The Ninth Commandment

The Responsibility of Judges

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Genre: Speech

Lesson: 11

Track: 110

Dictation Name: RR130BH110

Date: 1960s-70s

Our scripture is Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Deuteronomy 21:1-9, “The Responsibility of Judges and Rulers.”

“1 If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:

2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:

3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;

4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:

5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:

7 And they shall answer and say, our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.

8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.”

This law is of central importance in understanding the whole of the Bible. Indeed it can be said that if this law is not understood, then we have not understood what the Bible is talking about from one end to the other. The law that we have studied thus far points to this law, and this law throws a floodlight back on everything else that we have studied.

What this scripture tells us is that in the event of a murder (but since this is case law, it means any unsolved crime), certain steps are to be taken. In the case of a murder, the town or city nearest to which the body is located, if it be out in the field somewhere, is then responsible. If the murderer cannot be located, then the town counsel of that city must take a heifer, one which has never been bred nor has drawn the yoke, and they shall take it to a valley, one which has never been planted nor harvested and there they shall strike off the heifer’s neck. Symbolically, the punishment upon the guilty party, the murderer who cannot be located, is wrought upon the heifer in a place that has never been sown or harvested, to indicate, ‘so be it to this man who is guilty.’ And the elders of the city must wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley, and they shall declare, ‘our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, oh Lord, unto Thy people, Israel, who Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto Thy people of Israel’s charge,’ and the blood shall be forgiven them. If not, they as a people become guilty of the murder. This, then, was the procedure for murder.

A similar procedure was required for every unsolved crime. If the crime were later solved, then the man who was guilty of the murder was executed; the man guilty of theft, required to make restitution.

This law clearly asserts therefore, the responsibility of a community, and in particular of the judges and the rulers to right every wrong in a community whether the culprit is located or not. We have this, a fundamental principle, a fundamental direction of all Biblical Law, that ever wrong be righted. There’s no understanding of the Bible apart from this requirement. The Bible gives us a law order and the purpose of that law order is to right every wrong. The entire community has a responsibility to right the wrongs committed in its jurisdiction. This is an aspect of the police power of every citizen. The entire community has a responsibility to see to it that every wrong within its domain is righted. If the guilty party cannot be located, then the community must take steps to right the wrong all the same, or else it becomes guilty.

This ceremony is a ceremony of atonement. ‘So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you and thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.’

Now we cannot understand the meaning of the word atonement unless we realize atonement means restitution. The word atonement deals with the God-ward aspect basically. But it requires also a man-ward aspect. Therefore, when a crime is committed within a jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of the authorities to right the wrong committed. The murderer must be executed, but his estate is also liable for the damages to the victim’s family. If not, the community must make good the difference. Moreover, if there has been a theft, the thief, when apprehended must make restitution. If he has stolen $100, he must refund the $100 plus another $100 fine on him. If the thief is not located, the community must make restitution. Every wrong must be righted. This is the responsibility that is placed upon a community by God’s Law.

The State, therefore, cannot absolve itself of guilt, nor can the people, if there is an unsolved crime. The only way the individual in a community that does not make restitution for unsolved crimes, or for any crime, can absolve himself of guilt is to witness against it and to uphold in his life the principle of restitution.

It is God’s principle that every wrong be righted. This was grasped as a legal principle by Christendom. Until fairly recent times in Great Britain, this was still the law. If a crime were committed within a jurisdiction, and it was not solved, and restitution could not be made, a fine was levied upon the entire district (if there were not enough fines that had accumulated in the court funds) in order to compensate the person who had been robbed, or the family of the murdered man. It was this background that gave England for so long a period, a reputation for being law-abiding. Crime did not pay under those circumstances.

The absence of such a law makes crime profitable. In many counties of the United States, we find situations of wide-open lawlessness. Such counties thrive on this situation. Perhaps there is an army camp nearby, or it is a tourist center. And as a result, this particular county or city will make itself a haven for lawlessness and for mafia activities. People are freely murdered, gambling joints defraud people regularly, all kinds of extortion prevails. But it is profitable by and large for the community at large because money is flowing readily in the community. If for everyone robbed, for everyone murdered, compensation were exacted, you would very quickly see law and order restored to such communities. Crime then would not pay. But as things exist today, crime is profitable.

This law, moreover, requires the presence of the Levites in the courtroom. ‘And the priests, the sons of Levi shall come near. For them, the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him and to bless in the name of the Lord. And by their word shall every controversy and ever stroke be tried.’ Or, ‘by their judgment, the character of the act shall be decided,’ that last pause can be translated. This is one of many instances in the law where the presence of the Levite, that is the religious leader who is trained in the Law of God is mandatory in the courtroom, because the law must be the Law of God. And ultimately while the civil judges weight the evidences and decide the case, the law that is to be applied and the nature of the application of the law is a religious question and is decided by experts in the interpretation of the Hebrew phrasing of the Law.

