PREFACE
And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD. Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither. But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it (Deut. 1:34-39).
The language of inheritance appears early in the Book of Deuteronomy. Inheritance is the integrating theme of the entire book, as I shall argue in this commentary. The reader is hereby warned: if, after reading this commentary, you find that you agree with my thesis that the primary theme of the book is inheritance, then you should be more willing to accept my thesis that the Pentateuch is structured in terms of the five-point biblical covenant model.(1)
Inheritance is a matter of ownership. Economics is also a matter of ownership. Ownership is covenantal. This commentary series, which I have worked on since 1973, is called An Economic Commentary on the Bible. It is the thesis of this series that both economic theory and practice are inherently covenantal. I titled the first volume, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. I argued there that God's covenant with Adam (Gen. 1:26-28) defines mankind. This thesis has led me to argue that the fundamental economic issue is not scarcity, contrary to virtually all economics textbooks. The fundamental economic issue is ownership. The issue of ownership is always covenantal. The legal question, "Who owns this?" is more fundamental than the economists' initial question: "Why do I have to pay something to obtain this?"
Scarcity
Humanistic economists begin their analyses with the question of scarcity. They do so because of their quest for epistemological neutrality. They seek to begin with a common-ground observation about the external world that is universally acknowledged and therefore epistemologically neutral. They seek to avoid any appeal to theology or other obviously value-laden presuppositions. But the issue of scarcity is not epistemologically neutral. It is heavily value-laden. But it is far easier to conceal this fact than to conceal the more obviously value-laden doctrine of original ownership.
When would-be autonomous man begins his discussion of economics apart from any consideration of the twin doctrines of creation and providence, he has assumed as incontrovertible what he needs first to prove, namely, that the creation is an autonomous "given" and that man is an autonomous "given." Far from being neutral, this presupposition of man's autonomy is an act of theft. It is an application of the serpent's rhetorical question: "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1).
The methodological individualist begins with the presupposition of each man's ownership of his own person.(2) If followed to its logical conclusion, this presupposition legalizes attempted suicide. It does not deal with the issue of what adult children owe to their parents, whose time and effort allowed them to survive. It treats the individual as if there were no legal bonds of the family -- a corporate institution with claims on the individual. Are these claims morally and legally valid? Morally neutral economic theory cannot say. So, methodological individualists ignore the problem.
Even at best, this presupposition of self-ownership does not solve the question of ownership of anything other than one's own person. How is ownership lawfully established over anything else? On the one hand, is ownership established by a person's verbal declaration?(3) If so, then what happens when one person's declaration extends across a boundary that was established by some other person's declaration? Who decides which declaration's claim is superior? By what standard? On the other hand, is ownership established, as John Locke argued, by mixing one's labor with the soil?(4) What kind of labor? How much soil? This "soil" is representative soil, not literal soil. It is symbolic soil. The word assumes the prior existence of some sort of moral and legal order.
The methodological collectivist assumes that society's claims of ownership are prior to the individual's. But what is society? Are we speaking of the State, i.e., civil government, when we say the word "society"? Which State? What is it that establishes the prior jurisdiction of this or that agency called the State? What if there are competing jurisdictions of various States? Whose jurisdiction is superior? By what standard?
Scarcity Is a Covenantal Sanction
Sanctions are fourth on the list in the Bible's five-point covenant model: transcendence, hierarchy, ethics, oath, and succession. As applied to economic theory, these five points are: primary ownership, delegated ownership, boundary lines, scarcity, and inheritance. Scarcity in the modern economic definition -- "at zero price, there is greater demand than supply" -- is the result of God's curse of the earth in response to Adam's rebellion (Gen. 3:17-19).
If this is the case, then we should conclude that a reduction of scarcity, i.e., economic growth, is the result both of Jesus Christ's legal status as God's covenantally representative agent and His work of redemption through God's imposition of negative sanctions at Calvary. The negative sanctions of Calvary were soon overcome in history by Christ's bodily resurrection and His ascension. These were divine positive sanctions that have enabled man's overcoming of the curse of the earth through economic growth. Humanistic economists do not look at economic theory in this way.
