Boundaries for Behavior

Deuteronomy 19:14

The Reformer's Fire
/\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exposition by Max A Forsythe

Question 75:
What is forbidden in the eighth commandment?
Answer 75:
The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth, or may, unjustly hinder our own or our neighbor's wealth or outward estate.

Thomas Watson begins his discussion on the eighth commandment with these words: "The thing forbidden in this commandment, is meddling with another man's property. The civil lawyers define furtum, stealth or theft to be 'the laying hands unjustly on that which is another;' the invading another's rights." The Larger Catechism gives us even more detail of how another's rights might be invaded:

"The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment ... are: theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves?

Quite a bit of information to comprehend, isn't there? Years ago, someone asked if we could study this commandment briefly. I agreed to lead a few week's study of the commandment and its requirements. I got in trouble the very first evening when we discussed bribery as a means of transferring wealth from one person to another. Of course, that was wrong, everyone initially agreed. At least until I pulled out a handful of grocery coupons as an example of the all too common bribery! I don't think I've upset a Bible Study any more than that time except when I casually announced that the hundreds of stamps that we had been licking week after week for envelopes contained two calories of glue each! So as I well understand, the ins and outs of the eighth commandment can certainly challenge each and every one of us at a level that we might prefer not to know.

Thomas Watson pointed out in his commentary that theft would include any part of the Lord's Day that we kept for ourselves or more seriously the stealing of men and women from Christ's church by teaching them heresy. To this day, I well remember a painful discussion in a liberal Seminary where I raised the question about a pastor's responsibility to teach carefully the full counsel of God as it was revealed in the Scriptures. The group decided there was something worse than that. A minister could actually remind people of sin until they felt too guilty about sins that were no longer considered sinful. Judge not that ye be not judged was a favorite text to limit the discipline of Christ's Church. When two seminary students were involved in a menage a trois, the major concern of the administration was that too many of us were rushing to judgment.

And so it goes, that attitude has certainly grown by leaps and bounds since in the last twenty-five years since I graduated from that spiritually impoverished institution. What you and I have experienced in the last fifty years is the wholesale theft of Christ's institutions by ruthless people who disbelieve our God and King. A mere robber on the highway has a better hope for redemption than those who have corrupted the institutions and organizations of Christ's Church. Remember, it was a common robber who found hope in paradise with Christ, when they were both being crucified.

Let us continue to the more materialistic of the vices with which this commandment is concerned. Theft and robbery are first mentioned whereby a person is separated from their property by stealth or force. Kidnapping or involuntary servitude, as we might define it, is mentioned in passing as one serious enough to warrant the death penalty. Now let us be careful in our understanding here. Slavery of course is a wicked institution still kept alive in the most dogmatic Muslim areas. And while there were those at one time who argued to maintain their peculiar institution, the concept of perpetual subjugation is foreign to the ordering of Scriptures within geographic areas where the people may claim subjection to our God and King.

Yes, temporary involuntary servitude to work off debts, to learn a craft or to make restitution for wrongs done, may have a place within the legal framework of a godly nation. These three contract relationships have been practiced within civilized countries under both Old & New Covenants.

Involuntary military service also has its place, even within the tradition of English Common Law. However, what may constitutionally be done in defense of the state or nation may not be done when troops are dispatched beyond the borders. Whenever Washington's Continental Army crossed a state border, the local militia of the state that was left usually went home and the militia of the entered state would be called out to serve within the boundaries of that State. Only the Continental Line or Congress' own regiments were legally bound by enlistment to fight outside their home states. True, volunteer militia were to be had aplenty at Boston, Saratoga, Cowpens and Yorktown where important victories were won. The same may be said for the federalized regiments of 1812, Mexico and the Civil War.

However, conscription for use within the whole of these United States was a matter of debate during the Civil War. As the centralized power of the Federal government grew so did its use of drafted personnel. Yet even today, we might legitimately argue that the use of draftees beyond the borders of the United States is a violation of our constitutional form of government.

The reception of stolen goods, fraudulent dealing, and false weights & measures are all business practices that have been common in the market place. Years ago when I sold fresh eggs I had a set of scales that carefully defined the assorted sizes. However, since I was not a corporation, I could not legally sell by weight. Since I worked in a grocery store at the time, I would often pick dozens of eggs out of the cooler and weigh them to see how the legal competition was doing. I was usually appalled that where I could not legally gain a true value for my product, the corporate powers could regularly package their product one size higher than actuality.

