nowhere to go. I know of no denomination or missionary group which requires that a new convert do this to his wives.
10. Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), ch. 5.
11. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 4.
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