IBL07: Seventh Commandment

The Family as Trustee

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 13-20

Genre: Talk

Track: 66

Dictation Name: RR130AJ66

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

1 Kings 21:1-14; The Family as Trustee.

“21 And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.

2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.

3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.

4 And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.

5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?

6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard.

7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.

9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:

10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.

12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people.

13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead.”

There are certain interesting aspects of our divorce situation today which are too seldom considered. They are however, basic to any understanding of marriage and the family. First of all, the overwhelming percentage of divorces are secured by women, not by men. The average, depending on the state runs to between 7 and 9 out of every 10 divorces are secured by women.

Now it is of course true that many of these are actually divorces that the man has demanded, and with a kind of (façade?) asks the woman to get it, but he is pushing for it. But in spite of this studies do indicate that in divorces the initiative is usually on the part of the woman.

Second, another interesting item with respect to divorces is that the better the income, the less likely a divorce. In the early 1950’s, not too long after WW2 a very extensive study was made of who got a divorce. And the study showed that those earning less than $3000, which at that time was not too bad an income, were 2-4 times as likely to be divorced as men earning over $4000. The lower the income, the more likely a divorce.

This of course runs contrary to popular opinion, because the divorce cases that do hit the papers are prominent people. Well-to-do figures. Actually the overwhelming percentage of divorces then and today will be found among people with a lower income.

Then third, the overwhelming percentage of desertions by men are by men of a very low income. They desert their families and go off under another name into another community.

Now these three items, which as I stated earlier are generally overlooked, are very, very telling facts. They indicate that very clearly a major restraint on divorce is the possession of property. It is not because men are less sinful than women that most divorces are not initiated by men, it is because the man having worked for the property is less anxious to see it broken up.

The men desert when they do not have property. Women are similarly less likely to leave a marriage if the inducement of property and income is strong enough. In other words, property is an important restraint on divorce, and a major stabilizing force in society.

Now while these facts are not popularly known, they are very, very well known to sociologists, and to political theorists. But, when the state begins to dispossess the family of property, and to replace the family as the custodian of property, the marriage tie is harmed. As socialism increases, in other words, the stability of marriage decreases. Similarly as the state enters into the other great realm of family authority, the control of children, similarly, the stability of marriage decreases.

Because socially, the two great area of the family authority and function are on the one hand children, and on the other property. The family is the custodian of children and property. Its role with respect to children includes education and religion. Thus when the family is functioning properly, and is strong and the state has not entered into its area, the state is not in the business of education. This is a function of the family. Similarly, the family gives the child the basic religious education, not the state schools.

Thus children and property are the two great social function of the family, and today socialism claims both areas.

As a result the family is weakened. The family as I indicated has these two social functions. This means therefore that the family is a working body. A working entity. When the family is struck by the forces of socialism, the family is no longer seen as a working body, a working partnership. Then romance is seen as the function of marriage, to fulfill the romantic urge in man. And so a great deal is said about romance and love, and marital bliss, and all this nonsense. And if you lose that feeling of bliss, then you break up the marriage.

The state, having struck at the function of the family replaces it with an emotional fulfillment. An emotional fulfillment when not felt means the dissolution of the marriage. Because the Bible very clearly sees, property and children as the social function of the family, it sees marriage with tenderness, but not romantically. The Bible describes marriage very realistically. Saint Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 described it as a yoke. YOKE. A yoke. Now a yoke, perhaps has to be explained in this day when most people are city born, but a yoke is a tie which binds two creatures together, two oxen or two horses, or two mules, as they pull a burden, to enable them to pull it together. The Bible speaks of marriage as a yoke.

Husband and wife are yoked together in order to pull a common burden, so it does involve a burden. Again Saint Paul describes it as trouble in the flesh, in 2st Corinthians 7:28, or as Moffat renders it, as outward trouble. Marriage in other words means assuming certain responsibilities, and having a life of continuing trouble, because responsibilities always bring with them problems, troubles.