Also in the course of buying and selling farm commodities over the years. I have on occasion stopped doing business with people whose scales I did not trust. And it always amazed me that a scale for truck borne goods are commonly allowed a fifty pound differential whereas my store scales were much more accurate. It hurts when you buy by the truck load, then clean and sack by the ounce. Shrink they call it in the trade and cash discounts of two per cent are usually allowed and accepted by common consent. As you can see there are boundaries to accepted business procedure even when the exact letter of the law is not faithfully applied. In our day, I would guess these somewhat liberalized boundaries are allowed because the labor necessary to meet more accurate standards is more expensive than the common shrink allowed.

Our next item in the removal of boundaries is where I picked up my theme from today's text. Legal definitions of land ownership are carefully and faithfully maintained in every county courthouse. I remember a story of a corporation that decided to expand its warehouse. They cut down a row of pine trees against the wishes of an elderly woman next door because, their surveyor claimed her trees were planted within the corporate property. The lady objected and took the company to court where it was discovered that she indeed knew where her legal boundaries were. The company then had to pay for the property they had "stolen", the trees they had destroyed and the court costs. I don't know, but if I had been the widow, I think I would have made them tear down the wall of their building and plant some new trees!

The next item of injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts or matters of trust are newly complicated in the last thirty-five years. At one time, gentlemen could make deals in the millions on the shaking of hands. Now, any contractual obligation is full of pitfalls and opportunities for legal profit. I remember when I purchased our home. I did so with a five hundred dollar deposit and a handshake. Ten days later, the loan was completed and we moved into the property. Just try that in any county in Ohio today! What once took ten days will now take thirty to ninety!

The last nine corruptions are defined by the Larger Catechism as unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves. Here is where the bribery of coupons might be defined? One of these archaic terms I had to look up. That was the engrossing of commodities. This has to do with the purchase in large quantities some object of trade so that a profit might be had from the common fluctuation in prices. This was how so many farmers were separated from the land in the last seventy-five years by government price supports. So the depolulations and unjust enclosures of the catechism fit well in this regard.

I am also reminded of an event in the seventies. One year in the late seventies I sold some steers that I had raised. I made over $800 profit on the farm that year, in a year when few farmers made anything. Unfortunately, when the taxes were all figured, the government took every cent of that money for which I had pitched a barnful of manure! In that same year an enterprising lawyer invested a $1,000 in cattle futures and collected a hundred fold profit! Believe me, there wasn't that much profit to be made in cattle in the late seventies. But then I only live in a brown house and that lawyer now lives in a white house! Go figure how injustice was manipulated in the vast complexities of a commodity market that while legal is barely biblical.

I would guess that if this eighth commandment were faithfully employed in our market economy, then hard work, dedication and common sense would be much more rewarding than they currently are! Of course, some would attempt to use the courts to settle things. However, when a Texas rancher sued a talk show host for sending cattle prices south, his case was dismissed as only a vexatious lawsuit, which it probably was in truth. However, when you are sitting on sixty to seventy head of cattle and the price drops to half what you and your sons borrowed for them, you do tend to get a little upset. I admit, I was cheering for the Texas rancher. In light of the eighth commandment, I guess the recent cattlemen's pursuit of Ophra's riches is more like the recent unfolding of the United Dairy Farmer's lawsuit where a truly vexatious lawsuit appears to have happened by conspiracy.

Just remember, we are only two-thirds of our way through the boundaries of behavior on this commandment. Have we touched your pocketbook just yet? Or should I say, have we touched your heart? Sometimes, we here in America get the two confused. The late Barry Goldwater once campaigned under the phrase "In your heart, you know he is right". But, that election like too many American elections was decided by pocket book economics. Let us not confuse our head and hearts with our economic well being. But let us be challenged by the teachings of Scripture and live economically so as to glorify our God and King even as we dedicate our hearts and minds to Him as well.

Return to
Christ Covenant REFORMED (Presbyterian Church in America)
Westminster Shorter Catechism Series