(Exo 23:19 NKJV) "The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
(Deu 20:19-20 NKJV) "When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them; if you can eat of them, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree of the field is man's food. Only the trees which you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, to build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it is subdued.
(Deu 14:21 NKJV) "You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
(Lev 22:28 NKJV) "Whether it is a cow or ewe, do not kill both her and her young on the same day.
. . .the commandments clearly require a respect for God’s creation. If God is the creator of all things, then all things have a purpose and are in their created function good. – R.J. Rushdoony
Animals and plants ought to live in accord with their created function. To me this implies chickens living a chickenish life, cows living like bovines, etc. Instead we are trying to make them all into the animal equivalent of apartment dwellers, where they clearly cannot use the tools and predispositions God created them with.
Rushdoony, writing in the early 70's, goes on to make some interesting points that have a bearing on issues such as the continuing unrestrained hybridization of seeds. He is opposed to all hybridization, partly on the rationale that it produces sterility (which strikes me as eminently sound), whereas "God made all plants with their seed ‘in itself.’" Later he comments that "Man’s rash interference with the balance of nature is creating serious problems."
A few more nuggets:
As long as man sees himself as god in an evolving world, he will seek the technological manipulation of that world.
The earth itself must be treated with respect. The foolish destruction of the micro-organisms which are basic to the fertility of the soil is working extensive damage in many areas.
For the creationist, the fertility and the potentiality of the world rest precisely in its vital patterns, in its fixity, whereby man can work productively and with a full assurance of success.
13 comments:
Sounds like a fascinating book. But if I buy any more used books on amazon this summer my husband is going to kill me. : /
The beauty and simplicity of biblical law never ceases to astound me. When David rapsodizes over and over about the beauty of God's law in Psalm 119, I wonder what modern, 'new testament' christians think? Wait, maybe 'think' isn't the right word..
Back when I was working in Fire Prevention, I used to say that the whole Fire Code should be reduced to one principle: Keep sources of ignition away from stuff that burns. God's word agrees, but goes a step further: If you cause a fire that causes damage to others, pay for the damage. There it is, the Fire Code in one sentence. But if we reject God's Law, we're stuck with man's; and with it, all of it's complications, contradictions and costs.
Oh, how I love thy Law!
Where do mules fit in?
Good question, Doug, and one I thought of within five minutes of posting this, because right after I did the Missouri Rev posted on my comments on the previous entry, and of course when he posts I get a picture of a beautiful mule.
My thoughts were directed more to the sterility of hybrid seeds, of course, which is a big issue in these blog circles. Still, a good, if somewhat awkward, question. I suppose it's good that someone asked it.
I would first (ahem) say that as always when I read Rushdoony, he makes me think of things I haven't thought of before, and even when I don't agree with his conclusions, I prize this aspect of his writing. His arguments can be found on pages 253-262 in IBL Vol I, if you have a copy.
I think some might want to argue that Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11 are cases of the separation law that is done away in Christ, and if that's the case, they can't be used to argue against hybrid (and sterile) seeds, as I've attempted to do. I'm still mulling this.
The Bible seems more ambiguous on mules than these texts would lead one to believe, though: David, when he wanted to establish Solomon on the throne, caused him to ride on the king's own mule and mules turn up in other places that make you think that the Israelites were either disobedient or didn't read the passage in such a way as to forbid mules.
Furthermore, Rushdoony uses the same texts to argue against inter-racial marriage, an argument I find weaker than an argument against mules, since inter-racial marriage doesn't even produce sterility.
Looking at the pic's of Sam and Sadie, I find it hard to be against them, and much less would I want to discourage the Missouri Rev in his adventure in any way.
James,
With regard to inter-racial marriage, I don't believe Rushdoony hangs his entire case on the separation laws as much as the fact that God Himself separated the nations in Genesis 10 & 11; and then reaffirmed that general separation in Deut. 32:8, and yet again in Acts 17:26.
Since, biblically speaking, a 'nation' is a group of people sharing the same language, culture and blood; and since God purposely separated humankind into a multitude of nations, this would beg the question: When did God reverse Himself and do away with nations, as defined in the Bible? And, if God has established the nations, do we have the right to abolish them?
Rush's stand against inter-racial marriage stands or falls on how those questions are answered, IMHO. I don't think the anti-mixing laws you cited really apply; because hybridization and sterility isn't the issue.