Is it any wonder that marriages are in trouble today, when people brought up on the romantic conception of marriage find as they marry that there are burdens attached to it, and troubles attached to it, and somehow this isn’t what marriage is supposed to be they say. But in terms of the Biblical perspective, the yoke and the troubles are important. It is a partnership in dealing with the burden and the troubles, and the joy comes in doing this together, in meeting the responsibilities as a working partnership in the service of God, exercising dominion in an appointed sphere.

Proverbs over and over again reveals this perspective. Incidentally, it is significant that proverbs has no reference whatsoever to polygamy, indicating that this was a rarity in Israel; the normal, every day marriage of man was monogamous. Proverbs speaks of the duties of husband and wife together, to be wise stewards of that which is theirs, the wealth, the property which is theirs. Of their duty to instruct their children in God’s law and in family discipline; and the partnership is spoken of as either a joy or a disaster. For example Proverbs 14:1 says: “Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.” In other words on the wife depends much of the families stability, on her ability to be a wise burden bearer, and to bring together the authority of the Father and the obedience of the children.

As a result in Proverbs 18:22 we read: “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.”

Again in Proverbs 19:14 “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.”

Thus the inheritance we receive from our parents is houses and riches, but the inheritance from God is a prudent wife.

Proverbs 12:4 declares: “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

A crown to her husband, a virtuous woman, that is, he is like a King, his authority and his ability to exercise dominion is crowned, whereas she that maketh ashamed is as rot in his bones.

Now as we have seen, this partnership of man and wife is as custodians of property, as well as custodians of children. The family is the God-given, God appointed custodian of these things. We saw earlier the significance of the dowry, and it is well to restate it briefly in this connection. The dowry was to begin the family in terms of property, because property is so basic to the life of the family. And so, the dowry was required, it was not as anthropologists say, a ‘bride purchase’ because it was handed in Biblical law, by the bridegroom to the wife, it was a bride gift, a bridal gift. It was the main wedding gift. And marriage in Biblical times was only legal with the dowry. We don’t very often hear of it today, but the dowry was for untold centuries an institution of English and American law. Not too many decades ago the law was changed in this respect, so that the dowry in terms of law today, of the wife, is community property. And this was originally spoken of as her dower, and I am sure in many states the community property provisions of the law probably still read that this is a wife’s dower.

This is in terms of Biblical law, except that the modern dower in law has this weakness: responsibility is not required before marriage, so if the man has no property, then there is really no dowry for the widow. But in terms of Biblical law he had to prove his sense of responsibility, and accumulate some wealth before he could marry.

The Biblical family can be compared to a corporation. There are differences. The corporation is an artificial, legal person created by the state, and of course this is not true of the family. But, a corporation does not die when its officers die. It continues to exist legally apart from them, and all its stockholders continue to draw dividends from it, so that as long as the corporation is showing a profit and is not bankrupt, it is alive. It is a legal person that does not die apart from bankruptcy.

Now, similarly in terms of scripture, a family is a corporation. It has dividends to the children in terms of care, support, and inheritance. To the parents in terms of care and respect, and honor, and provision for their old age if they require it. The corporation officers therefore can not administer the property for purely personal benefits, but in terms of the corporation.

We saw the laws of inheritance earlier and how they required that the ungodly be disinherited, and those most responsible be blessed. Now in terms of this concept of the family as a corporation in Scripture we can understand our text. It is the familiar story of Naboth and his vineyard. Naboth’s vineyard was close to Ahab’s palace and palace grounds. A paradoxical situation, Naboth representing the old conservative religious faith of Israel, a zealous believer. Ahab, the modern kingdom. A statist to the core, an unbeliever. Outwardly paying lip service to God, but inwardly completely pragmatic. Ahab decided he wanted Naboth’s vineyard. He wanted it to make certain gardens as an addition to the palace grounds. He offered to Naboth a better vineyard or a good sum of money for it. It is clear from Ahab’s language that he is ready to be as generous as necessary, because he wanted that property.

