A (73). The eighth commandment is, Thou shalt not steal.

A (74). The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.

Over the past few years, a number of major riots have broken out in the urban areas of our country. The scenes of these riots have been nationally televised, the images of burning and looting, famously featuring the comically absurd narration of one desperate newscaster, who—live on the scene in Minneapolis, with a raging inferno directly behind him—commented, “mostly peaceful protests.” And in each of these cases, the argument started to be made on supposedly serious news shows that, “The destruction of property cannot be violent, because, how can you compare that property to a life?” 

Of course, this is a red herring fallacy and a straw man rolled into one. No one arguing for the traditional Western view of private property is making their argument depend on a piece of property rating as high as a life. But it does the question, doesn’t it? What is property? What does God think about it? What has He said about it? We do not have to guess. 

Even if the eight commandment is not the historical starting point, it is the best entry point to reintroduce this great truth.

Property—The Image of God in its “Outward Estate”

The word PROPERTY comes from the Latin proprietas. Further behind that, from pro privo “for the individual, in particular.” In other words, property is what is proper to the person. Even the word “ownership,” as anyone can see, has a root in “one’s own.” To be very specific, we need to take seriously what has been articulated by the best minds on this issue, working within the Western tradition and very much at one with Christian theorists on the subject. Property is an extension of the image of God as a combination of two things: (1) Some unit of nature (usually material, but not always) to which God has assigned to each person; (2) All units of cultivation of those resources. By that cultivation we also mean two things: both (2a) maintaining it and (2b) reshaping it into new products. 

But how is the image imaging here? How do these two elements—nature and cultivation—glorify God? In the same two ways: that creativity reflects God’s creation, and that maintenance reflects his providence. So in proper use of property, man tells the story of God in creation and providence. And these two put together in a single sphere are called in Genesis 1:28, dominion, a tasks given to all in Adam, and which was reaffirmed in the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9 and set to poetry by David,

“You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; 

you have put all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:6).

It must be remembered that this eighth commandment is moral law. So it has the image of God as its fundamental object. That means that property existed the very instant that Adam did. This is yet one more to see that natural rights (i.e. property) preceded civil rights (i.e. legislative recognition of the same). The civil law cannot objectively recognize what is not already real, but since this is moral law respecting the image of God, it is fundamentally real.

Turretin cites a threefold rationale for all sins of the eighth commandment: divine, natural, and political.

“(1) Divine because since God is no less the bestower of goods than the Creator, whoever does not wait for these things from his bounteous hand, but seizes them by injury, greatly offends God himself (2) Natural, because since the distinction of property (according to which some possess more, others fewer things) is of natural right, the usurpation of another’s possession cannot be but a grievous sin, repugnant of natural right. (3) Political, because … the public peace and tranquility (the bond of human society) is weakened.”1

Hodge likewise operated within this same majority Christian position. Against the social compact theories of the Enlightenment—either that of Rousseau which grounded all things in common to the noble savage, or that of Hobbes where such liberties were relinquished once Leviathan had taken the place of the state of nature—Hodge maintained that any political consent in the flow of history “only recognizes a right; it does not create it … If a man puts under culture a portion of unappropriated land, it is for the time being his, on the principle that a man owns himself, and therefore the fruits of his labor.”2

The biblical doctrine of stewardship is foundational here. Immediately this strikes down the shallow notion that “private property” could be dismissed, or that the “right” of it could be reduced to some Enlightenment individualistic fettish. The tug of war between private and public property on the horizontal plane of politics is not supreme. The vertical reality of property is first between God and his image, who alone has been entrusted as an individual. Before we can talk about voluntary agreements where man and man cooperate together with resources, man is first and foremost accountable to God alone for that which has been entrusted to his singular and irreducible person. The Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30) teaches us that God does not merely give such things at the beginning; but God gives to each, here and now, precisely to make much of his Lordship over our use of property. Consider what was given, what was given back, and the reaction of the Master, 

“He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (vv. 24-29).