Original SovereigntyEconomists should begin the study of economics with a question: Who is originally sovereign? The Bible's answer is clear: God. He created the world. He therefore possesses original jurisdiction. Through the rebellious actions of the serpent, Eve, and Adam, Satan gained subordinate control over the earth. Adam, as God's supreme covenantal agent, had the authority to decide which sovereign he would serve. By disobeying God, he transferred allegiance to Satan. This was an act of covenant-breaking. It was also a representative act: he did this in the name of his heirs. Those heirs of Adam who remain outside of God's covenant of redemption necessarily deny the ownership claims of God.
It is covenant-keeping man's God-given assignment to extend the kingdom of God in history, reclaiming territory that was lost by Adam's transfer of covenantal allegiance. This reclaiming of the earth is a two-fold activity: fulfilling the original dominion covenant (Gen. 1:26-28) and reclaiming the lost inheritance from covenant-breakers. The exodus, which disinherited Egypt, was followed by Israel's ratification of the Mosaic covenant. A generation later, the conquest of Canaan extended God's kingdom in history by disinheriting the Canaanites. This process of extending the kingdom is a process of disinheritance/inheritance. Ultimately, it is Satan who is being disinherited in history. When his covenantal subordinates are disinherited, he is disinherited. To argue otherwise is to argue that Adam's transfer to Satan of his subordinate ownership of the kingdom is a permanent condition in history. It is to argue that Jesus Christ's redemption of men in history and the Great Commission itself (Matt. 28:18-20) -- reclaiming the world by means of the Holy Spirit-empowered gospel of redemption (buying-back) -- will produce only a series of Christian oases in a permanent desert of Satanism. It is to argue that biblical eschatology is not an aspect of the fifth point of the biblical covenant model: inheritance and disinheritance. It is to argue against the Book of Deuteronomy as the Pentateuch's book of guaranteed inheritance, to argue that the Pentateuch is not structured in terms of the biblical covenant model. Those who argue this way now face a lengthy refutation: An Economic Commentary on the Bible. We shall see how the critics respond, now that my commentary on the Pentateuch is completed. After fifteen years of "no comment" by the theological critics -- humanistic economists do not go even this far -- I think it is safe to say that "no comment" will indefinitely remain their most carefully constructed response.
The Structure of the PentateuchInheritance and Dominion is the culmination of my two-fold, multi-volume assertion that the biblical covenant model has five points, and that the Pentateuch is structured in terms of the biblical covenant model. I did not understand this when I began writing this series. I discovered it only in late 1985, when Ray Sutton first presented his covenant model in a series of Wednesday evening Bible studies. I have argued for this position in detail in my "General Introduction to The Dominion Covenant (1987)," published in the second edition of The Dominion Covenant: Genesis.(5) The biblical covenant model has five parts: the transcendence/presence of God; man's hierarchy/authority under God; ethics/law as the basis of covenant-keeping man's dominion in history, i.e., the extension of the boundaries of God's kingdom; oath/sanctions as the basis of cause and effect in history; and succession in history through corporate covenant renewal. If this argument is correct, then the fifth book of the Pentateuch should match the fifth point of the covenant: inheritance/disinheritance, a two-fold process in history which mirrors the dual covenantal sanctions of blessing and cursing.
Let us survey briefly the primary integrating theme of each of the Pentateuch's five books. Genesis reveals the absolute sovereignty of God in creating the world and sustaining it in history. Exodus reveals the deliverance of Israel in history by this sovereign God, who requires His people to covenant with Him as His lawful subjects (Ex. 19). Leviticus reveals the law of God for Mosaic Israel: the stipulations of Israel's national existence as a covenantal unit. Numbers reveals God's corporate sanctions in history: against Israel in the wilderness because of unbelief, and against the Amorites outside the borders of Canaan in the months preceding the invasion of Canaan. Deuteronomy is the book of inheritance through covenant renewal, revealing the imminent fulfillment of the promised Abrahamic inheritance, which involved the disinheritance of the Canaanites.
