Eighth Commandment

Rights of Strangers

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Restitution & Forgiveness

Lesson: Rights of Strangers

Genre: Speech

Track: 91

Dictation Name: RR130AX91

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Our scripture is Exodus 22:21-24. The Rights of Strangers, Widows, and Orphans. “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.”

This law contains the rights of strangers, widows, and orphans appears not only in this passage, Exodus 22:21-24, but also in Exodus 23:9, and in Leviticus 19:33-34. These laws deal with people whose rights are easily endangered, people who are basically helpless.

The reference to foreigners, or strangers, is basically to permanent residents of the community. The word here does not refer to a foreigner who is traveling through the country or to a foreign businessman. There is a reason for this, a person who is a foreigner doing business in the country, his relationship to the people are governed by the normal relationships of business, the laws of business, the laws of regular conduct with regard to any kind of business or social dealings, but this law specifies, in particular, foreigners who are permanent residents of the community. In Leviticus 19:33-34, the Hebrew indicates that the foreigners referred to are aliens who have become believers.

There is a reason why these people are singled out for special mention in the law, precisely because they are permanent residents in the community, there is likely to be far more in the way of problems with them. They are closer, more intimately related to the life of the people than a foreign businessman. The closer people are to us, the more likely are there problems. It is earlier to have problems with your husband or wife, or children than with someone who lives ten miles away. This is why the closer the relationship, the more precise the law in scripture.

The law declares that such people are not to vex, that is, in the old fashioned sense of the term, oppress, done injustice to, wronged. The word refers to specific, aggressive, and discriminatory acts. The discrimination that is barred is any act not permitted by God’s word. It is one of God’s making, that is permissible but the discrimination which is of man’s making is forbidden. Israel is reminded of its own experience in Egypt. “For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Now, this point is important, because this law is one that is very, very often used today in the churches in chorus with integration. We are told that here we have the legal precedence in scripture for mandatory integration. This is a curious usage of this passage, because the people who make use of it don’t believe in the law to begin with, and they throw the law overboard with every other point, except where they find something to beat the people over the head with when they want to {?} integration.

Now, what is the reference here? “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” What was their situation in Egypt? As a matter of fact, it was segregation, both in its good and bad periods. Thus, when Israel first went into Egypt, for some time thereafter, they lived very happily and prosperously when they were segregated in the land of Goshen. An entire section of the country was set apart for them, not because they were entitled to it, but because here was some land that was not in use and Pharaoh said you can move into that area. The reason for giving them that area was precisely because segregation was most desirable for congenial relationships. The Israelites were sheepherders, and we are told that a sheepherder, anyone connected with sheep, was an abomination to the Egyptians. We’ve had that problem in this country. We had, in the West, during the last century and lingering, well into this century into the twenties, range wars between sheep men and cattlemen. They do not get along. There are still hostilities in some areas, and so Pharaoh put the Israelites, sheep men, into one area of the country, segregating them. Israel was very happy with that arrangement. This was not the problem of Israel and Egypt. It was that they were enslaved, compulsory, forced, labor was required of them. Then in order to eliminate them, all their male children were sentenced to death. Thus, the evil in Egypt of which the lost {?} was not segregation, their segregation in Goshen was a blessing to them. The evil was oppression.

Moreover, precisely because this is law, it is limited. Law is always limited in its jurisdiction. It requires justice therefore, for {?}, not social relations. “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him.” You shall not permit aggressive acts against him, depriving him of justice, nor pass legislation designed to rob him of his rights. It does not call, therefore, for any kind of compulsory integration. It requires justice. The idea of compelling people to associate in spite of their personal feelings, was as alien to biblical law as anything could be. Life then was family, or clan life, closely knit. There was a great deal of hospitality toward strangers. It required Abraham reading to strangers and feeding them. This kind of hospitality was commonplace. This kind of hospitality, let me add, was commonplace in much of the West for a long time and still is in many of the isolated areas, where any strangers entitled to help when he needs it from any ranchers. But this does not mean that this entitles him to have any social relations with him. If you’re in trouble and {?} ranching country, it is amazing how much help is forthcoming. Even to emergency housing to take you in, to feed you, to make sure you get on your way, but it’s a serious mistake to assume that the next time you see these people, this entitles you to feel that they are your friends. Help, to a person in need, is one thing. Social relations, another.