Naboth’s answer was significant. Naboth said: “The Lord,” (or Jehovah) “forbiddeth me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” Naboth never even considered for a moment the aspect of personal profit. This was an inheritance from his fathers, each of whom had worked lovingly to improve this land. To make it and its house, the land, the walls thereof, as fine and beautiful as possible. Naboth had worked to improve it. He saw it therefore as not merely a personal property, but as a trust from the past to the future, through him. And therefore the aspect of purely personal profit was not in the picture. He was a trustee under God, and therefore to think of himself at the moment is out of the question. His forefathers before him had built it up as an estate. Every stone in the walls of the vineyard, every stone in the house represented the work of someone before him, a loving addition. It was an inheritance from the past, to the future.

And therefore he could not consider it atomistically, purely personal. And hence he refused. In other words, Naboth saw the family as a corporation. And he as the present executive officer of the corporation. And so he looked to the past and the future when he made his decision. We can understand therefore why Naboth represented so conservative a tradition in the midst of all the modern debauchery of Ahab’s power and kingdom. He had been brought up in this context of the family as trustee, a trustee that handed down a faith and a property, that had roots in a particular place and in terms of that faith that God had blessed them with.

And Ahab destroyed this. When the state enters into the control of children or property, and transgresses the sphere of the family, and claims to be the true corporation, whose life is the care of the family, it sins mightily. And it destroys people with roots to create the rootless, atomistic, modern man.

This modern man has no thought but: “What is in it for me now?” We meet this modern man all the time, every day around us. One of the places where I find it is most interesting to encounter the mentality of modern man is in Ann Landers column, I find it very instructive for that reason. She herself reveals a great deal of this modernity. But in the past few days there was this very interesting column. A letter by a man:

“Dear Ann Landers. Why don’t you level with the men who write? Tell them they are crazy to get married before they are 35. Then if they have any brains they should choose a chick who is at least ten years younger than themselves. If they can get one 15 years younger, better yet. I may be (?) I got married straight out of college at 22 before I knew what life was all about. The bride was 22 also, my childhood sweetheart. Another stupid mistake. We kept our home together until the kids were out of high school, and it cost me $50,000 plus the house to unload the old tomato. But it was worth it. I passed a petition around the office today, it read: “I agree that all women should be shot when they reach 40.” Every married man in the office over 30 signed it. Doesn’t this prove that I have a point?”

I won’t read all of her answer because she was really steaming at that, except to say: “Dear Henry, Yes, you have a point, but maybe if wear a hat maybe nobody will notice it.”

Well, the real point is that this man was right in terms of his humanistic presupposition. Because after all if you are humanist and there is no moral law, it is every man for himself, and every woman for herself. And I would like to see the petition in the office the women may have circulated about the same time. I think that may have been better yet.

After all, in terms of humanism, the only point of marriage becomes egoistic self-satisfaction, it becomes a lawless union. It produces lawless children, and a lawless society in which there is no respect for authority or for property. There is no reliance then on God, only on the power of sex.

And so, when there is boredom, there is disintegration. The family begins to disappear in such a society, it is replaced by a purely pragmatic arrangement of men and women who happen to have children.

The family is important to society. Its faith and nature determine the future. Only when the family again sees itself in terms of its God given function can the family again determine the future. The family again must be a trustee. A trustee that feels a responsibility handed down by God, and by the forefathers, to be conveyed as Naboth felt, to the future. Naboth saw everything that he had, Lands, Vineyard, his faith, as an inheritance from the past and as a trust for the future. As a good steward, he probably increased the value of everything he had, but he did not regard it as his own, but as something to administer under God, to the glory of God, and for the future of his family and therefore of the (?).

There are trustee families outside of Biblical faith. But they are futile things. For example the ancient Chinese family system was a trustee family type. But it was past-bound because of its ancestor worship. And so it was nothing but the dead hand of the past forever binding society, and therefore it had to be broken. But the trustee family of scripture is future oriented; it is conveying something from the past to the future, improving on it, developing it, in order that there may be a better future for one’s children and grandchildren. The Bible is always future oriented. The humanist has no future, because it has no law.