Let us not mince words: a crucial ethical theme of Deuteronomy is the moral necessity of genocide. "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee" (Deut. 7:16). Israel's defeat of Sihon outside the boundaries of the Promised Land served as the model -- the covenantal down payment -- for all of Canaan: "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain" (Deut. 2:34). The inheritance by Israel mandated the disinheritance of the Amorites.
Eschatology and InheritanceThis theme of inheritance/disinheritance is basic to covenantal progression in history: the growth of the kingdom of God at the expense of the kingdom of Satan. In this sense, covenantal conflict is what economists call a zero-sum game: the winner's gains come at the expense of the loser. Because of God's common grace,(6) this is not always true in history, although it was surely required by God to be the case during the conquest of Canaan. It is always true in eternity.(7)
This covenantal fact of life and death raises the issue of eschatology. The theological doctrine known as eschatology -- the doctrine of the last things -- is point five of the biblical covenant model. It cannot be separated from a theory of history, because eschatology is also the doctrine of whatever precedes the last things. It is, in this sense, the doctrine of the next-to-last things. Because there are three rival theories of biblical eschatology -- amillennialism, premillennialism, and postmillennialism -- each has a different conception of the next-to-last things. Each theory has its own conception of social theory, i.e., social cause and effect.(8)
Biblical eschatology is the story of the replacement of Satan's stolen kingdom by God's kingdom. The question that divides theologians is this: To what extent is this process of replacement revealed in history? Is history an earnest -- a down payment -- on the eternity to come? Is there more or less continuity between history and eternity? Do the wheat or the tares progressively dominate as history unfolds? Amillennialism insists that history is a reverse foretaste of eternity: the righteous get weaker, and the unrighteous get stronger. Premillennialism teaches the same with regard to the era prior to Christ's bodily return and His imposition of a comprehensive international bureaucracy, staffed by Christians, for a thousand years. Postmillennialism insists that covenantal history is the story of lawful inheritance, secured by the death of the lawful Heir who thereby becomes the Testator (Heb. 9:16-17). Eschatology is therefore also the story of disinheritance in history: covenant-keepers' reclaiming of the stolen legacy from covenant-breakers. Righteousness will replace unrighteousness as the next-to-the-last things unfold.
The Fourth Generation
The key verse governing the inheritance of the land of Canaan by Israel is Genesis 15:16: "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." The four generations that dwelt in Egypt were the sons of Jacob, Jochebed's (Num. 26:59), Moses', and Joshua's. It was under Joshua's leadership that his generation and their children invaded Canaan. Joshua was the representative leader.
A theological question arises: Was God's promise to Abraham conditional or unconditional? Was it dependent on what Abraham and his heirs would do (conditional), or was it a prophecy that could not be thwarted by anything that man would do (unconditional)? For that matter, is it legitimate even to distinguish between the two?
The traditional theological answer to this question is that the Abrahamic promise was unconditional. This answer invokes Paul's arguments in Galatians 3. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" (Gal. 3:17-19). Paul here was speaking of the Mosaic law, but theologians have extended his line of argumentation to the context of the Abrahamic promise regarding Canaan.
To argue that a promise is unconditional is to argue for God's predestination. The theologian announces: "God's promise to Abraham was a prophecy." Yet this statement begs the question. Is biblical prophecy at least sometimes conditional? For example, Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, yet Nineveh escaped this curse through repentance. Was God's promise to Abraham that sort of prophecy, i.e., conditional on the ethical response of those who heard it? Specifically, could the third generation have inherited Canaan, had the word of God been mixed with faith? "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Heb. 4:2).