Life was closely knit. Abraham {?} all his hospitality to any and every stranger, his rescue as the Canaanites from the Babylonians captivity that they were subjected to did not mean that he felt that there was any necessity to associate with them. He sent back to Haran for a bride for his son.

We are told moreover, that this law is important and violates {?} a very serious and {?}. The law is placed immediately in Exodus after laws against defection, against idolatry, and against witchcraft, and Doug Rollinson, commenting on this in the last century wrote, “The juxtaposition of laws against {?} was three kinds of {?} intended to indicate that oppression is among the sins which are most hateful in God’s sight. The lawgiver, however, does not say that it is to be punished {?} nor indeed does he affix to it any legal penalty. Instead of so doing, he declares that God himself will punish it with the sword. Three classes of persons, particularly liable to {?} for mention. Strangers, foreigners, widows, and orphans.” The reason why God considers such an oppression very serious is because it indicates that to all possible intent, there is no law in that country. {?} law gives protection to all who are law-abiding, whether weak or unable to get protection because they are weak, no law exists. If the law discriminates against any group, then it is simply classed legislation, not a law. With the weak are discriminated against because they are weak, or the rich because they are rich, then the law is an instrument of oppression. {?} law discriminates but it discriminates against wrongdoers. The reason why no penalties are affixed to this law is because the law already provides penalties for the specific crime, that is, for theft, restitution, for murder, death, and so on. Widows and orphans are also included in this law.

Now, it is important as we analyze this law, to look again at the title: The Rights of Strangers, Widows, & Orphans. The term “right” is very common in our time. Various groups demand that their rights, but in a very real sense, there are no such things as rights, and I’ve used the word only in order to call attention to the fact that it is improper. The only right any man has in a common law, God’s law, which establishes right, rather than rights. So that whenever and wherever anyone is in the right, then he is in the clear. Then he has protection. The right of anyone minority group is precisely in a common law, not in legislation that singles him out for special privileges. The idea of civil rights, or minority rights, or labor rights, or rights of capital means basically, special privileges, and the welfare and the defense of any and every man is in not the prevalence of rights, but in the rule of right, and only when you have God’s law, not class law, do you have right.

Any order, therefore, without justice is an order in which there are no rights because there is no right. Such an order is then subject, according to our scripture, to the judgment of God. One very leftist scholar, in analyzing this law, admits a very significant point as he compares it with the Code of Hammurabi. According to Dr. Rolarsdam{?}, “What is uniquely stressed here is the immediate and dynamic role that God, at his {?} plays in his concern for and accomplishment of justice. He is directly related to the historical process, and has not, like an absentee, entrusted his work to an agent, such as Hammurabi, who can play an independent role.” This is very much to the point. God says, “I am the supreme court.” He declares emphatically, “If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” If you take advantage of the helpless, then your loved ones shall be reduced to a similar helplessness.

Over and over again, the law makes this point. For example, in Deuteronomy 10:17-19, we read, “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: he doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The rabbi Rashe{?} declares, “The blemish which is upon thyself thou shalt not notice in thy neighbor.”

However, there is an important point in this verse. He does declare that where the courts are lawless, the supreme court of Almighty God must be appealed to, and as God declares, “I will surely hear their cry.”

Thus, the point we must remember is that the suffering of afflicted people is not the same as the concern for justice. There are many, many people all over the world today who are suffering. These injustices perpetrated by the various governments of Asia and Africa, as well as of the Western world are very, very serious, but those who are suffering may be as disinterested in justice as their oppressors, and as ready to persecute and oppress if given the opportunity.