Ann Landers correspondent as a logical humanist has no concern for tomorrow; ‘what is in it for me now?’ and any woman over 40 was not a part of his now. He got rid of his wife, and was very disgusted that it cost him so much. For him as a typically modern man, only the existential moment mattered. And in an age which is characterized by modernity, the existential moment as everything governs the minds and actions of men. The consequence is the destruction of society. A contempt for the past, a disregard for the future, and a destruction of everything. But for the believer, past present and future are entirely under God, and all things together with all times, is a stewardship from God, and therefore to be dealt with only under him. Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee for Thy word. And we pray our Father that in these difficult days when men live only in terms of the moment, we by Thy grace may live in terms of the future, might mold that future, and might see its glory manifested even in our lifetimes. Bless us to this purpose we beseech Thee, in Jesus name, amen.

Are there any questions now, first of all with respect to our lesson? Yes.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the Dowry system as you meet it in Europe and in South America and in pagan cultures generally is part of the ancient European and Asiatic system, a pagan system whereby the bride in a sense bought her husband by having a big dowry to offer. And this is contrary to the Biblical pattern. But the only dowry virtually that you have today is this kind of dowry whereby the father has to provide a sizeable income in order to bribe some man to marry his daughter, and the men go around shopping for the girl with the biggest dowry. And of course this defeats the whole purpose of the dowry, which was that the man demonstrate responsibility before marriage. This prospers irresponsibility. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] A (?) yes. A fast was a time of not eating, fasting. Abstaining from food for the purpose of some kind of petition to God in time of distress, or disaster, or for a kind of special appeal to God. There was only one fast day that was required of Israel, and it was on the day of atonement, a fast only during the daylight hours, there was a banquet after dark. But, on special occasions there could be a fast. We are not told what was the fast here proclaimed, but no doubt something was invented in the way of some problem in the community since they were to gather to observe a fast and to try to determine what it was that had taken place, and what crime had been committed. We aren’t given the details. But Naboth was given the blame for whatever it was that the fast was proclaimed. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the right of eminent domain. I have a chapter on that in a forthcoming book which will be out next year, entitled the Politics of Guilt and Pity. Eminent domain is basically a pagan concept as we have it today. It asserts that the state as a kind of God has the right, the prior right to everything. Now, God asserts in scripture, the right of eminent domain. Over and over again we are told: “The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof.” That verse is repeatedly in the law, it is also in the Psalms, it is also in the New Testament. God as creator and king of the universe, claims the right to all things, to expropriate what he will. Therefore Jesus, before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem when he proclaimed himself to be the king, the messiah of prophecy, had his disciples go and expropriate, remember, the colt that he was going to ride. And to declare: “The king hath need of him, the Lord hath need of him.”

In other words he was saying: ‘I am the king, God incarnate, therefore I have the right of eminent domain.’ And of course when the man heard that, he immediately let them take the colt.

Well, the Roman state and other pagan states, because the king or emperor, or Caesar was God incarnate, claimed the right of eminent domain. And of course the European monarchs, claiming this same power, also made this claim. And this has passed into our law. It did not exist in early American law, the kings of England claimed it in the colonies, and this was one of the reasons leading to the War of Independence. There is a long history about the claim of the king to certain pine trees, for masts on the kings ships, and the kings forester would go through and mark certain pine trees, the best ones, with a kings mark. Nobody was to touch these. Well, for the New Englanders this was a sign that this was the tree to go out and cut down, because they refused to accept this right on the part of the king. And of course today the right of eminent domain has been extended, it is no longer as it was until a few years ago, the right to cease property for public necessity, for a highway or something. Earlier the roads when they were privately built toll roads, they had to buy the right of way, and if you didn’t sell they had to re-route the road.