The Doctrine of Predestination
God's absolute predestination is central to the doctrine of the unconditional promise. God promised Abraham that the fourth generation would inherit. This can mean only one thing: they were predestined to inherit. It was not merely statistically likely that they would inherit; they would surely inherit. Yet the males born in the wilderness were not circumcised. They were circumcised in a mass ritual procedure at Gilgal after they had crossed the Jordan and were inside Canaan's boundaries (Josh. 5:4). To inherit, they had to be lawful heirs. The mark of Abrahamic heirship was circumcision. "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" (Gen. 17:11). Circumcision was the covenant sign. So, in order to fulfill the Abrahamic promise, the Israelites had to perform a mandatory work. This means that the Abrahamic promise was conditional on works, yet at the same time, it could not be thwarted, for the inheritance by the fourth generation was predestined. This is the age-old issue of promise vs. works, unconditional promise vs. conditional promise.
Ephesians 2:8-10 solves this theological dilemma: not only are covenant-keepers predestined to eternal life, they are predestined to temporal good works. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." A covenantal promise is therefore ethically conditional -- the mandatory performance of good works -- yet it is also operationally unconditional, for these good works are part of the predestined inheritance itself. Protestant fundamentalists quote Ephesians 2:8-9: grace. Roman Catholics are more likely to quote Ephesians 2:10: works. Theonomists quote the entire passage, which includes the phrase, "which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them," i.e., predestination.
The Epistle to the Hebrews ties the doctrine of predestined good works to the ethically conditional nature of the Abrahamic promise. Hebrews 3 and 4 discuss the sabbatical rest which God gives to His people. The Israelites of Moses' generation did not enter into the rest -- Canaan -- which God had offered to them. The author cited Psalm 95: "Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest" (Ps. 95:8-11; cf. Heb. 3:8-11). This means that God made a legitimate offer to the third generation: immediate inheritance. Moses made this plain in his recapitulation of the events immediately following the exodus.
And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do. And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadesh-barnea. And I said unto you, Ye are come unto the mountain of the Amorites, which the LORD our God doth give unto us. Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged. . . . Notwithstanding ye would not go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God: And ye murmured in your tents, and said, Because the LORD hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us. Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them. The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes; And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place. Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God, Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day. And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD (Deut. 1:18-21; 26-36).
How can we solve this seeming theological anomaly? God's promise was given to the fourth generation, yet He commanded the third generation to begin the invasion of Canaan, promising to go before them, leading them to victory, just as He had done in Egypt and the Red Sea. The fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise by the fourth generation was historically conditional, i.e., dependent on the faithlessness of the third generation. The beginning of the solution to this theological dilemma is found in Hebrews: "For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3). These words are unmistakably clear: "although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." This language -- "before the foundation of the world" -- is found in the biblical passage which, more than any other, teaches the doctrine of predestination, the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the church at Ephesus. Paul wrote:Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. . . . In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:3-6, 11-14).
The Three-Fold Theme of Grace
Predestination, adoption, and inheritance: here is the three-fold theme of God's special grace to His people in history. This is not a two-fold theme -- adoption and inheritance -- contrary to Arminians and other defenders of the doctrine of man's free will. Adoption in Christ is the only judicially valid basis of any man's claim to his share of the inheritance of God's kingdom, both in history and eternity. Paul teaches that every redeemed person's adoption by God in history has been predestined before the foundation of the world.
The three-fold theme of predestination, adoption (judicial sonship), and inheritance is the theme of the Book of Deuteronomy. God, in His absolute sovereignty, predestined the fourth generation after Abraham to inherit the Promised Land. Moses spoke the words recorded in Deuteronomy to the representatives of the fourth generation, just prior to Israel's inheritance of the land under Joshua. Similarly, God has predestined individual Christians to eternal salvation, which is their lawful inheritance through judicial adoption into God's redeemed family. Paul's words are clear: we have obtained in history a down payment or "earnest" of this eternal inheritance. "Ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory" (v. 13b). The Greek word translated here as "purchased possession" is elsewhere translated as "saving," as in "the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).
The Greek word that Paul used for "inheritance" is the same one that Stephen used to identify God's promise of Canaan to Abraham: "And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child" (Acts 7:5). Paul used this language of the seed, which alone lawfully inherits, in order to identify those who are adopted by God the Father through Christ's sacrificial work of redemption: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29).
