Systematic Theology – Work

Work Versus Theft

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Genre: Speech

Lesson: 8 of 19

Track: #8

Year:

Dictation Name: 8 Work Versus Theft

[Rushdoony] Let us begin with prayer.

All mighty God our heavenly Father who of Thy grace and mercy has guided us through another year, grant oh Lord that we be mindful of all those things which Thou hast taught us. Grant that we learn from our past, that we prepare ourselves for our todays and our tomorrows in Thee. Make us more than conquerors through Jesus Christ. Make us ever mindful that for us the best is yet to come in Him, that we have been called to victory, to bring all things into captivity to Jesus Christ our Lord. Give us grace therefore to accept all things from Thy hands, to rejoice in adversity, to welcome Thy guiding hand, and to know that in all things Thou art at work to bring forth work. Our God we praise Thee, In Jesus name, amen.

Our subject is Work and Theft, and our scripture Ephesians 4:28 & II Thessalonians 3:10. First of all Ephesians 4:28, then II Thessalonians 3:10, work versus theft.

“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.”

Then II Thessalonians 3 verse 10

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

We begin this morning a series of studies continuing our study in the theology of work on the general implications of work for a social order. Discussions of work are usually set in a false set of references. A very false picture is possible with accurate, but limited, data. Thus we can, and there are many who do, define man in terms of his sexuality, without ever making a single misstatement but the total picture will be a radically false one. We can define a person in terms of his race or his nationality, and never make a misstatement, but again we have given only a warped picture. A man is more than his gender and more than his race or citizenship.

Where work is concerned the false frameworks of reference are very many. The subject of work can be and has been regularly approached in terms of the employer and the employee, in terms of the class status of the work, in terms of the state regulations governing the work, and so on and on. Such approaches reduce work, not only to economics, but unhappily to politically controlled or union controlled economics. Work is a subject that is inclusive to both capital and labor and much, much more. It is very closely related to economics, but work also involves far more, work is a moral fact, a moral statement.

Saint Paul calls attention to the moral and the theological aspects of work in Ephesians 4:28 “Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good that he may have to give to him that needeth.” And again in II Thessalonians 3:10 Paul says, as we read earlier: “For even when we were with you this we commanded, this we commanded you, that if anyone would not work neither should he eat.” Now there’s a problem with these words of Paul in our day because most men seriously limit the meaning of Paul’s reference. They say that when Paul speaks here of stealing he has reference to the criminal act of theft, that there were, some say, many ex-thieves who had been converted and in the church in that city, and therefore he was talking to them. Now this a serious misreading of the text, it seriously limits it. The law and the prophets are clear that the meaning of theft is far broader than the simple act of taking another ones property illegally.

To understand how the church once saw Paul’s words, let’s go back a few centuries, almost four centuries, to an English Divine, Paul Bane {?} who died, by the way, in 1617. Now his language is rather antiquated and sometimes a little hard to follow, but what he says is very important, I quote:

“if we him damage by giving heedlessly occasion of our neighbors hurt, or by not preventing his hurt when we are able, it is against the commandment “thou shalt not steal” as those laws of kindling fire, of not helping our neighbors beast under his burden, do testify. Now we partake with others when by council, concealment, sharing with them, gaining wittingly by their stealth as brokers, that buy this or that for naught which a thief has stolen. We are thieves at the second-hand receiving. Now then this thus opened, how many Christians continue stealing? How many over reach in bargaining? Use deceit in weights? How many by lying, false reckoning, by wicked borrowing, how many thievish Nabal’s? How many careless what scare they do another? We that are Christians must take heed, we get not anything unrighteous. Naboth’s vineyard, did he doubt all that wretched king’s possessions, a little got by stealth may waste great substance. Men think it a little thing, but be the gain never so small it exuseth not theft. Be a man naught with a woman, (“not” here in the sense of the old English which we have in naughty, evil in other words) be a man naught (or evil) with a woman, rich or poor, noble or base, fair or foul, his uncleanness is not excused. Again, he that for a little will sin, will mend his service if the devil will mend his wages. Above all, overreach not poor ones, if it be but a penny matter; it may be that penny is like the widow’s mite, all they have. God is an avenger of all these things.”

So spoke Bane about four hundred years ago on Ephesians 4:28. He saw clearly what theft meant, and he went on to define what theft meant in terms of scripture and he said first, to quote again: “He that by any injustice getteth from his neighbors, he stealeth before God, as if by unlawful means I get anything, or by abuse of lawful means.” Bane then went on to list false bankruptcies, gaming, false weights and measures, false wares, lies with an intent to defraud, and much more as theft. “Second” he said, and I quote, “the second way of stealth is by withholding that our neighbor should have, as to withhold dues from the commonwealth, the church, the poor, to withhold wages from the servant if it be but the least space of time to his loss. For Leviticus 19:13 says ‘the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.’” Bane, four hundred years ago tells us how the church once read Paul’s words.