In the broad, general sense, though, it's apparent to me that God loves the diversity of His creation, and wants to see it maintained.
My two cents.
Randall,
I thought someone might jump in on this, and I'm glad it's someone I count as a friend. I hope all is well with you and your family.
In addressing your post, I’ll start with this:
1 Cor 7:36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.
Paul states explicitly that the man who allows his daughter to marry, even in time of dire distress when it is generally true that it would be better she didn’t, even then he does not sin. The father has more authority over his daughter than the apostle, and Paul readily admits it. So I say nothing here that asserts my own view over anyone’s authority as a father to do as he sees fit. But I also maintain the same status for myself. I need to be convinced with reference to specific, explicit commands, or an extremely tight biblical case, neither of which I have seen, for all the claims to the contrary.
Since, biblically speaking, a 'nation' is a group of people sharing the same language, culture and blood
This sounds ok to me on the face, but I don't know if it's all that simple. I’d like to see a summation of the biblical case for this definition. I can see that God confused the language, and that had the irresistible and intended effect of separating the nations, who then developed their own cultures, but Acts 17:26 says that the nations thus separated are all of one blood, not many bloods.
At any rate I take this passage about the separation of men into nations as a simple statement of what He sovereignly brought about by his will, something I couldn’t change if I wanted to, and I don’t see what it has to do with individual cases of inter-racial marriage. God’s sovereignty in history has not ended, nor become static, for He has even continued the creation of new nations by means of inter-racial marriage, as when a conquering people inter-married with the conquered. Hence we have hyphenated groups, such as Anglo-Saxons. God has not given a command to refrain from inter-racial or inter-cultural marriage, as if that kind of thing could upset his ordering of the world. Rather, through such things God has sometimes providentially re-ordered the world.
As far as the boundaries spoken of in Acts 17:26, it has to be noticed that these boundaries have not exactly been in in a fixed state since the time of Babel, the point is that the boundaries we now have are ordained by God, not that the boundaries fixed by God 500 years ago are to be adhered to forever. Paul told these Greeks, who had been invaded and conquered by Romans that it was God who had done it. God has indeed determined the bounds of habitation for men and nations, but the point is not for us to choose that precise point in history that represents his will for all time. Were white men disobeying God by coming to these shores? If in one thousand years, a Christian in this land can look back at 500 years of history since the Chinese conquest of America, will he grumble about men trying to reverse what God instituted at Babel, and disobeying Acts 17:26, or will he accept the situation as a manifestation of the truth of the passage?
When did God reverse Himself and do away with nations, as defined in the Bible? And, if God has established the nations, do we have the right to abolish them?
The question is not whether we have the right to abolish them, but whether we even have the ability to abolish them, which I would maintain we do not. The texts you cite do not lay any burden on the reader except the humble acknowledgment that it is God, and not man, who is ordering history. Men seek out many devices to subvert this truth in their own minds, and some seek the deliberate and widespread blurring of ethnicity and racial diversity, hoping to erase the boundaries that God is in charge of, but always unwittingly contributing to His providential governance. I don’t think all cases of inter-racial marriage represent this form of rebellion, nor are they capable of setting aside the sovereignty of God.
In the broad, general sense, though, it's apparent to me that God loves the diversity of His creation, and wants to see it maintained. [Italics mine-jb]
With the emphasis on the italics, I can agree completely, as long as the following is the right way to think about it: I see a child of a mixed race in church sitting between his white father and his asian mother. Is this child proof that God is not really in charge of the times of men and the boundaries of their habitations? Is this child created by God, in His image and likeness? This child is in the same boundaries as I am, reading the same creed as I am reading, in the same language and dialect I am reading, wearing essentially the same type of clothes that I am wearing. God put the child there. He is seeking God, and I do not think God is far from him. Lets read the part about boundaries and habitations along with the reason for them:
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us
Best Regards
James,
Thank you for an eloquent and well-reasoned reply. I appreciate very much your kind tone, your friendship and also your principled opposition on this point. As I see it, we are in agreement with regard to the soveriegnty and providence of God. Would you agree, then, that white europeans, as well as every other race, are products of His over-ruling providence, and have the right to exist and also take steps to perpetuate their existence, as long as they do no harm to others? To me, this is critical, because it is not politically correct, even within the church, for a white person to think or talk this way.