Paul insisted in his letter to the Ephesians that this eternal and historical inheritance of the kingdom of God is an inheritance of righteousness only for those who are themselves righteous. "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Eph. 5:5). This kingdom inheritance comes exclusively through God's grace. Nevertheless, Paul was quite clear on an equally important point: the earthly good works that are mandatory in the life of the true heir are as predestined as the adoption itself.
ImputationThe basis of the theological reconciliation of grace vs. good works, or unconditional election vs. conditional inheritance, is the doctrine of imputation. Participation in both of the two kingdoms in history, Satan's and Christ's, is representational as well as individual. The sin of Adam is imputed to covenant-breaking man. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:12-14). There was a law that condemned all men to death: God's command to Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree. Adam's heirs did not commit this sin individually, but they all committed it representatively through their father, Adam. So, death reigned from Adam to Moses. The fact that Adam's heirs did not (and could not -- no tree) commit Adam's specific sin made no difference in the question of life and death. They all committed it. Adam's representative act condemned all of his heirs. The proof of this, Paul argued, is that they all died. The law was still in force -- not the Mosaic law but the Edenic law. The sanction of death still ruled.
This judicial imputation of Adam's sin is the historical starting point of biblical covenant theology. To escape God's declaration of "Guilty!" to Adam, and thereby to Adam's heirs, a person must come under God's declaration of "Not guilty!" to Jesus Christ and His heirs. Adam's sin is the judicial basis of the imputation of disinherited sonship to Adam's heirs. Jesus Christ's perfect humanity (though not His divinity) is the judicial basis of the imputation of adopted sonship to Christ's heirs. "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:16-17).
The Imputation of Righteous Works
Let us consider this theological doctrine from another angle: the imputation of Christ's good works. As surely as Christ met the comprehensive demands of God's law, so also do all those people to whom His perfection is imputed by God. Christ's imputed perfection is definitive. At the moment of their regeneration, people receive Christ's perfection judicially through grace. Then they are required to strive in this life to meet Jesus' standard of moral perfection. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). This condition of perfection is achieved by covenant-keepers only in the world beyond history. But the goal of perfection is still our mandatory standard, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13).
Both conditions are true of covenant-keeping men in history: perfection and imperfection. First, imperfection: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (I John 1:8-10). This condition relates to progressive sanctification in history. Second, perfection: "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (I John 3:7-9). In the day of final judgment, God looks at Christ's perfection in history, not our sins in history. The redeemed person's moral condition, definitively and finally, is representatively perfect: sin-free. This is because of the representative imputation of Christ's perfection. But the redeemed person's life in history is a progressive overcoming of sin, which is always present.
The doctrine of imputation is the theological basis of reconciling God's conditional and unconditional promises. An unconditional promise rests on the predestinating work of God in history to bring the recipients of the promise to that degree of moral perfection and judicial righteousness required to obtain the promise. No promise is devoid of stipulations. The covenantal question is this: Who lawfully performs these stipulations on behalf of the heirs? Paul provided the answer in Galatians 3. His message in Galatians 3 is that the promise is more fundamental than the law. Yet the promise was not in opposition to the law, nor was the law absent from the conditional terms of the promise.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law (Gal. 3:17-21).
Did the Israelites have to be circumcised in order to inherit the land? Yes. To become an heir of God's promise to Abraham's seed, you had to be circumcised. Yet the promise to Abraham was nonetheless unconditional. How could it be both? Because of Christ's work as the judicial representative of all redeemed men. The promise to Abraham -- and through him, to his heirs -- was always conditional on Jesus Christ's fulfilling of God's law in history. This is why Paul invoked an otherwise peculiar grammatical argument: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). God's promise to Abraham was unconditional for the fourth generation only because this promise was conditional on the historical work of Jesus Christ as redeemed mankind's judicial representative. Had Jesus' perfectly obedient life not been predestined by God before the foundation of the world, there would have been no judicial basis of redemption, and therefore no unconditional promises in history. The only promise that would have been fulfilled in history would have been God's promise to Adam: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17).