This is one of the things that caused the abolitionists too much grief in the last century. Incidentally, a great deal of the abolitionist’s literature is fraudulent. Many, many books were written ostensibly by rescued slaves. These rescued slaves gave the usual horror stories, and they breathed a very sanctimonious piety, and spoke endlessly of spending long hours on their knees in prayer to the Lord before they were delivered by the Underground Railroad and taken into the North. Now without making any excuse for slaveholders in the South, the fact remains that these documents were largely manufactured in the abolitionist’s offices in the North. A slave was rescued, the Underground Railroad, was taken to New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. He would sit in the office and tell his story in an hour or two, to an abolitionist writer, who would then proceed to write a book of 400-500 pages about this slave experience, writing in the first person as though he were the slave, and his story would be highly inflated. It would breathe with sanctimonious piety. It would give a very, very dishonest picture. So when you read these stories, you must remember they were {?} manufactured in offices.

What proved to be an embarrassment for these abolitionists, both in this country and Europe, was the radical lack of justice among so many of these breeds. In London, one breed, Negro, complained of his poverty after a period of time as a free man, and the reason why he complained was that he had sold all his relatives back into slavery and now there was no one left to sell and he was poor.

Thus, the afflicted may be as disinterested in justice as their oppressors, and it is easy for us to make serious mistakes here. We’ve had a serious murder in the mine worker’s union of late. It is easy for everyone to assume that the murdered man was the innocent one, and that the union leaders were the evil ones, but is this necessarily true? Yablonsky{?} was involved with the union leaders up until about a year ago, when suddenly he switched sides and began to attack the union leaders. Why the sudden switch? He had been party to everything that he was accusing the others of. Was his interest in justice or was it in power? The fact that wrong is on one side does not make the other side necessarily right, and the fact that the union is in the wrong doesn’t make the business, the party into right.

Thus, what our scripture tells us is that there must be an appeal for justice, an appeal for justice to Almighty God, an appeal not only for deliverance but for justice. Where there is no appeal for justice, there is no interest in justice. In that case, God’s judgment descends when it finally comes{?} on all parties involved.

God, as the supreme court, declares his concern for justice, and this justice is meted out with an even hand. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee for thy sovereign word, and we thank thee, our Father, that thy word is mindful of us in our every condition, and in our every relation. Make us ever mindful as we complain about the problems of this world, that we are not without guilt. Unless our cry is for justice, and unless we appeal from the courts of men to thy court, O Lord, give us therefore, ever a zeal for justice, and make us every petitioners of thy supreme court. Grant us this spirit, we beseech thee, in Jesus name. Amen.

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

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. The Japanese were very, very unjustly interned. It was the epitome of injustice, the demand for it came from the Salinas area, where a number of very powerful democrats who were in the vegetable business, especially the lettuce business, wanted to eliminate their Japanese competitors, and so they appeal to Washington, and FDR went along with them. It is significant that there was no one to remember the Japanese in Hawaii, which militarily was far, far more important. Moreover, within a matter of an hour or two after Pearl Harbor, every Japanese agent in this country had been picked up by the FBI. They had broken the Japanese code, this is why I was pointed out, they knew that Pearl Harbor was going to take place and invited it, but they also knew who all the agents were. They not only knew that, but they knew the background and histories of every Japanese who might be a student or a visitor in this country.

