Scripture refers to that kind of ruler who frames “mischief with a law” (Ps. 94:20). Those who do this kind of thing are men who sit on thrones of iniquity, and God refuses His fellowship with any such thrones.
There are many ways to frame mischief with a law. Everyone grants that one example would be when a despot pillages all the poor peasants in order to fund his Belshazzarian kegger tomorrow night. That would be one example. That would be the big E on the eye chart.
But are there other examples of thieving mischief? While some established thieves are debauched, others are a bit more clever. If Suleiman the Magnificent takes 20K from me in order to beef up the personnel department of his seraglio, then that is both tacky and theft. But if Obama the Magnificent takes 20K from me in order to provide loan guarantees to Goldman Sachs, and they use it to provide a holiday bonus for a rising junior executive, who uses it on a weekend blowout in the Hamptons with a girl named Tiffany Sugartoes, then this is just as tacky, and just as much theft, but we can say that they cover their tracks better these days.
So let’s spend a bit of time distinguishing sins from crimes. When dealing with individuals, sins that ought not be crimes are either contained entirely within the person’s motives, or they are actual behaviors for which no scriptural case for attaching civil penalties can be made. An example of the former would be bitterness or lust. An example of the latter would be speaking rudely to someone in a crowded elevator.
A sin becomes a crime when we can make a scriptural case for attaching civil penalties to a particular behavior. Murder is a crime; hatred is a sin. Adultery is a crime; lust is a sin. With individuals, the distinction is relatively easy to make.
A ruler is not subject to the same applications of civil penalties, at least not in the same way. In a well-ordered biblical republic, it should be possible in principle to hold anyone accountable for their behavior, regardless of the office they hold. But even in a healthy society, bringing justice to bear in such cases is more challenging because rulers have supporters, and they often appoint their supporters to positions of influence over investigations of injustice. But enough about Eric Holder.
The “civil penalties” for rulers are not limited to the one process shared by all the citizens — indictment, trial, verdict, and so on. To whom much is given much is required. God holds rulers accountable by other means as well. He can do it by other means, such as natural disasters (1 Kings 18:17-19), military invasion (Dt. 28:48), a civil war (2 Sam. 15:10), or a coup (2 Kings 11:14). An average citizen can be punished for his crimes, and so can a ruler be. But when it happens to a ruler, there is a good deal more mayhem.
DW: “Murder is a crime; hatred is a sin.”
America: “Murder is a crime [unless that baby’s unborn]; hatred is sin [unless that hatred qualifies as a hate crime.]”
Mr. Monnette,
and another of their common dicta:
“…and hatred is what WE say it is, even if God calls it truth and love”
If Obama completes his two terms we should apologize to Richard Nixon.
Ok, so do we agree that not all theft is a crime? For instance, if a child steals her sibling’s toy, it’s a sin, but not a crime. The issue is that theft as a crime assumes property, and in the States it assumes private property. But it isn’t at all clear that theft as a sin implies property, let alone private property. For instance, if a child is playing with a family toy, and her sister gets jealous, covets it, and steals it, no private property is involved. But theft is. Which seems to show that the prohibition of… Read more »
Matt, you’re equivocating on “steal” here. A child stealing a toy is like a man stealing a seat in the theatre. If someone steals my seat it is not a crime because it is not theft in the same way that stealing my drink is.
If a brother visits his sister and takes her computer it is theft.
A child can steal from their sibling in a real manner (eating their confectionery) which is real theft but is not a crime because we recognise parental responsibility in training up children.