This law is a principle valid not only for the State but also for the Church, because its basic principle is that every wrong must be righted. The usual answer today in Church and State is not to solve a problem, but to evade it. Any number of us could think at the moment of churches where the answer to the problem is to change pastors. This means that the same trouble-makers are there, or the same trouble-making pastor is simply shifted on to another church. The wrong is not righted, it is simply evaded. And the meaning of this law very clearly is that those who do not make atonement, restitution, who do not right every wrong, accumulate guilt and the blood is not forgiven them.

We saw when we studied the trial of jealously, that according to Hosea 4:14, when guilt becomes very prevalent, then God’s specific judgment is replaced with a general judgment. We saw moreover that the law of jealousy passed away, was abolished in Israel during our Lord’s time because the rabbis determined that it was futile to apply a law when there were too many guilty parties. It is interesting that at about the same time, our Lord’s day, this law, called the Law of the Red Heifer, was also abolished, because, the rabbis said, the murders had multiplied to such an extent that it was no longer possible to cope with it or for a community to make restitution. There was too much guilt, and the requirement of restitution was above and beyond the means of any community. It is no wonder then that judgment fell upon Jerusalem and all Judea. They had invited judgment by their failure to exercise it. Because the plain meaning of this law is that judgment is inescapable wherever there are offense. Even the community rights the wrong and thereby brings some kind of restitution or atonement to pass or it faces judgment. Atonement means restitution. The goal of God’s Law is that every wrong be righted. Apart from that, there is judgment.

Thus, in terms of this law, we see not only the fact that the purpose of the whole of scripture, the whole of God’s Law, the whole direction of godly history is manifested, that we are also told that we live in a time when judgment is a certainty, and that wrongs are not righted, but rather they prevail and they govern and they triumph. Their judgment, therefore, shall surely come.

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, we give thanks unto Thee for Thy Law which is indeed a light unto our feet and we beseech Thee our Father, to make us strong in obedience unto Thy Law that we may be spared from the wrath to come. We thank Thee our Father that Thy judgment is sure, that those who despise Thy Law shall be broken by Thy Law, that a generation that will not right every wrong will be destroyed. Make us strong in faith, fervent in hope, and confident by Thy grace that we might begin to rebuild, even as Thy judgment begins to destroy. Bless us to this purpose, in Jesus’ name, amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson?

Yes.

[Audience] Was it… [Cough] was this {?}

[Rushdoony] The sacrificial part is no longer necessary, and the form of the law is not required of us in that in Christ the atonement has been made, but the requirement of man-ward restitution, which is the other side of atonement, does remain. So that as a community, as individuals, we still have the requirement of atonement or restitution to the victims of crimes.

Yes.

[Audience] {?} was there any … {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, a very good question. I would say if a member of a family within a home robs one of the members and disappears, I think the other member should do everything to make it right to the one who was wronged. What this would do would be immediately to make it very difficult for the others to forgive the guilty party if he returned. In other words, if it comes out of their pocket, they’re going to be less inclined to be tolerant.

It’s a very good question, because I have known situations where a member of a family, a young fellow who’s wanted to turn hippy, has stolen a fair-sized amount of money from someone in the family, and taken off. And then after they’ve been thoroughly disillusioned, they returned and all was sweetness and light and the person who was unwilling to forgive was regarded as a rather sour person. They were ready, if restitution had been made. They wanted their money back. And rightly so! Now if everyone in the family had to chip in to make up the difference, and then required of the absconding member of the family when he returned, to make that restitution, I think it would be a much healthier situation.

Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] I would say it would depend on the circumstances. If it were a young member of the family who was still under the roof and authority, I’d say the family would have a responsibility. But if it were someone who was in rebellion against the family and had left, the family would not have a responsibility because they don’t have any authority in the situation.

Yes.

[Audience] Would you say… {?}

[Rushdoony] What’s that?

[Audience] Would you say… {?}…?

[Rushdoony] I, I can’t hear you.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh yes, but you see restitution is a principle always. And if you can’t lay hold of the guilty party, the requirement of restitution still begins. This is case law. But supposing in such a case, they knew who the party was. But he had, say, left the country and gone to Moab or to Syria. The community still had a responsibility. They had to right the wrong.

Yes.