The mixed race child you referenced is of course made in the image and likeness of God. His status as a spiritual being able to respond in faith to the promptings of the Holy Spirit is undeniable. But where, dear brother, does this child belong physically? With his mother's people, or his father's? This is not a trivial question. We are not gnostics; flesh and blood matters, heritage here and now matters, family roots matter. What do you think; is it right for children to grow up with divided loyalties and confusion and ambivalence about who they are, and where they rightly belong? Yes, clearly God allows it; but who can say WHY God allows it? Is it a curse or a blessing? History records zero successful multicultural nations and/or empires. Diversity within nation-states, it seems to me, is not a strength, but a weakness. Fortunately, most people know this instinctively, and although they may pay lip-service to multicultural p.c.ness, the vast majority marry within their race, and keep their mouths shut about their motives. Admittedly, inter-racial marriage is becoming more common in our society, but I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
I guess I would emphasize God's establishment of clear boundaries a little more then most. I think blurring the lines between different peoples leads to more strife and less understanding and a lot less mutual respect. Good fences make good neighbors. There's plenty of room for evangelizing, worshipping with, and otherwise cooperating with members of other races without giving your daughters to their sons and vice versa.
Which brings us back to your opening premise. I agree completely that a father has the right to give, or not give, his daughter in marriage. And, if children were once again taught to honor their parents, I submit there would be very few inter-racial marriages.
James,
I'm not satisfied with the previous post, so I hope you will indulge one more. You asked some very good questions I haven't addressed. It seems to me that you have also too lightly dismissed God's establishment of a multitude of nations. He did so originally to restrain sin, and Paul says, so that we may grope after God and find Him, presumably without the constant friction caused by the proximity of two or more races. I agree with you that these passages teach what God has done. But I can find nothing in Scripture that would encourage us to actively work AGAINST what He has done. Especially since such an enterprise would result in our demise as a people.
You asked what the establishment of nations has to do with inter-racial marriage. In the N.T. the word for nation is 'ethnos'. It is where we get the word ethnic. In addition, 'nation' comes from the latin word 'nationem' meaning 'breed, stock, race, nation' (Oxford English dictionary, 2nd ed., 1989). The root word for nationem is 'nasci', 'to be born'. Thus, nations are closely connected with families. A family is to a nation as a living cell is to the body. A nation is a people united by language and culture; and also having a biological similarity. America is a single nation no longer, but has many nations within her boundaries. This becomes more apparent every year.
You asked if white men were disobeying God by coming to these shores. I have often pondered this myself, but have no answer. I often wonder if caucasians are doomed to wander the globe, build civilizations wherever they go, be supplanted by others and move on, until Jesus comes back. That seems to be what history records. To my knowledge, only baltic caucasians have stayed put in their lands for thousands of years. The rest of us seem rather rootless in comparison.
I guess I'm an anglo-celt who wishes his ancestors were more like the baltic people. On the other hand, I'd be speaking lithuanian or something, right now. Never mind. ;-)
Ran,
Thanks for your responses. I can appreciate many of your concerns, while not sharing the same responses. Let me highlight a few instances.
I guess I'm an anglo-celt who wishes his ancestors were more like the baltic people. On the other hand, I'd be speaking lithuanian or something, right now. Never mind. ;-)
Eu estou contente mim não tenho que responder-lhe no lithuanian. Whoops, maybe learning foreign languages is a humanistic attempt to reverse Babel. ;-)
Would you agree, then, that white europeans, as well as every other race, are products of His over-ruling providence, and have the right to exist and also take steps to perpetuate their existence, as long as they do no harm to others?
Let me know if this question is not answered pretty much in the post, especially in the Ephesians comments, but I can start by saying that I just don't think this would be an item in a biblically prioritized cultural agenda.
But where, dear brother, does this child belong physically? With his mother's people, or his father's? This is not a trivial question. We are not gnostics; flesh and blood matters, heritage here and now matters, family roots matter. What do you think; is it right for children to grow up with divided loyalties and confusion and ambivalence about who they are, and where they rightly belong? Yes, clearly God allows it; but who can say WHY God allows it? Is it a curse or a blessing? History records zero successful multicultural nations and/or empires. Diversity within nation-states, it seems to me, is not a strength, but a weakness.