Test
Petersen, Are you serious? This is the heart of your argument: “For instance, if a child is playing with a family toy, and her sister gets jealous, covets it, and steals it, no private property is involved. But theft is. Which seems to show that the prohibition of theft does not imply the institution of property, and so the claim that it does seems to be eisegetical–that is, twisting Scripture to our own image.” But why does the 10th Amendment then refer to our “neighbor’s” stuff, including his house, his ox and donkey, etc. I realize that his wife complicates… Read more »
bethyada The point is that the child is disobeying the eighth commandment. It is also disobedience to the eighth commandment for a husband to make something that was his and his wife’s his, exclusively. It was also disobeying the eighth commandment to steal Native lands. It is also theft (though usually not disobeying any commandment) to steal household gods–like Rachel did, defiling them in the process–but the household belongs to the gods more than the gods to the household. But in none of those situations is the problem making mine what is thine, but only, making mine what is not… Read more »
Matt Petersen wrote: “Which seems to show that the prohibition of theft does not imply the institution of property, and so the claim that it does seems to be eisegetical–that is, twisting Scripture to our own image.” Matt’s accusations of Scripture twisting smack of desperation. At this point, Matt’s argument is no longer against Doug, or against Scripture, but against the English language itself. Theft means stealing (larceny), which means taking someone else’s property. This is basic dictionary stuff. Matt can check out several online dictionaries if he disagrees. Even legal dictionaries define it this way. Now Matt may wish… Read more »
Fake That catechism agrees with me, and disagrees with Pr. Wilson. He claims that private property is primordial, I, that common ownership is primordial, but that private property is instituted by a society for the common good. That is, that: 2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and… Read more »
Fake Herzog That catechism agrees with me, and disagrees with Pr. Wilson. He claims that private property is primordial, I, that common ownership is primordial, but that private property is instituted by a society for the common good. That is, that: 2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty… Read more »
katecho
Yes, as a crime theft is taking someone’s property. However, your claim that I was at one time attacking Scripture is nothing short of a lie–and a very bald faced one at that.
Herzog: I didn’t reply to this question: But why does the 10th Amendment then refer to our “neighbor’s” stuff, including his house, his ox and donkey, etc. I realize that his wife complicates the picture, but sticking with the stuff a charitable reading of the commandment seems to argue for the idea that different people will own real property — whether that property is in the form of a home or productive farm animals. Mine and thine do not imply ownership. I don’t own my wife. I don’t own my students. I wouldn’t own my employees, if I had any.… Read more »
That last paragraph should be:
Matt, a kid in a home stealing a common toy in the current possession of another kid is theft, and it does presuppose property. In that case, the parents own it. The child is stealing the same way a thief steals a rental car, even though the person he takes it from doesn’t own it. Somebody owns it. If nobody owned it, it wouldn’t be theft.
That catechism agrees with me, and disagrees with Pr. Wilson. He claims that private property is primordial, I, that common ownership is primordial, but that private property is instituted by a society for the common good. That is, that: Mathew, that is a good and fair point. I would like to outline your case (such as I understand it) in a series of premises. These are not definitive of your case, but only what I see. Private property exists Private property is granted by society and not by God. The “details” of private property are up to the collective as… Read more »
Mr. Petersen, Thanks for your thoughtful replies to me. I’m sure Pastor Wilson can defend himself quite adequately, but going back through his posts, this particular passage caught my eye as one that contradicted your notion that he simply thinks that not only “will” we own property, that is primordial, and is directly given by God in creation. Here is what he says on the subject of what he means by property: So what do I mean by property? Within the boundaries of the law of God, property entails the authority to retain or dispose of material goods without the… Read more »
Pr. Wilson
You’ll have to argue parental ownership is critical, not merely state it is. Anyway, the same could happen with a stick the child has found in a hike, and is owned by no one.
This is weak.
Change your example from a stick to a kill.
The child has shot a squirrel, is taking it home to her family for dinner (there is a famine in the land). Her brother takes the squirrel from her to eat himself at the expense of the family.
You say this is not theft and the kill is not her (parents) property.