[Audience] In reference to {?} [Cough] …you said that from time to time the law of the Red Heifer was {?} murderers… {?} … there must have been some considerably period of time prior to that when {?}

[Rushdoony] Not exactly. There was some increase, but in our Lord’s day there was such a wide-spread amount of lawlessness that it developed in a generation or so that it reached the point that the rabbis felt, well, if we still keep this up, we’re going to be out there in the valley slaughtering heifers wholesale every day, you see. So there was suddenly a very rapid increase. There had been an increase, but it skyrocketed.

[Audience] {?} a long {?} prior to that then, {?}

[Rushdoony] No, what you ha—it was not the question of punishment; it was the question of the loss of faith and character, so that lawlessness suddenly became so prevalent that it was out of hand.

Yes.

[Audience] I was {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh, what is the age of—

[Audience] Yes…

[Rushdoony] Ah, the only specification in the Bible is with regard to taxation and the draft, and it’s the age of 20 in the Bible.

Yes.

Apart from that, there is no specification, but anyone 20 years old and older was considered a man. Now, they could have assumed the responsibilities of manhood much earlier, but they reached the draft age and the taxing age at 20.

Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is a reference in Revelation to the 144,000. It’s a symbolic number. Twelve times twelve is a hundred forty-four, and the word for thousand in Greek is literally myriad, so it meant the fullness of all those who are the chosen people of God will come in. That’s its significance. It’s not a literal number.

Now, the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t make too much of that number any more, so I’m surprised that you did see it. They used to make a great deal of it some years ago when they were a handful of people cross country. But now they have more than 144,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses. [Laughter] and as a result, they have stopped giving any information as to how many Jehovah’s Witnesses there are, because some of their members are going to say, if there are only 144,000 are going to be saved, how am I going to get in when there are say, 350-or 400,00 of us?

[Audience] Well from what I {?}, there are two sides of {?} people, the ordinary {?} and {?} special {?} and then if you were a {?} Jehovah’s Witness, you had {?} extra {?}

[Rushdoony] If you still have that article, I’d be interested in it because that’s a new sophistication in their doctrine. They used to say only 144,000 would be saved. Now they’ve got a couple of categories to slip by some of their people. So, it’s a very interesting development.

Any other questions? While we’re waiting, I’ll remind you of the Sennholz Seminar on the currency systems, the information on it is on the lectern on the back. It’s Saturday, July 11, all day, a week from this coming Saturday.

Yes.

[Audience] Ah, to this {?},

[Rushdoony] Gat—oh, Gestalt. Yes. Ah, Gestalt Philosophy, which began to be very popular about 40 years ago, held that instead of studying the specifics of behavior, you try to determine the overall general patterns. And so it sought patterns rather than the specifics. It analyzed the overall pattern. What more specifically about it?

[Audience] Well, I {?}

[Rushdoony] Oh, it’s quite old. It’s not as prevalent as it used to be. It’s had quite a bit of influence. The inkblot readings that many psychiatrists use are a product of Gestalt’s psychology. They give you a great many inkblots to look at and then you’re to say what these look like. And then they analyze your answers and try to determine a pattern out of this and that’ supposed to be revelatory of your nature.

[Audience] Did the body of … {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, there’s a great deal of Gestalt thinking in contemporary psychology. It’s not as prevalent as it once was, but it has had its influence on the schools of today.

Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. First of all, the basis of appeal today is not in terms of guilt or innocence, but in terms of the technicalities of the courtroom and of the trial. So that a person may be guilty and have the right of appeal indefinitely as against technicalities that he may be clearly innocent, but no appeal is effective if the trial was technically correct. His only recourse is then some kind of act on the part of the governor. So today the whole purpose of appeal is purely on the technicalities of the trial.

Second, today the nature of appeal basically is this: the lower courts still move in terms of relics of a Christian background of law, the higher courts in terms of the humanistic standard of law. So they very often overturn the very law in terms of which the conviction is rendered. Now, if you have a consistent philosophy of law, then the Court of Appeals is, in terms of the case itself and not trying to overturn an entire doctrine of law, which is basically, what increasingly the Supreme Court is doing. It is rewriting the law in terms of the humanistic doctrine. So it’s not an appeal, it is re-legislation.

[Audience] They have appeals {?} the people {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] That’s true. The amount of error is very high, but the error is often provoked because it’s a good way to ensure the case being overthrown on appeal.

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, much—for example, in the Trial of the Chicago 8, much of their antics had one purpose—to provoke the judge, or the district attorney into saying or doing something that would allow for a mistrial or for overturning the trial on appeal. And this is increasingly the direction that many attorneys are taking. They want something to be done and they want to provoke someone, on the bench or the district attorney, to do something in terms of which they can have the verdict thrown out. It’s a game.

[Audience] The increasing {?} of appeal {?}

[Rushdoony] In terms of the case, yes.

Well, if there are no further questions, let’s bow our heads for the benediction.

And now, go in peace. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.