Perhaps I’m reconciled to the fact that our culture/multi-culture is in a transition, maybe a death, from which a very different culture will eventually emerge. My primary concern with the emergence of this new culture is not it’s racial purity or blend but it’s loyalty to God. I’ve made the point elsewhere that if white people object to the presence of black people here, they shouldn’t have paid the cab fare. If their presence here is a curse, we all know who brought that curse on and how. In the providence of God, though, we are now in close proximity and the only question is what to do with that.
It seems to me that you have also too lightly dismissed God's establishment of a multitude of nations.
That was not my intent. What my intent was, was to show that this is ongoing and not static. God did not separate the nations by moral injunction but by providential decree, initially as an outworking of the confusion of languages and later by the outworking of history in such events as drought, famine, disease, and war. I don’t think that the table of nations in Genesis is anything we could get back to, do you? If not, how will we argue that the makeup of nations at any particular point of history, or even the present, is the one that God has ordained for all time?
I’ll use the following text to attempt a clarification of my view of nations/ethnos relative to my primary identity as a Christian.
--Ephesians 2:11-16 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles [ethnos-jb] in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby
The enmity between Israel and the gentiles was of the extreme sort. If ever there were a people concerned with preserving their existence as a distinct people, it was the Jews of Jesus time. The new man Paul is speaking of is the Christian Church and he is using the language of race/ethnos to describe its formation from two races into one. The Ephesian Christians are no longer to be seen by the believing Jews as a different ethnos, but the two races have been made one. While this does not cancel the reality of nations, boundaries, races and cultures, it does supercede it. My duties as a Christian to the church, the one new man Paul speaks of, so far outweigh my obligations the white race as to make them negligible. Our primary racial loyalty is the church, the new man, as Paul reminded Peter memorably in the incident at Antioch.
Whatever is happening in our temporarily multi-cultural “nation” is something that is being brought about by God. The only question is what our response will be. I can find no command in scripture to separate from others based upon their race, nor can I find any command in scripture to attempt a willful and concerted abolition of those distinctives. All I can say about our situation is it is what it is and I have to deal with it biblically. The alternative seems to be to disinvite people of different races from fellowship, even though in the providence of God, he has placed them in proximity to us. If this were expected of us, surely it would have come up somewhere in Paul’s ministry and writings, what with people running hither and yon between Ethiopia and Spain converting each other to the faith. But the teaching seems to be that God does not distinguish Jew from Greek in the Church, and I assume by reasonable extension that the same holds for black and white.
Suppose (a stretch, I know) I do something really remarkable in my life, such that our Christian living a thousand years from now can point back to me as his ancestor and give honor to me as such. If you and I are up in heaven and able to look down on it all, would you want me to be bugged if he doesn’t look much like me, or speaks Chinese?
Greetings one and all. The issue whether mules are lawful before the Lord is a good one. Suffice it to say, as theonomic, New Covenant believers that take God's Law very seriously, we thought this one through very carefully before deciding to go with them. I am just about ready to post a major article to my blog that gives the biblical reasons behind our choice of mules.
James,
You make some good arguments and also some not so good. I can agree wholeheartedly that the coming of Christ has shed abundant grace on all men without regard to race, and over time the Gospel should work reconciliation between and among all the nations.
I'm just not sure that spiritual reconciliation should mean or has to mean the gradual abolition of the nations. After all, we are told in Revelation that many nations will be represented in heaven, not a single nation.
I'm not sure I can agree completely that our general obligation to the Church outweighs our commitment to extended family. That is what a race of people is, IMHO, extended family.
Keep in mind, the same Apostle who wrote the beautiful passage you quoted from Ephesians, also wrote this to the Romans:
"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." Romans 9:3
Just a few points about this passage and then I'll leave you alone. I know I'm a guest here, and I don't want to wear out my welcome, or impose too heavily on our new friendship. I hope you will bear with me in the same kind spirit exhibited thus far. My first observation is that the same Paul who wrote that gentiles and jews were now one in Christ, did not offer to be separated from Christ for the Gentile nations. Just his own. Secondly, there must not be any contradiction, then, between favoring your own extended family above others, and the kind of spiritual unity between gentiles and jews described in Ephesians. I would say, yes, we are obliged to love, pray for, support, evangelize and defend our own above all others (1Tim. 5:8); and we are especially obligated to those who share our faith in the risen saviour, as well as our blood.
This in no way means that we hate foriegn believers. Loving your wife doesn't mean you hate all other women. Accordingly, loving your race doesn't mean you hate people of other races. It means we have to prioritize because we're finite and because God places us in (extended) families for a reason, just as he places us in local churches for a reason. In short, I see no reason to dis-invite anyone; but family has to come first.