Timothy I would call that theft, and say the squirrel belongs to the family. But a more full response to Pr. Wilson is: His claim is that the commandment implies that the thing stolen belongs to the neighbor who is robbed. But his most recent comment abandoned that claim, saying that the commandant implies ownership of some sort. (Since the one robbed in the example is not the parents, but the sibling–it was the sibling’s use that was coveted.) This change entirely overturns his previous argument, and hence, his while case, since, among other things, it implies that theft from… Read more »
Matt, I assumed that you child stealing was the equivalent to taking something that another child has (for a time) for selfish reasons, not taking something permanently like eating their lollies. When my daughter takes her sister’s clothing to wear without her permission (a case of the former) or even when she has asked her not to (still a case of the former) I don’t really consider it theft. So I don’t really buy what you are saying here. But if we consider your definition of appropriating something for yourself that you shouldn’t (mine what is not mine), surely the… Read more »
bethyada I have in mind a four-year old sibling who takes the toy her two-year old sister is currently playing with. No, I don’t think it assumes private property. The four-year old does not make the toy her private property. (Though she may well say “mine!”.) But even if it does, it doesn’t presuppose private property is a primordial good endowed by God to the individual–which is what Pr. Wilson is arguing for. I think that suffices for the second question too (leaving aside the question if Native lands–your answer to that doesn’t make sense to me, perhaps you can… Read more »
At risk of borrowing overmuch from non-theistic philosophy, “private property determined by the collective” is no longer property at all, but rather wolves, sheep, dinner, etc. Private property only exists when the right to a thing for a specific person is external to that person (and the other persons who want it). Which is another way of saying that private property is impossible without Theism.
Hi Mathew. I broke down your 10:00 PM comment from yesterday as such: Mathew: 1. His claim is that the commandment implies that the thing stolen belongs to the neighbor who is robbed. 2. But his most recent comment abandoned that claim, saying that the commandant implies ownership of some sort. 3. (Since the one robbed in the example is not the parents, but the sibling–it was the sibling’s use that was coveted.)<–*** 4. This change entirely overturns his previous argument, and hence, his while case, 1. since, among other things, it implies that theft from neighbor is possible even… Read more »
In his rush to condemn Wilson, Matt Petersen has introduced a couple of distinctions that, while actually interesting in themselves and subjects worthy of consideration, just don’t affect Wilson’s argument. They’re red herrings. The first is the distinction between private and collective property. The second is the distinction about which kind of property is “primordial” or original or preeminent. Now collective property could mean “public property”, as in State or Federally owned property, or it could simply mean family property, or Church property, or corporate business property. Likewise, private property could mean individual property, or it could broadly refer to… Read more »
Matt Petersen wrote: “Pr. Wilson You’ll have to argue parental ownership is critical, not merely state it is. Anyway, the same could happen with a stick the child has found in a hike, and is owned by no one.” I agree with timothy that this is weak. Not only weak, but so far away from Wilson’s original argument that Matt doesn’t even seem to know where he was going with it. Is Matt suggesting that a stick on a trail doesn’t belong to anyone? Not even to God, to give as He wishes for the pleasure of a young child… Read more »
timothy Let’s recall what I said just above He claims that private property is primordial, I, that common ownership is primordial, but that private property is instituted by a society for the common good. Catch that “private property is instituted”? And then later But yes, the Scripture does imply that we “will own real property”. But that is different from what Pr. Wilson wants to get from the Scripture, namely, that not only “will” we own property, that is primordial, and is directly given by God in creation. Catch that again? “Scripture does imply that we will own real property”?… Read more »
But a more full response to Pr. Wilson is: His claim is that the commandment implies that the thing stolen belongs to the neighbor who is robbed. But his most recent comment abandoned that claim, saying that the commandant implies ownership of some sort. (Since the one robbed in the example is not the parents, but the sibling–it was the sibling’s use that was coveted.) This change entirely overturns his previous argument, and hence, his while case, since, among other things, it implies that theft from neighbor is possible even without the institution if private property, so long as the… Read more »
“The State giveth and the State taketh away. Blessed be the name of the State.”