Rome in Paul’s day had a welfare economy, the same is true today. Industrial and other corporations today, farmers, workers, non-workers, everybody wants legalized theft in some form or another, subsidies, tariffs, welfare grants and the like. This is what Paul was talking about when he said “let him that steals, steal no more.” Everyone in the empire had his hand out to the Roman treasury, and this is what Paul was talking about. We must see Paul’s meaning, to profit by Paul’s words. One modern commentator has called attention to this fact, that Paul was speaking very much as Bane said he was, Markus Barth {?} and he calls attention to the fact that in the Greek text it is not literally “thief” that is used, but rather “let the stealing one steal no more.” He’s not talking about a professional thief, he’s talking about an everyday average citizen who was a stealing one, stealing from others and stealing from the state. The stealing ones make money where they have not worked, by exploiting workers or employers, or the state, or by robbing God of His tithes. Barth said, and I quote, “Their way of making a living is according to the apostles message no less opposed to the order of God’s people than is a successful career in burglary, larceny, embezzlement, or bank robbery. In either case thievery may be, or may become, a profession.”

Paul is saying thus, all men are to labor doing that which is good, that which is profitable, lawful and Godly. Solomon said in Proverbs 27:18 “Who so keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof. So he that waiteth on his master shall be honored.” The tree bearest fruit when labor is expended on it, and a good master, whether it be man or God, rewards the one who serves him faithfully. In other words Paul tells us in this verse that there is a moral antithesis between work and theft, and this rests on a theological antithesis, it is a statement concerning reality. Those who love death hate God, they will live by theft and will get death as their wages. Proverbs 8:36 declares “all they that hate me love death.” The Lord’s people choose life and God’s law, and are blessed.

Paul laid emphasis on manual labor in his life and in his teaching. In Ephesians 4:28 “to work with ones hands” may be an idiom for gainful work.” The ancient Hebrews in terms of scripture lay great emphasis on the morality of working, an emphasis which the Greco-Roman world lacked. It is interesting to note what Paul says in Romans 2 verses 21-23. He declares “21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” What Paul does here is to identify hypocrisy as breaking God’s law through three sins, which he links closely. Theft, in the sense that Paul, Bane, and Markus Barth have made clear, Paul intended it. Then he links with that adultery, again a secret sin under the façade of respectability, like those to whom Paul said “let him that steal, steal no more.” And then third, sacrilege, which he links with an open hatred of idolatry, but a secret idolatry and a robbing of God; the stealing one gains things legally from others, but immorally; and socialism is the essence of such a way of life. Paul lived in such a world.

Now Paul makes it clear that the opposite of theft is work, but work is not merely for our own goals, it is taken for granted because Paul stresses it elsewhere, it is to be done to the glory of God in terms of the creation mandate, but it is also as the verse in Ephesians makes clear, “let him that stole, steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give unto the needy.” This is a very important point, we work, we are commanded to work in order that we might share with others. Now Paul lived in a world where the Roman circuses, bread and circuses, constituted the welfare system. “Keep their stomach filled, and their minds occupied with bread and circuses.” And Paul was saying that the way that people are to be taken care of is by Christian charity, giving, not state welfare.

Now remember Paul was writing in a time where there were was serious trouble if he said “this system is false”. But what he does is saying to the people “your way of life is false”, which is more productive anyway. We have millions of Americans who denounce what goes on in the state house in Washington D.C., but in their particular way of life they do not change, they’re party to what goes on there. But Paul says it begins with you, stop your stealing. And in I Thessalonians 4:10 he makes it clear that “I have commanded that he that will not work, let him not eat.” Now this verse is often cited by people who want to pick a fight with what scripture teaches, to say that the Bible is hard-hearted, it doesn’t believe in taking care of the needy, and so on, and this is nonsense. We are forbidden to feed to those who will not work, who refuse to work, who want to live forever on the dole. Moreover Paul says in II Thessalonians 3 verses 10-12 that such people become busybodies, they want to talk about everybody else’s business, and manage everybody else’s business, they will not govern their lives, but they are determined to govern the lives of everyone around them.