The Hatred of God's LawBy linking covenant-keeping with God's blessings in history, and covenant-breaking with God's curses in history, the theonomist challenges just about everybody. Not only does he challenge all other religions, including humanism, he also challenges premillennialists and amillennialists. There can be no escape from this confrontation. The doctrine of eschatology (point five) raises the issue of historical sanctions (point four). These, in turn, raise the issue of biblical law (point three). The consistent theonomist insists that biblical law, God's predictable historical sanctions, and eschatology are "a package deal," to use modern American slang. They are unbreakably interlocked. Defenders of non-theonomic views of eschatology are not always consistent in their rejection of this package. A few of them may not openly reject theonomy's insistence on the covenantal continuity of biblical law and God's visible, predictable, corporate historical sanctions, although most of them do. Their rejection of postmillennialism eventually leads most of them to reject theonomy's view of law and sanctions.
Modern Christians are generally opposed to biblical law. This is one reason why they are opposed to postmillennialism. Instead of rejecting biblical law on the basis of their anti-postmillennialism, many of them are anti-postmillennial because of their rejection of the continuing authority of biblical law and its mandated civil sanctions. For these critics, the Book of Deuteronomy is an offense. When pushed to state their views, they come out against Deuteronomy. The size of this commentary indicates why they are so hostile to Deuteronomy: Deuteronomy contains the most comprehensive presentation of God's law.
A good example of this hostility appears in a critique of my 1984 essay on the free market economy and the Mosaic law.(9) I have spent my career arguing that the Bible's covenantal law-order, when obeyed, must produce a free market economy. Critics of the free market within Christian circles are upset with this argument. Christians who received graduate education in the social sciences in secular universities(10) prior to about 1980 are almost universally skeptical of the free market. When they are faced with the teachings of the Old Testament regarding the mandatory nature of private property and a highly limited civil government (I Sam. 8:15, 17), their reaction is not to abandon their commitment to socialism or the mixed economy. Rather, they openly reject the Old Testament. For example, William Diehl, a defender of economist John Maynard Keynes' defense of the civil government-guided economy, responded as follows to my brief theonomic defense of the free market: "That the author is strong on `biblical law' is apparent. The essay provides us with thirty-nine Old Testament citations, of which twenty-three are from the book of Deuteronomy. Alongside these imposing Old Testament references the reader is given only nine New Testament citations, of which only four come from the mouth of Jesus. Notwithstanding one of North's concluding statements that we need `faith in Jesus Christ,' this essay might more properly be entitled `Poverty and Wealth according to Deuteronomy.' The teachings and parables of Jesus are rich with references to wealth, poverty and justice. Why has the author chosen to ignore these? Can it be that the words of the Master are an embarrassment to the advocates of a free-market system?"(11)
I reply that the words of the Master are also the words of the Book of Deuteronomy. To imply otherwise is to imply that Marcion's second-century defense of a two-gods authorship of the Bible is orthodox. Marcion's position was unorthodox then, and it still is. Was Deuteronomy revealed by some other god than the God of the Bible? No. So, Mr. Diehl was indulging in rhetoric. When rhetoric undermines orthodoxy, it should be sacrificed for the sake of orthodoxy. I ask: What is wrong with Deuteronomy's discussion of the causes of wealth and poverty? God should not be placed in the dock just because Deuteronomy does not conform to the incoherent speculations in Mr. Keynes' General Theory.
Is there evidence that God's commandments in Deuteronomy were annulled by the New Covenant? Some commandments have been annulled, such as the law of genocidal annihilation. That was a one-time event. It is the job of the expositor to examine which Mosaic laws have carried over into the New Covenant and which have not. But for a critic of the free market order, or any other aspect or social product of Deuteronomy, blithely to dismiss Deuteronomy's authority over him and his academic speculations without showing what has been annulled and why, is to play with fire.