Is this not a valid summary of Petersen’s position? If not, why not?
Can the State be guilty of the command “thou shalt not steal”? If so, then Wilson’s central point stands, and therefore we need to get on with considering the examples of theft and abuse by our present government. Ultimately, we need to consider what to do about it, in terms of potential resistance.
Matt Petersen wrote: I have no idea where you get this idea that “I’m trying to say” “The Bible says there is no such thing as private property.” But it’s definitely not from anything I’ve written. Perhaps from statements like this? “One thing worth mentioning is that in Israel, inasmuch as land was owned by anyone other than God, it was owned first by Israel herself, then by the tribe, then by the transgenerational family, and only then by the “individual”. This was not anything like our modern private property.” Or perhaps like this one? (emphasis mine) “One could say,… Read more »
Katecho
No that isn’t a valid summary of my position.
Tim
It’s unclear if you’re arguing with Pr. Wilson or me, or if you are simply unable to tell the difference between his position and mine.
Hi Mathew,
Yes, I understand you know.
You argue that “the collective” institutes or grants private property to the individual.
You disagree with Pastor Wilson’s assertion that “Thou shalt not steal” implies an individuals private property.
Is that correct?
thx
t
@Katecho,
Thank you for clarifying those distinctions.
timothy No, katecho says I “argue that “the collective” institutes or grants private property to the individual” and I say he is willfully and dishonestly distorting what I said (willful and dishonest because even after I point it out, he–and you–claim he has every right to misrepresent me–as if honesty were nothing to you, and I just have to deal with dishonest interlocutors by patiently interacting with them: It’s the internet…) As to the second: Yes. When Pr. Wilson says “thus saith The Lord…private property” he is like the prophet Hananiah and the prophet Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, saying… Read more »
@Mathew.
Please specify your argument.
I wrote:
Two questions.
a. Is point 2 correct?
b. What should point 1 say.
Thanks.
t
Here is a simplistic rendering of Matt’s argument as I understand it (Matt can please edit for the sake of clarification):
1. Doug says the commandment about stealing necessarily implies private property.
2. But properties that are not strictly private can be stolen.
3. Moreover, because God’s original design was for communal ownership, private property is secondary and not “primordial” (original/intended/designed?).
4. Therefore, the commandment about stealing cannot necessarily imply private property.
Am I close?
Moor ,
Thank you.
Mathew?
@Moor, what is the significance of Mathew’s argument? If God did not intend private property, the is private property a sin?
thx.
t
Moore: That’s very close. Thanks. I think point 3 may be a little off, I’m not offering that as a premise, but as an alternative. Premise 2. For instance, ownership could be, in the first instance communal. (Remember Pr. Wilson isn’t saying that private property exists, but that it is directly instituted by God, and is *basic*–and that the Scriptures say this.) But as a clarification: One could say, hold premise 3, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, and still hold, as the CCC roughly does, that private property was instituted because of the hardness of our hearts,… Read more »
Also, I think I would say “things that are not even property can be stolen, and things that are not *private* property (land in Israel) can be stolen” not “properties that are not strictly private.
Wow! that was a ride.
Mathew’s proposition is:
He also notes that the Roman Catholic Church has some scholarship on the matter that disagrees with Pastor Wilson’s take.
Mathew also agrees with the RCC position and disagrees with Pastor Wilson’s take.
Ok, finally, I think we have the outlines of Mathew’s position clearly stated.
Am I being fair here Mathew?
thx.
t
And a point 3” “yes, of course if we define theft as ‘taking someone’s private property’ the prohibition of theft presupposes private property. But that’s circular, and so eisegetical.”
That’s the argument that promoter Pr. Wilson to say I’m a fool standing on the levees in Hurricane Katrina protesting he hasn’t correctly defined breeze, and that in fact, he doesn’t have to argue for his position (that is, from Scripture) since he takes Jefferson as Scripture. (That he then added back the circular, eisegetical, “proofs” doesn’t really change anything.)