In other words Paul says, as against Statist welfare, Christian concern for one another is required. We are to work in terms of the dominion mandate to create a Godly society, we are to provide for our own household which means our immediate family by blood, and our family in the faith, or be seen by God as worse than a infidel. Psalm 112 verse 9 says “of those who are faithful in obedience to God’s command to relieve the needy, He, the good man, has dispersed. He hath given to the poor, his righteousness endureth forever, his horn shall be exalted with honor.” Turning again to Bane four hundred years back he tells us concerning the passage in Thessalonians “If we will perform this duty acceptably, we must look to three things, first to the ground of our alms, second the end, third the manner. As for the first of it the ground of it must be a loving and merciful heart, that is the soul of an alms deed. If we should give all we have without love, it were nothing. Second we must do it, only eyeing God’s glory and our neighbors need, not for ostentation. He that distributith must do it in simplicity, says Paul in Roman’s 12 verse 8. Many will sound trumpets and blaze abroad deeds of this nature. Third for the manner of it, it must be readily, be ready to distribute says I Timothy 6:18. Cheerfully, God loveth the cheerful giver, liberally; he that seweth sparingly shall reap sparingly.”

This is how Bane interpreted and faithfully so, Ephesians 4:28 and the Thessalonians passage. Notice he used the word “alms”, it’s not used anymore, why? Because the socialists, as there movement began about the time of the French Revolution, began to heap scorn on the concept as well as the very word of alms-giving. They poured such abuse on it that the idea was made disreputable as though for an individual to help someone else who was in need, a fellow believer or any person, somehow represented something evil; whereas statist charity was somehow good. Of course in the Soviet Union it is strictly forbidden to give private charity, alms, to anyone. It has been made a matter of law. In this country it is not so open, but indirectly the same thing is being done because what else is the meaning of the nine years or so that {?} work with juvenile delinquents has been? The state saying “you cannot help delinquents, children in trouble as a Christian; the state must do it, and if you not make yourself virtually an arm of the state we will prevent you from doing it.” And almost kind of ministry to alleviate human need, alms giving whatever the manner, is now subjected to statist controls designed to eliminate it. Rescue missions, everything of the sort, these are under attack. The whole concept of Christian charity, alms giving, is hated. Why? Because the statist, the humanists, want to reply Christian charity and love with socialism, with theft. We cannot understand what is happening until we appreciate the fact that theft today has a higher moral status today than work. This is the essence of our legislation today, work is penalized, theft is made a matter of law.

We need therefore to restore the Biblical perspective, work, tithing, and giving to the needy. Let us pray.

Our Lord and our God Thy word is truth and Thy word alone can minister to fallen man and fallen society. Men and nations today oh Lord are courting death because they hate Thee and Thy law. Make us oh Lord instruments of Thy grace and love, that we may manifest unto this world Thy appointed way, that we might bring men, women, and children and nations, institutions, under the government and majesty of Thy law and Thy grace. Grant us this we beseech Thee in Jesus name, amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson?

Yes John?

[John] For a moment on recompense in terms of equity, as you sow shall you reap, how far can the implications of that idea be carried in terms of concrete, in time, events and {?}. For example it seems to me an awful lot of people work along a particular line of endeavor for many years and when it doesn’t pan out they never go back into the scriptures to find out whether or not their making major mistakes in terms of their theology and philosophy and working method, but they often times say “oh well I’ll get my reward in heaven.” And I have the very strong sense that there must be some form of equity or recompense, you say the master rewards the faithful servant, and I think there may be a need for expanding on that and developing the implications of that idea a little more because now it seems to me like it’s a cop out, the way most people deal with it.

[Rushdoony] A very good point John. Let me back up in order to answer that and start with what seems to be irrelevant, Newtonian physics, which is right up your alley as someone who studied physics at Cal Tech. Now, Newtonian physics posited a billiard ball effect, one cause, one effect. That has been demonstrated to be fallacious because in every situation there are multiplicity of cause. Not merely a multiplicity, but a multiplicities of causes, an entire world of causality converging on a point to create a number of effects. Now men think simplistically, they say “I am doing this, and therefore God should give me that.” Their thinking “this is the cause, that should be the effect,” but they forget what else may be involved in that, a great many other things. They may be working at it with a false motivation, they may have a false, if its work, a false perspective on work, a purely economic perspective in terms of some economic returns; and as we are going to see in the successive studies of this, our reduction of work to a purely economic dimension, and even worse just a purely monetary dimension, is very destructive.

So God will deny to us what we want when we narrow the meaning of something, when we limit it. Work has to b seen as theological, as moral, and when we try to narrow what we’re doing and give it a very limited meaning, God is going to say this “however moral you are, however hard your working at this, is the wrong motivation and you’re under judgment until you correct your motivation, your purpose, because there’s a multiplicity, or multiplicity of causes in every act.”