James, thanks for not calling me names. We are all fine here, and I appreciate your asking.
Ran,
A few comments and we can let it go, but if you want to continue any of this on email, I’m fine with that as well.
James, thanks for not calling me names. We are all fine here, and I appreciate your asking
This has been a good discussion, not a foodfight and I appreciate the exchange very much. I’m glad to hear everyone is doing well at your place.
You make some good arguments and also some not so good.
Aye, this is a persnickety trait that I am still working on, just hard to know which are which.
I'm just not sure that spiritual reconciliation should mean or has to mean the gradual abolition of the nations. After all, we are told in Revelation that many nations will be represented in heaven, not a single nation.
I agree completely with this, perhaps you’re not seeing that I think that some of the “nations” represented have already died in history and others are yet to be born. I don’t believe at all (and I’m not sure how you read it in) that I believe in the abolition of the nations. I do believe that the church is the nation (ethnos) that supercedes all other nations (1 Peter 2:9), but superceding is not abolishing.
You make some good points in the rest of the post, and regarding Romans 9, I think you read Paul’s heart on this well. Paul was evangelizing a lot of folks who didn’t look like him, talk like him, etc. For all his cosmopolitanism, he would have to have felt like a foreigner much of the time, even in the imposed ethnic jumble of the Roman Empire. The word for kinsmen that Paul uses in Romans 9 is an interesting study, especially all the uses at the end of Romans. It only gets used 12 times in the NT and seems to denote especially close kinship, cousins, etc. I don’t doubt Paul is using a term normally denoting a much closer kinship than the broader national term to express his deep feelings for the Israelites. He is saying he feels about the entire Jewish nation the way we all feel about our families. But reading on in the text, it’s worth noting as well, that a good part of this deep feeling is motivated by the nature of that peculiar people and their relation, not so much to Paul, but to God. Israel is not the equivalent of just any nation, and Paul’s feelings for the Israelites are colored by this fact.
A real difficulty I have with your position is that a concept as broad as the “white race” just doesn’t evoke those feelings in me. Narrowing the circle down won’t help. In my own case it turns out I am descended from a horrid stew of at least Scots, Germans, and German Jews. Ah, the war within me! I oppose much that modern day Israel represents, not being of a dispensational frame of mind. The remaining German Jewish relatives are all secularized types, mundane jobs, no bankers or such, no rich ones left since they had to bribe their way through the war. One of my direct ancestors was a notable Jewish socialist who was assassinated for it. Hard for me to sympathize. Ah, shoot, maybe I’ll just call myself a Scot.
My point here is that we are all casualties of the American experience as regards loyalties. We have been taught that loyalty is to propositions and ideas, rather than to people, much less places, but I doubt we can escape it by conjuring loyalty to whatever category of people most closely resembles us physically. We have all become strangers and this is a great loss, but no greater than that experienced by Abraham. This gets to the heart of my desire to find a good place to settle down and bid farewell to the transience that pervades everything American. When we visit the little cemetery close to our house, we find on the stones the same names over and over again. Though I only know a few of the living who still bear those names, my children will know more of them than I will, and in generations our own name will, Lord willing, be repeated on stones in that place many times over. If that happens, and if my descendants and the people of this place are faithful to God, they will no longer be the strangers that we are.
Peace and Blessings
James,
Your last paragraph is beautifully put, and the desire of my heart as well. I am blessed to be a part of a family that has stayed pretty much in Nebraska for the last 5 generations or so. I increasingly feel a loyalty to them at least as strong as my loyalty to other believers. I won't say I'm completely comfortable with this - it's kind of a new way of thinking for me too - but I'm becoming aware too, of all the lies concerning race I've imbibed over the years from the culture around me. I no longer believe that people are just people, pretty much the same the world over. I know longer believe that western culture will be enhanced/improved/perpetuated by those who are foriegn to it. Our people and our culture go hand in hand; I am convinced that one will not survive the end of the other. I can't be reconciled to such a terrible loss, even if it has been providentially decreed, just as Paul wasn't reconciled to the apostasy of Israel.
But a big concern of mine right now is not to go further then the Bible goes in pressing the claims of one's race on the individual. I don't want to be unbalanced here. That's why I value your thoughts. Thanks.
Post a Comment