Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20130512.htm

THRU THE BIBLE EXPOSITION
Deuteronomy: Moses' Great Appeal For Israel To Obey God For Blessing
Part IV: The General Call For Loyal Obedience, Deuteronomy 4:44-11:32
A. The Ten Commandments, Deuteronomy 4:44-5:21
8. The Eighth Commandment: Avoiding The Sin Of Stealing
(Deuteronomy 5:19)
    Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

    Though Deuteronomy 5:19 commands, "Thou shalt not steal," taking from those who have is a common practice in today's world:

    (1) At the local level, the National Association for Shoplifting Prevention claims that 1 in 11 Americans shoplift over $35 million a day from retail stores. This practice results in increased costs in police and court case overloads, higher retail prices to cover the shoplifting losses and lost tax revenues. (stopretailloss.com)

    (2) However, even in government today, Marxist ideology advocates taking from "the haves" to give to the "have nots:"

    (a) In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, after "calling for the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the state, he petitioned for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." (Lawrence M. Vance, "Our Marxist Tax Code," thenewamerican.com) These ideas fit Marx's view, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need'" written in his Critique of the Gotha Program. (johnreed.com)

    (b) This political ideology is now so embedded in our country's politics, the Republican-American, May 6, 2013, p. 13A editorial reported that regardless if Connecticut's Governor Malloy "famously gave residents, especially high-income earners, the largest tax increase in Connecticut history" in the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 while he "also increased overall state spending," regardless of lower tax revenues taken in by the state due to the poor economy, the governor "still is proposing an increase in overall spending."

    (c) This view affects the federal government: the same day's USA TODAY, p. 8A, a paper that is typically politically liberal, uncharacteristically ran an editorial ("Deficit starts to shrink but it's too soon to celebrate") arguing: "Congress and the White House have yet to address the core problem fueling long-term deficits: the automatic and runaway spending on health care and retirement benefits."

    However, an op-ed by Democrat Representative Keith Ellison ("Focus on jobs, not on spending") whose party supports increased taxes especially on the wealthy and increased government spending started out his piece by claiming: "To reduce the deficit, we need to stop doing so much deficit reduction."

    Accordingly, we ask, "What does the command, Thou shalt not steal' really mean, and how are we to apply it today?!"

    Need: "What does God's Deuteronomy 5:19 command, Thou shalt not steal' really mean, and how are we to apply it today?!"