It does no good to say that such parables are “about salvation” if the same people would never dream of making such a works-righteousness text. If it is about the practical outworking of grace at all, then one is right back to the practical principles of the law of God addressing the moral action of man in all times.

Cultivation of One’s Own Outward Estate

The amount of church leaders who are teaching that there are no such things as “rights” is growing. In particular the amount of church leaders who are casting suspicion on the reality of “property” in the biblical law is growing. What we see in the Mosaic law is not only opposite to this, but (to many) a surprising divine jealousy for a man’s property. For instance, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 22:1). What can explain such a four or five fold repayment? God takes this so seriously that Paul says twice, in consecutive chapters, that “thieves” and “swindlers” will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 5:9-10, 6:9-10).

The neglect of one’s own property is violence. This follows from that same truth of stewardship: that all our possessions are “on loan” from God. Our property being God’s entrusted, we too can steal from God. Paradoxically, we can “steal” our own property! But that is because though it is private with respect to the collective of our neighbors, it is subordinate with respect to God, the Master of all property: “The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof” (Ps. 24:1). Therefore, as the parable taught, any return to the Master less than what is in the nature of the investment relationship is theft. Anything less makes us (to that extent) like that wicked servant. 

As we will see in the third point, we are blessed to be a blessing. But that begins with resources with which to communicate to others. Many great saints in the Bible were blessed by God with wealth: Of course Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but also Job, David, Solomon, or presumably Theophilus and Lydia, and then Joseph of Arimathea in the New Testament. But since Abraham begins this covenant line, it is worth noting the words that got that covenant of grace started:

“And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gen. 12:2).

If we reconcile Hebrews 11 about all those great saints with Paul’s admonition, through Timothy, to the rich, “to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Tim. 6:18), that the wealthy in that hall of faith followed the Golden Rule of Goods. Their treasure was in the city to come, but they moved toward that eternal treasure through moving things in this world.

As we saw with the sixth commandment and life, so it is here. Self-sacrifice is not an end in itself. In fact there are opposite evils in wealth and poverty. So the prayer, “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God” (Prov. 30:8-9). We don’t avoid idols of stuff by changing places between the rich and the poor, but rather by contentment with our goods and keeping busy, being faithful with that—producing so as to provide.

With thanksgiving and love for neighbor balanced, so all of the principles that are a portion of general revelation come into play. For example, how one accumlates wealth will have an effect on how one will aim (or not aim) to the profitable work toward more: “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it” (Prov. 13:11). 

Preservation of Our Neighbors’ Outward Estate

Question 111 of the Heidelberg asks: But what does God require of thee in this commandment? Answer: “That I further my neighbor’s good, where I can and may; deal with him as I would have others deal with me; and labor faithfully, that I may be able to help the poor in their need.” These words of Jesus in the Golden Rule extend to property: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Mat. 7:12). The most obvious way that the average Christian can do this is by being profitable as a laborer for someone who is the owner of some business. So Jacob said to Laban,

“For you had little before I came, and it has increased abundantly, and the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned. But now when shall I uprovide for my own household also?” (Gen. 30:30).

Thus Jacob turned Laban a profit (which was good) and also sought his own further advantage to care for his family (which was also good). To exchange one’s own labor for income, when that leads to the proft of someone else, glorifies God. So Paul says,

“Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9-10).

To further my neighbor’s goods (as the Heidelberg says it) or my neighbor’s “outward estate” (as the Westminster says it) means to maximize his stewardship. The most obvious thing this means is to protect our neighbor’s property wherever we might see it in danger, or to find or restore it wherever it is lost. So, for example,

“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray and ignore them. You shall take them back to your brother. And if he does not live near you and you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall stay with you until your brother seeks it. Then you shall restore it to him. And you shall do the same with his donkey or with his garment, or with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he loses and you find; you may not ignore it. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen down by the way and ignore them. You shall help him to lift them up again” (Deut. 22:1-4; cf. Ex. 23:4).