Does that help make it clear?

[John] Yes, but would you say one primary, that there’s a dominate emphasis in terms of cause with descending hierarchy of related causes? Or would you say that they’re all the same in terms of..?

[Rushdoony] Ah, very good I’m glad you asked that. The dominate cause has to be theological. You have to work unto the Lord and under the Lord or else you’re working in terms of what you’ve determined you want, and that’s what most people do, they say “this is what I want, therefore I’m a good man, I’m a moral man, God should give it to me.” And that’s entirely wrong, they’re not placing themselves under God, and that’s why the people you’re talking about are in trouble, and they develop attitudes as a result that are very rebellious. It’s like Louis the IVX who after a lifetime of being the kingpin of Europe, and governing the politics of Europe, hit one reverse after another and he complained “after all I’ve done to God, why does He treat me like this?” Now, Louis the IVX was an honest man, I’ve heard a lot of church members who have not been as honest say virtually the same thing, Louis said it right out. He was accusing God of injustice, he wasn’t saying “what have I done that’s wrong? Maybe God doesn’t feel that what I am should be blessed, because I’ve determined what my ends are going to be rather than putting myself under God.” That’s a very common problem.

Yes?

[Audience member] It seems to me like for all of the emphasis on the concrete, the physical, the realm of science, that when they reduce single cause – single effect, that in reality though they’re talking about something supposedly very concrete and everything else, that the idea itself is an abstraction, which doesn’t really occur in reality; the idea that there can be only one cause to one effect.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience member] That’s an abstraction in the sense that it doesn’t actually, it never occurs in reality.

[Rushdoony] No, it doesn’t. What we’ve done is to limit man in every respect.

[Audience member] Limit man you said?

[Rushdoony] Yes we limit man because we do not see him as created in the image of God. Yesterday a friend who is vice president of one of the biggest insurance companies in the country was here, and he was telling me that one of the problems in the world as he encounters it, and he meets people who are well up in their place in the world of business and industry, and he says the limit man to his physical life or his intellectual being, his mental operations, and they don’t see him as anything more. They don’t see man in the theological dimension as created in the image of God, they barely see him as in a family relation, that’s just hardly of any account it’s so peripheral. And so he said they’re not living in the real world, and he’s highly critical of the men he associates with because he sees this tremendous defect in them.

[Audience member] [Sounds like John] Well it’s always interesting to me when constructing a motion picture script, writing a story for a motion picture script, that, and this is something that as you know has only come together for myself in the last year and a half or so. It’s always interesting for me to try and sit down and try and understand why a character would do something after I’ve written the character. [Laughing] And why we do this and not that, and while that’s a major problem in terms of script construction beginning from the theological primary, it would seem to me like it ought to make script writing an awful lot easier and I think if Christians would only think in terms of the implications of doctrine, like at this moment in the screen play what is the primary theological motive of the character and how does that work itself out in terms of consequences, the consequences are really irrelevant in terms of the form. Which form? Whether we’re talking about the first century form or the twentieth century form, but if the doctrine of the individual at that moment in time, and that moment in the screenplay, is really what determines his actions.

[Rushdoony] Yes. One writer, I think it was Dorothy Sayers, who said that first she created a character rather than a plot, and then set to work to think “what would this character do, what would his nature be?” And a great many people wrote to her and said “are you ever going to have Lord Peter Whimsy converted?” And she said “no, it’s simply impossible for me to imagine Lord Peter Whimsy ever becoming a Christian.” Now in that respect she had a good sense of character and its relationship to plot.

[Audience member]{?} Primary in terms of the story….

[Rushdoony] Yes.

Any other questions or comments?

[Audience member] Just your remark on alms giving in the Soviet Union. I don’t remember where I read it, or how accurate it is, but it’s a high crime in many if not all the communist countries to the extent, I believe I heard, that it’s a capital crime.

[Rushdoony] Yes, you may have read it in the first volume of institutes; I have something there on a report about that offense in the Soviet Union.

Any other questions or comments?

Well if not, let us bow our heads in prayer.

Our Lord and our God we thank Thee for Thy sovereign word, Thy sovereign grace and all Thy dealings with us which are just and righteous altogether. We thank thee that Thy grace is unfailing and eternal, and that we live, move, and have our being in Thee. Give us grace and strength so to walk day by day that we are more than conquerors in Jesus Christ, that we are builders of Thy social order, of Thy kingdom. 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.