  1. Moses' general Deuteronomy 4:44-11:32 call for loyal obedience to God in the suzerain treaty format of Deuteronomy repeats the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and its CONTEXT reminds Israel of God's deliverance of her from Egypt's oppression (Deuteronomy 5:6) revealing WHY Israel should HEED the Lord.
  2. Thus, the EIGHTH commandment prohibiting "stealing" (Deut. 5:19 KJV) was given to guard Israel from oppression by respecting personal property rights and working for one's personal income:
    1. The Hebrew verb "steal" in Deuteronomy 5:19, ganab, "(b)asically . . . means to take that which belongs to another without his consent or knowledge," H. A. W., Theol. Wrdbk. of the O. T., v. I, p. 168.
    2. Yet, the wider context shows this command also prohibits more open forced seizures like burglary and kidnapping, Ex. 22:2; 21:16, Ibid.
    3. Other Scripture applications of this commandment illustrate that by it God wanted Israel to respect personal property rights of all kinds:
      1. One who hired a laborer was not to withhold his wages for the work overnight, Lev. 19:13. Often poor and in need of immediate refreshment from their toil, laborers had to be paid the day of their work, so not payin g them when they worked was stealing.
      2. Seizing animals owned by another required restitution to the owner depending on what the thief did with the stolen animal, Ex. 22:1-4.
      3. If a man let his animal roam into another man's field so that the animal fed on its crops, the animal's owner had to make restitution to the owner of the field from the best of his own crops, Ex. 22:5.
      4. If a man caused a fire to break out in another man's crop field so that its crops were destroyed, the man who caused the fire had to make restitution for the loss of the crops, Exodus 22:6.
      5. If a master struck his servant's eye so he lost his eye, the master had to free the slave. The owner's possession of the slave was limited to the amount of labor he could gain from the slave, not to the slave's body parts which belonged to the slave, Exodus 21:26.
      6. If a man gave his cloak to another as a pledge in a business deal, the recipient could not hold it until the giver had fulfilled his part of the deal, but he had to return it to the donor that day before sunset. The cloak was used by the donor for warmth at night, so God saw the cloak as inalienable personal property that could not be transferred from its original owner to another, Exodus 22:26-27.
      7. Cheating others in the marketplace by using unjust weights and measures in business transactions was another form of stealing, so God forbade it in Leviticus 19:35-37.
    4. Accordingly, to guard Israel from oppression, God built into the Mosaic Law and the New Testament stipulations on countering "stealing" the idea of capitalism as opposed to marxism (as follows):
      1. Under the Law, if a stolen animal was not slain and eaten or sold by the thief, but it was found in the thief's possession, he had to restore double, Ex. 22:4. This taught the value of working to earn the money to buy the animal versus stealing it and costing one double [that capitalism was to be practiced, not Marxism]!
      2. Then, if the thief used the stolen animal for food or sold it for a profit, he had to restore fourfold for a less-expensive sheep but fivefold for the more-expensive ox, Exodus 22:1! This taught the value of working to earn wealth, even if more work was required for greater wealth, i. e., capitalism as opposed to Marxism!
      3. In the New Testament, Ephesians 4:28 directed those who stole not only to cease stealing, but to "labor" (ergazomai, Arndt & Ginrich, A Grk.-Eng. Lex. Of the N. T., 1967, p. 306-307) with one's own hands the good to "give" (metadidomi, Ibid., p. 512) to another in need. Thus, opposite the M arxist idea of taking from the rich, the poor was to work with his own hands to acquire the wealth both to meet his own needs and to share with others in need -- capitalism!
      4. 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 commands believers to work with their own hands to avoid personal material need, a capitalistic directive!
      5. Then, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 in its context directs that if a believer does not work, but tries to live off of the material goods of others, he should not eat! This is capitalism as opposed to Marxism!
Application: May we (1) trust in Christ for salvation (John 3:16), and (2) respect personal property (3) and work to meet our material needs, (4) being thus able then to give to meet the needs of others.

Conclusion: (To illustrate the message . . . )

 One of the best lessons on the value of personal property rights versus stealing or a collective was given to America by the Pilgrim forefathers.

Their first governor, William Bradford, in his work, Of Plymouth Plantation, "details how the Pilgrims languish[ed] in misery' sharing their labor and its fruits" in their initial communal commonwealth where there was no personal property ownership. (Daniel J. Flynn, "Socialism Didn't Work At Plymouth Plantation, Either," humanevents.com, 11/25/2010) "The collectivism was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment.' Two years into the experiment ironically forced upon them by their capitalist underwriters, Bradford parceled common land out to individual families to exploit for their own . . . benefit."

"This had very good success,' Bradford explained, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and served him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.'" (Ibid.)

Another book, the first of a five volume work, Commonwealth History of Massachusetts, reported that "By abandoning collectivism in 1623 . . . the gaunt spectre of famine vanished forever,'" Ibid. [This work was "edited by a professor at Harvard University,"! (Ibid.)]

Governor Bradford concluded on this subject in his work, Of Plymouth Plantation: "The experience that was had in this common course and condition . . . may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.'" (Ibid.)

God's way of avoiding oppression with material issues, contrary to stealing and Marxist collectivism, is to respect private property and work to meet our own needs while also addressing the needs of those in want around us. May we heed this way of living in reliance upon the Holy Spirit's power for God's blessing!