Household Dominion

A thousand pardons, my dear readers, for my extended truancy.  Life has been quite busy for the past few months.  Furthermore, I have been reluctant to publish anything during this time, as I have continued to mull the implications of my new understanding of the dominion mandate.  I have now reached the point where I am comfortable making public some of my conclusions.

I will begin by clarifying my description of my new view as "Familism".  It has come to my notice that this term is sometimes used to designate the teaching that the family is the fundamental locus of spiritual sovereignty.  I utterly repudiate this notion.  What I DO advocate is the household as the locus of property ownership, or dominion stewardship.  For greater clarity, I have decided to call my view "household dominion".

While household dominion is similar in its practical implications to my previous view in terms of its implacable opposition to the coercive state, there are some significant differences in other respects.  HD sheds new light on issues of marriage, divorce, business corporations, cooperative organizations, churches (local congregations), church communions, and the Church Catholic.  In short, while HD stands against many of the same evils as individualism, it offers a radically new blueprint for a healthy, functioning Biblical society.  I hope to begin exploring this exciting new vista in my upcoming posts.

A Retraction

I want to apologise to my readers for going so long without posting.  Life has been very busy of late, especially with the Christmas holidays.  I had hoped to write a post or two over my Christmas break (the week after Christmas), but unfortunately that did not happen.

Over the last few weeks I have taken a closer look at Genesis 1-2 and I find I must recant one of the foundations of my political views: methodological individualism.  In its place I now affirm Familism, the view that the family is the fundamental unit of human society and the chief locus of dominion stewardship.  The beginning of this shift in thinking is subtly apparent in my essays on Genesis 1-2, where I defined jurisdiction in terms of “householder” rather than atomistic individual (though I didn't recognise the implication of that definition).  I hope to publish a more detailed overview of my new views in the near future. 

For the present, rest assured that I still reject statism of every stripe and will continue to advocate a free and Christian society.

God's Guardians, Part III: Guardian of the Garden (Continued)

Genesis 3 records the man's first trial as guardian of the guardian. The test presents itself in the form of a rival to God's sovereignty:

Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'"

The Adversary assumes the form of a serpent and challenges God's authority. This is GOD'S garden, yet the serpent enters and brazenly questions the justice of God's disposition.

Note also the implicit assault upon the Divinely ordained hierarchy. The man is God's appointed representative in the garden. All concerns pertaining thereto ought to be brought to him. But the serpent instead appeals to the woman, attempting to bypass the lawful authority structure.

The serpent next attacks the Law of God:

Genesis 3:4-5
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil".

Here we see the temptation of the ages: to be as gods. All sin from that fateful day forward has at its root the attempt of mortal man to be his own deity (this is especially evident when men seek to be as god toward their fellows - the grasping of the forbidden fruit of state-power is the ultimate recapitulation of the primeval sin). Yet there is a cleverly concealed deception in the serpent's blandishments: he claims to offer godhood to the mankind, but by eating the fruit Man will actually be submitting to the Serpent as his "god". Thus the attempt of man to "be as gods" is an exercise in futility, for man can never escape serving a deity. He can but choose between false "deities" and the One True Living YAHWEH.

Genesis 3:7, 9-10
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons... 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Here we observe man's attempt to provide his own covering - again, since covering/clothing represent sovereignty (see for instance Ruth 3:9, Matthew 23:37), this is really another instance of man seeking to "be as gods". This is always the underlying reality of works-religion.

But man can never be covered by the work of his own hand. Thus, he is found unclothed and evicted from the garden:

Genesis 3:23-24
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Yet the man is not stripped of all responsibility, for he is "to till the ground from whence he was taken". He will, however, encounter great difficulty in achieving this task:

Genesis 3:17-19
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Not only does the man suffer for his sin, his entire realm suffers with him. Thus, "cursed is the ground for thy sake". The apostle Paul confirms this teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:22: "in Adam all die" (see also Romans 5).

Lastly, in the judgment of the serpent we find the "seed of hope" (pun intended). Ultimately, the LORD will crush the serpent and deliver His people:

Genesis 3:14-15
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The rest of the Bible is the story of the outworking of this promised redemption.

God's Guardians, Part II: Guardians of the Garden

In Genesis one, we saw that the whole cosmos is God's temple, the place where He meets with Mankind.  We observed that the dominion mandate implies that each man is entrusted with a portion of the cosmos as his personal responsibility. In Genesis two, this theme is developed more fully as the focus shifts from macrocosmic temple to microcosmic temple.

Genesis 2:8, 15-18, 21-24

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed... 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helpmeet for him... 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

First,we see that God creates a garden: "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden.."  As with the cosmos at large, God owns His creation.  He may do with His property as He pleases - He is sovereign over it.  This is GOD'S GARDEN!

The story does not end there, however. Having formed His garden, God commits it to the care of the man: "and there he put the man whom he had formed... And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.". The man is given custody over God's garden, with responsibility to care for and guard it. This is the prototype for all human property.  Each householder is installed in a garden belonging to God.  He is responsible for this garden.  He is NOT responsible for the garden entrusted by God to his neighbour - in fact, if he attempts to meddle with that garden, he becomes an intruder from which that garden must be guarded.  Woe to the man who invades God's garden!

Having installed the man as guardian of His garden, God enumerates the terms upon which the man's tenure in this role will continue: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it..." From the presence of the command we learn that man's enjoyment of God's garden is not unlimited and unconditional. Man is not free to do with the garden as he pleases, but must employ it in the manner required of God.  However,this does not justify one man (or group of men) in setting terms for other men; the setting of these conditions is a Divine prerogative, which man usurps at his peril!