I think Pr. Wilson is simply recognizing that the Scriptures treat private property as *basic* and therefore since scripture treats it as basic, it is directly instituted by God.
I think my basic point is that Scripture does not clearly entail private property *is basic* (though it assumes some sort of property, and we have private property). I’ve offered numerous proofs of that, including the one you quote. I didn’t bring in the CCC, Herzog did, (though I did bring in Augustine and Chrysostome, and Brad Littlejohn showed in the CI piece that the Protestant view is roughly the same as the Catholic view) though I’m willing to use it to illustrate an alternative. And I’m roughly in agreement with it, but that isn’t particularly relevant to my point,… Read more »
Hi Matt, I presume you mean point 4. Here are you points with the eisegeticicular one added. Mathew’s proposition is: 1. Scripture clearly does not imply private property, since, though there was property in Israel, there was not private property. 2. He also notes that the Roman Catholic Church has some scholarship on the matter that disagrees with Pastor Wilson’s take. 3. Mathew also agrees with the RCC position and disagrees with Pastor Wilson’s take. 4. Pastor Wilson’s argument that “The prohibition of theft presupposes private property” is circular, and eisegetical. Ok. Does the above summarize your argument correctly? thx.… Read more »
Timothy: as best I can tell, it doesn’t sound like Matt’s saying that private property is a sin, but that it is a qualified or boundaried concession to our sinfulness that must be understood in subservience to God’s ownership and to God’s original intention that all things be held in common. The implication of this, as I understand it, is that we must hold the concept of private property in tension with our own propensities toward covetousness and theft, while also holding it in tension with competing conceptions of property which might just as rightfully claim biblical foundation (i.e. taxation… Read more »
No, moore’s was much closer. It was 3 double prime, with straight dashes, but the posting script curved them, and made it confusing. The basic argument is 1. Doug says the commandment about stealing necessarily implies private property is basic. 2. But this is false for a number of reasons: 2a there are types of theft that do not imply property at all. 2b he brings in his conclusions with his definitions. 2c there was no private property in Israel. 2d the Christian tradition (Augustine and Chryaostome) disagrees with him. 3e property, in the most basic sense, could equally be… Read more »
I agree with the first paragraph, though not the second. Obviously, I disagree with the later paragraphs. My response is that, if you read the historical situation, and see theft, you can say “thus saith Moor” but not “thus saith The Lord”. (And therefore, you need to be open to the challenge that the things you point to are perhaps not so bad as they seem to you, that your arguments against them may be flawed, etc.) But Pr. Wilson is saying “thus saith The Lord” and using his office of pastor to cut off dissent–even to the point of… Read more »
Matt, quick question:
If Government Official A takes 20K in tax revenues and provides loan guarantees to Goldman Sachs, which then uses those funds to provide a holiday bonus for a rising junior executive, who then uses it on a weekend blowout in the Hamptons with a girl named Tiffany Sugartoes (not her real first name I’m sure), has Government Official A committed theft? And, if not, has theft occurred anywhere in the chain?
Mathew,
Once your arguments are distilled, they actually make sense and provide a very interesting counter-point to Pastor Wilson’s positions.
I do hope that going forward you will save your readers the work of having to distill your arguments from your prose. It is very hard work and time consuming to identify and then properly formulate your argument for you.
If you will do us the courtesy of doing that work, then tensions should subside and we could side-step all this drama going forward.
thx
t
Moor Yes, that’s theft, but it’s in the abuse, not the use of the system. That is, yes it’s wrong, but it doesn’t imply the whole system is theft, or that we need a government that would just respect our private property, or that it would still have been theft if the money had been sent to poor S. Americans or to children at the Mexican border, or to make reparations to black people and Native Americans. And, for that matter, it’s the same argument Occupy Wall Street made. So it’s definitely possible to make that argument while calling, say,… Read more »