Another question takes us deeper: How much “further” is further in FURTHER MY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS? Just some meager material, animal-like existence? Just enough to pat myself on the back, so that I have my reward by the show of it? We must ask questions of the real individual human being we would help. What specifically has God called my neighbor to excel in, given the way that God has gifted him or her in natural abilities, spiritual gifts, vocation, and then (yes) material resources as a piece in that puzzle?

Maximizing stewardship for others is productive charity. Incentivizing their stewardship is real compassion. Incentivizing their permanent status of slavery and dependence is not. We have a word for saying that you have some virtue (like love) just as a show. Back in the day, we just called it “grandstanding,” but the kids today are calling it “virtue signalling.” 

But investing in others’ stewardship must include instruction. So we cannot shy away from the truth of the Proverbs like: “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich” (10:4). 

We work hard so that we can. There are crucial words in that Heidelberg answer: LABOR FAITHFULLY THAT I MAY BE ABLE TO HELP THE POOR. Two crucial words, without which it makes no sense: THAT and ABLE. Work hard that you are able to bless the poor. What does that mean? Let’s start with a biblically stated fact in one of Paul’s commands which will be crucial for the next question as well.

“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Eph. 4:28). 

Notice that this principle is so obviously true, that those who are thieves (and thus have nothing aside from theft) are commanded the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

Let me clarify by ruling out what LABOR FAITHFULLY to HELP THE POOR cannot mean. You can’t read that in reverse, as today’s socialist mindset would have you: HELP THE POOR that you are NOT BLESSED, which comes to mean NOT ABLE. Hard work has to gain blessing before it can give any blessing.

The repentant thief is starting at zero. He has no inheritance. If he repents he gives the stolen goods back, as Zacchaeus did (Lk. 19:8). Yet Paul sets this same principle before the thief, just as he would the wealthy. So we can see that what unifies the rich Christian’s obligation and the repentant thief’s obligation is the same cultivating of blessing. The blessing is not the enemy. You cannot give what you don’t have. And you cannot continue to give what you mindlessly liquidate if you once did have it.

APPLICATION 

Use 1. EVANGELICAL USE. The sin of idleness which opts out of the stewardship of God’s resources (starting with time: a resource common to us all), and thus to begin to waste what we have been given to glorify God. Moreover the sin of not taking care of one’s own is a kind of stealing of the stewardship: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

Use 2. CIVIL USE. To further someone’s goods means that it really furthers their real goods, not that it merely makes you feel good or look good. This eighth commandment gives us yet another reason why Christian reflection on public policy has to take the stance that it does. What has been called “Welfarism,” most famously initiated in American history by the so-called Great Society of the 1960s has proven itself to be a colossal failure. As has been said, the original goal declared a War against Poverty, and poverty won with a vengeance. Sooner or later, someone who cares must ask why. When it comes to poverty relief, empirical results matter for the Golden Rule. Why? It is because if we love the poor, then we will care whether or not what public money is incentivizing is really working, and our love for those poor should be greatly provoked if it actually does the opposite.

Use 3. DIRECTIVE USE. The principle of “one’s own” also applies to the church versus the world. This was already prefigured in the Old Testament law. 

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be” (Deut. 15:7-8; cf. Lev. 25:35). 

In your towns, back in Israel, but this was a type of the church. And it was for your brother. It was not principally for the Edomites or the Philistines, much less the Assyrians or Babylonians, that wealthy Jews were to share their abundance, but with their poor brothers and sisters. This is a consistent New Testament teaching. Right away, after Pentecost, it says, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45). “So then,” Paul says, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). The church has to be ready for hard times, to have a system of care in place where the world has failed. The church has done this in times past. And so we are told by Tertullian, that the Roman persecutors actually lamented about the Christians, “See … how they love one another!” There was a time when the world couldn’t compete with the church in poverty relief.

_____________

1. Turretin, Institutes, II.11.19.2.

2. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III:424.