But God's Law is not merely a suggestion; it is backed by sanctions: "...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  If the man fails in his trust, he will die. Implicit in this threat is a promise: if the man obeys, he will NOT die, but will live forever in the presence of God.

God would be perfectly just were this the full extent of His dealings with the man.  He has placed the man in charge of His garden; He has laid down the terms on which the man may use this property.  But God is not finished.  The crowning act of His grace is yet to come.

We read: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him...And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The LORD created a woman to be a "help meet" to the man.  The Hebrew noun translated "help"is 'ezer; in addition to its two appearances in Genesis two, 'ezer isfound in nineteen other locations throughout the Old Testament.  In sixteen of these instances, the reference is God Himself; the remaining three refer to false sources of help substituted for the true God.  The adverb rendered "meet" is neged, meaning "in front of, in sight of, opposite to". In other words, God Himself is empowering the man to fulfill his commission, and the woman is the visible manifestation of that power.

As pointed out above, God bestows this help upon the man as an expression of loving-kindness. The man does nothing to merit the woman.  This entire episode is an act of Divine grace: God conceives the idea; God creates the woman; and God gives her to the man.  The man's only contribution is to gratefully receive God's gift.  

Yet there is another aspect of this gift which must be considered.  For while the woman is given to the man as asource of strength, she is also part of the realm committed to the man's protection.  In fact, she is the centrepiece of that realm.  Thus we see throughout the Scriptures a connection between the garden (or mountain, "the mountain of the LORD" being another designation for the garden) and the bride:

Song of Solomon 4:12 ESV

"A garden locked is my sister, my bride..."

Revelation 21:9-10

"9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, 'Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife'.10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God..."

Doubtless more examples could be adduced, but these suffice to illustrate the point.  Somewhat paradoxically, the centrepiece of that which the man is to guard is at the same time the source of his power to keep that trust.

Thus does God finish His work of creation. The stage is now set for the man's response.  Will he serve faithfully in God's garden, protecting it (especially his wife) from all danger?  Or will he rebel against his loving Creator-Sovereign and, despising the "strength" God has provided, deliver the garden and the bride into the hand of the enemy?

God's Guardians: Guardians of Creation

Genesis 1:1; 26-28

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth... 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

As I stated in a previous essay, the essence of the right of property is sovereignty. The creation account demonstrates the sovereignty of God over the entire cosmos. God created the universe out of nothing, thus He is the absolute owner of all things and may do with them as He pleases.

Man is the image of God; human property rights thus image those of God: man, by an act of secondary creation ("taking dominion"), acquires secondary or derivative property rights. With respect to God this man is a steward, guarding that which ultimately belongs to God. But with respect to other men, he is a property owner; no other man may invade his sphere of dominion (without direct, personal authorisation from God).

There is a great difference between a steward and an owner. An owner is independent; he does with his property as he pleases, answering to no one. A steward, by contrast, is but an agent of the true owner; his every decision must be guided by the will and interest of his master, to whom (and whom alone) he must answer for his conduct.

To truly grasp the significance of all this, we must understand that the Genesis account presents the cosmos as a temple. The phrase "the evening and the morning" is essentially liturgical language, echoing the evening and morning sacrifices of the tabernacle/temple. This is especially obvious when we note that the Hebrews often omitted the word "sacrifice" when designating a specific type of offering. Thus the sin offering was simply "the sin", the thank offering was "the thank", the heave offering was "the heave", and the evening an the morning sacrifices were "the evening and the morning". The "cosmic temple" motif is further confirmed by the seven day pattern of creation, mirroring the ancient near eastern practice of a seven day temple dedication.

Temples are entrusted to the guardianship of priests. If the cosmos is God's temple, it follows that men are God's priests. This should not be understood as a collective priesthood with mankind as a whole keeping the cosmic temple. Rather, each individual householder is a priest, with his own little corner of creation as a temple committed to his charge (this will become clear in our examination of Genesis two). God (and God alone) will demand from each man an accounting for how he guards this temple.

If the householder is a priest, and his realm a temple, then violation of property rights is sacrilege. To invade the realm of another is to desecrate God's temple, assault His priest, and ultimately to usurp His prerogative. The offense is particularly egregious when committed on the basis that one's neighbour is not keeping his trust properly (even if the charge be true). This is to set oneself up in the place of God to one's neighbour, as if to say "you are MY priest, this is MY temple, and you are answerable to ME for how you keep it!". Woe to those who would thus attempt to be as gods!

Genesis two presents a more detailed picture of the householder as God's priest in a "microcosmic" temple. We shall turn our attention to this account in the next essay.

New Series: "God's Guardians"!

A venerable adage exhorts us to "begin at the beginning". When it comes to the Biblical teaching on human society (or for that matter just about any other subject found in Scripture) the beginning is found in the book of Genesis. With this in mind, I intend to post a series of articles examining the message of that book as it pertains to the just society.

This series will be titled "God's Guardians: Principles of Justice in the Book of Genesis". I expect it to consist of at least eight essays, with the first installment intended for next week.

STOP STEALING AND GET AN HONEST JOB!!!

Whenever I hear a statist (especially a member of the state) pontificating about how "they" are helping the poor and needy through their wonderful government programs, I want to scream: "if you really want to help people, STOP STEALING AND GET AN HONEST JOB!!!". Or, as the Apostle Paul so succinctly stated it:

EPHESIANS 4:28
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Think about it - what these criminals are really saying is: "we are helping lots of poor people by stealing money and giving it to them". This is supposed to be compassion??? I don't think so!!!

STOP STEALING AND GET AN HONEST JOB!!!