For example, at the time of Pearl Harbor, I knew an Episcopalian clergyman, Japanese, who was doing graduate work in this country. He had been in the Imperial Airforce some years earlier, had served, had gotten his discharge, had been subsequently converted, had come here and had studied. He was among those who had been picked up. Of course, he was released almost immediately. They simply wanted to check on him, but what this man stated was very interesting. They knew more about him than he could remember about himself. They had so complete a file{?} on his past history, because of his military service. Every kind of association, many had {?}, so that as he said, he was reminded of a lot of things he had forgotten when they went through his file. They knew all they needed to know, and had the situation well in hand. The internment of the Japanese was purely political, and it was unjust. Many of them lost permanently. They never recouped their forces. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] The {?} west of Egypt because of famine conditions that prevailed in Canaan, and they had a {?} reception in Egypt because Joseph was there as prime minister of Egypt, Joseph, the son of Jacob. The latter part of the book of Genesis gives us this very moving and dramatic story. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] A good question. Is this country blessed for its help to the oppressed peoples of the world? I think in the past, this country has been richly blessed because it has been, in the last century, a major help and a disinterested help to all the oppressed people of the world. Our reputation all over the world was extremely high. For example, the Boxer Rebellion in China at the beginning of the century. The Boxer Rebellion was a rebellion on the part of fanatical Chinese nationalists against all foreign interests, and there is no question that because China was weak at that time, under the Manchu Dynasty, many foreign powers were more or less running the country and taking advantage of the Chinese. When the Boxer Rebellion ended, the United States intervened with the powers. We, too, had suffered. Many Americans and American missionaries had lost their lives there, but we intervened to prevent any exploitation of China or any {?} up of China by the great power. We stipulated that there had to be reparations for the damages done. The restitution that had to be made, and that’s exactly what we required, in biblical {?}, the restitution that was made to the U.S. government, we than took and set up as special funds for scholarships for the Chinese to carry on all kinds of work in China for the welfare of the Chinese, and in every way, made our influence as high{?} all over the world, with a {?} sense of justice and a kindliness we showed, so that the United States came out, well, the world was amazed that even in a situation where we had been hurt badly, we showed such Christian forbearance as well as justice.

The sad fact is that we exploited the power we gained by our {?} since World War 1, to interfere now in foreign affairs. We went into Korea with mixed motives, very clearly. Our interference in Korea was very, very unhappy. First, we invited the invasion of South Korea after having unjustly surrendered North Korea to the communists. We had consistently interfered there. We have not really been interested in fighting communism in South Vietnam. If we had, we would have worked to overthrow the communists, very clearly, there and here. So, right now, our reputation is very poor all over the world, because whereas once we took a part in foreign affairs, in the interest of justice, now it has played politics in terms of an American foreign policy which is seriously disgusted{?}. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Right. A good point. It is called the Bill of Rights, but the term “rights” is not correct, especially if it is used today, and of course, this is not the title of it. It’s really the first ten amendments to the Constitution. There is no legal title, the Bill of Rights, attended to it. Any other questions?

Well, our time is just about over. I’d like to remind you of the notices on the lectern in the back. Please pick one up and read it. This is concerning our “Get Acquainted dinner,” on Saturday, March 7, 1970, 6:00 p.m. at the Encino Women’s Club. Please read it carefully and then let Edith Stafford and Peggy North know of your plans to come, so that we know in advance how many we shall have. We’re looking forward to having you there and having a good opportunity for a social hour, as well as a little program apparently, that the women are planning. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] One little item, the family weekly of the Santa Ana Register last week, or two weeks ago, had a very, very interesting article, entitled The $40 Billion Question, Should All Mothers Get a Salary?” This is the proposal now being made. I wonder if you caught the implications of that. The purpose, of course, is to destroy the family, because of the mother gets a salary, she can thumb her nose, of course, then at her husband and she can go her own way. She’s not dependent on her husband for the care and the welfare of her children. It gives her total independence, and it will be a very deadly thing if and when it is adopted. Then also, in the Herald Examiner, for February 6th, Joan Kaiser’s report on the new size, titled “Decadence By Design,” and the point that she makes is that the sin syndrome has started and its sin to be evil. This is the new sinning inside.

Then, another item, and this kind of thing appears almost daily in the papers, because it’s becoming so routine, and the title “Dismiss Narcotics Charge Because of Clerical Error.” There was a failure to cross out the word “daytime” on the warrant, and as a result, the arrest of a narcotic pusher who has a long record as a pusher, was made null and void. The kind of decisions now being given are making arrests almost impossible.

I think you all saw the case recently, in San Bernardino, when a couple who were narcotics pushers were arrested on a warrant, and then the whole thing was thrown out, because they had kept all the narcotics in the baby’s diapers, and the warrant did not specify any right to search or seize the baby. In other words, arrest is becoming impossible. This is what happens under humanistic law.

Well, our time is up.

End of tape