But in recent years, simply for aesthetic purposes, for beautification, or for any reason whatsoever, the state claims the right of eminent domain; in other words, it is God. The earth is the Lords, or in this case the United States is the Federal government. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, in such a case, if they were an only son and they were ungodly, then it would be some relative who would them be adopted and would take on the family name.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] I didn’t quite hear that?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Oh if the son chose to leave?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] If he went into the city, well and good, and many of them did; then someone else in the family took over, you see. He would not be the heir there. He could be given something as a minor heir, if he were a godly son, so that: “Alright, you choose to go into the city, fine. We will give you so much as your inheritance.” But the property was maintained intact as far as possible. To this day for example in Europe, this is what some Americans find out when they go there, it is very difficult to buy land. Supposing you wanted to go to France and settle down. You may be able to find some land that some aristocrat had, he doesn’t have any deep roots and prefers to live in Paris, and you can buy his chateau or castle. But supposing you want to buy up the property of the French peasant next to the Chateau and have a little more land. He won’t sell it to you. And if you offer him a lot of money, he says: “And what will I do with the money? This land belonged to my fathers before me, I don’t have the right to sell it.” To him it is an inheritance.

Now the significance of this is that when you have this kind of feeling, it gives a background of conservatism you see, of stability in a country, which it takes untold generations to undo. And this is why of course, only because France is now dominated by the cities, that the left is able to govern the country; because while there has been a great deal of disintegration morally in the country side, there still is this strong element of conservatism there. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, he could go into the city, but then he could not have the best of two worlds, in other words. If he chose to go into the city, fine. He would not be the main heir then. He had a duty to carry on something, but if he chose to do something else, he paid the price for it. That was his freedom.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] In the city this did not apply in Biblical times, because a city is a more shifting, changing thing; so in the city this type… we will come to this when we come to property in the 8th commandment, but in the city it was recognized that life is more changing and there isn’t the same stability. But still the concept of trusteeship is a valid one everywhere, although it was the land in the country that was maintained. Because the country was to be the area of greater stability. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, of course, as we saw earlier, the Biblical law had no taxation of property, real or otherwise. This is against Biblical law. And taxation is ultimately the destruction of property. We have all seen very wonderful areas in cities which are wiped out ultimately by taxation. The taxes go up so that people can no longer afford to maintain those properties. I have seen in some cities magnificent mansions that should remain for a thousand years, go down in two or three generations simply because it was no longer practical for anyone to maintain that in view of taxation.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It destroys the inheritance, yes. Taxation is the destruction of everything, the purpose of inheritance taxes as we saw some month earlier is that the state declares it is the main heir, and therefore has first claims on an estate. Before the widow or before any of the children, the state says: “I am the main heir.”

Well, I don’t think the courts today would pay much attention to religious beliefs if they were Christian beliefs. But if they were non-Christian they might. However I think the significant thing here is that there has been a rising opinion in several states that the property tax should be abolished. We did have a measure on the ballots here in the last election which unfortunately was defeated with a tremendous volume of propaganda.

But of course, one reason why they are afraid of these things and fight them, is that it will knock their welfare system out of circulation as well as your modern public school movement. Those would be the main victims if the property tax ceases to exist. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, that is right.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It was a fixed tax for everyone, and of course this is what the Biblical law also required. A head tax, the same for everyone, therefore it could not be too high so that the poor could not pay, nor could it be varied from person to person. And of course this limited the power of the state. The state could not grow if all it had was this fixed amount. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Right, and of course there is no provision for an income tax either, in a constitution as it was originally written, it was to be duties on imports and that sort of thing. So they visualized a very, very limited amount of taxation, they were afraid of taxes. Their reaction to what we have today would certainly be one of ultimate horror.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, of course when you say that there is no head tax permitted in the constitution, this is only for the federal government. The states and the counties could assess it you see. This was to keep the Federal government from having any contact with the individual, it was only a union of the states, it was to have no power over the individual.

Well, our time is more than up, so we are adjourned.