Modern man arrogates to himself the right to pick and choose from God's revelation, a practice which Rushdoony calls the smorgasbord approach to the Bible. Modern academic evangelicals come in the name of the latest humanist fad, indulging in the rhetoric of contempt for God's law. Joseph Sobran, a Roman Catholic columnist with a gift for the English language, once wrote that he would rather belong to a church that is 5,000 years behind the times than one that is huffing and puffing to keep with the spirit of the age. Put another way, better Eastern Orthodoxy than the World Council of Churches. Better the Athanasian Creed than the Social Gospel.
Mr. Diehl's rhetoric implies that what Jesus taught was in opposition to what Deuteronomy teaches. This needs to be proven, not merely stated. But because Mr. Diehl's rhetorical response is all that is left for a critic of the free market order who comes in the name of Christ, I have decided to move to the Gospels when I complete this commentary on Deuteronomy. With thousands of pages of commentary on the Pentateuch behind me, I can now safely move to the New Testament. I have proven my point with respect to the Pentateuch. God's law provides the legal framework for a free market social order and undermines the theory of socialism. Until at least one critic of the free market produces a comparably detailed commentary on the economics of the Pentateuch, readers of my multi-volume series should withhold judgment regarding the standard replies by Christian defenders of socialism and the mixed economy: 1) the Bible does not offer a blueprint for economics; and/or 2) the Bible is opposed to the free market. Assertions without proof are merely rhetoric. To my critics, I will say it one more time: You can't beat something with nothing.
Definitions
Throughout this book, I refer to the theocentric foundations of the laws. I begin my study of a law with an implied question: Why did God give it? I begin to search out my answer with a brief discussion of God in His relation to the creation. This is a basic principle of biblical hermeneutics that I did not employ prior to Tools of Dominion (1990).
I also employ the terms land law, seed law, and cross-boundary law. I came up with this classification in my commentary on Leviticus. A land law refers to a law that was binding exclusively inside the Promised Land. A seed law had to do with the preservation of the tribes as separate entities. A cross-boundary law was one that applied both inside and outside of the Promised Land. It is still binding unless annulled by the New Covenant.
Conclusion
Deuteronomy is the Pentateuch's book of inheritance/disinheritance. Its theme is three-fold: predestination, adopted sonship, and inheritance. The fourth generation after the descent into Egypt would surely inherit. This had been predestined by God. This inheritance was nonetheless ethically conditional: primarily dependent on Jesus Christ's representative perfect work and secondarily dependent on Joshua's decision to circumcise the nation at Gilgal (Josh. 5:3). To maintain this inheritance -- the kingdom grant -- Israel would have to obey God's law. Disobedience would produce disinheritance, which Jesus announced to the religious leaders of 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 adopted Israelite heirs were finally replaced in A.D. 70 by gentile adopted heirs. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12).
Deuteronomy offers the basics of biblical economics. The economics it teaches is free market economics. This is why Christian economists of the socialist or Keynesian persuasion do not spend a lot of time commenting on the details of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is an affront to their economics.
Footnotes:
1. On the five points, see Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992). The first edition of this book was published in 1987.
2. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, [1962] 1993), p. 78.
3. This was the position of libertarian anarchist Robert LeFevre.
4. This was Rothbard's position: idem. See Locke, Of Civil Government: Second Treatise (1690), Chapter V, "On Property," sections 27-28, 36.
5. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), pp. ix-xiv.
6. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).
7. Because of God's common grace, covenant-keepers can benefit in history from the blessings that God pours out on covenant-breakers. These blessings in history make the covenant-breaker's eternity of torment that much more horrifying. Having received more in history, he comes under greater eternal condemnation. "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 12:48). In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, we learn that we are to do good to God's enemies, so that He can pour coals of fire on their heads. "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee" (Prov. 25:21-22). "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Rom. 12:19-20).
8. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
9. I have reprinted this essay as Appendix E.
10. This means every graduate liberal arts program except at unaccredited Bob Jones University.
11. William E. Diehl, "A Guided-Market Response," in Robert Clouse (ed.), Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1984), p. 66.
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