4. To Make Alive (Remastered)

To Make Alive

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Deuteronomy 32:35-43, our subject is ‘To Make Alive.’

To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence;

Their foot shall slide in due time:

For the day of their calamity is at hand,

And the things that shall come upon them make haste.

For the Lord shall judge his people,

And repent himself for his servants,

When he seeth that their power is gone,

And there is none shut up, or left.

And he shall say, Where are their gods,

Their rock in whom they trusted,

Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices,

And drank the wine of their drink offerings?

Let them rise up and help you,

And be your protection.

See now that I, even I, am he,

And there is no god with me:

I kill, and I make alive;

I wound, and I heal:

Neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

For I lift up my hand to heaven,

And say, I live for ever.

If I whet my glittering sword,

And mine hand take hold on judgment;

I will render vengeance to mine enemies,

And will reward them that hate me.

I will make mine arrows drunk with blood,

And my sword shall devour flesh;

And that with the blood of the slain and of the captives,

From the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people:

For he will avenge the blood of his servants,

And will render vengeance to his adversaries,

And will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Last week we saw that, according to Scripture, the state is more than God’s hangman. The state has a prophetic office; the protection of life. The expression: ‘the state is God’s hangman,’ of course, comes from Luther. But it has been very commonly taken out of context. The Lutheran church, in using it as it’s doctrine of the state, has not been true to Luther. As a matter of fact, Luther saw the state as far, far more than God’s hangman, rather as God’s prophet and servant. We tend to think of Luther as churchman and as ecclesiastical in his emphasis. And of course, the Lutheran clergy has made a very pious and strong churchman out of Luther, who worked to reestablish a new church. This is radically twisting the facts because Luther was primarily a professor. And we cannot properly understand his career unless we understand what he was. Indeed, he was concerned about the faith, but his concern was with Christendom and the whole society; of church, state, and school. And as a professor, as a scholar, he was concerned with the revitalization of all of society by means of Christian scholarship. And so, he saw as the two central agencies in that revitalization of Christian society, the Christian prince and the Christian scholar; these two worked together to revitalize society. 

So that it was not so much ‘church and state’ in Luther’s thinking, nor how the Lutheran clergy today read it, ‘the church,’ but it was the Christian ruler and the Christian thinker. And this is why the universities in Germany came to have a tremendous power and vitality for centuries after Luther. In fact, until our day, almost, the German university had an importance that no university elsewhere in the world had. And until a generation ago, their supremacy was marked. And even today, the language to learn if you are interested in scholarship is German because the great scholarly works that are not in English are predominantly in German, and all this because of Luther’s emphasis on scholarship, Christian scholarship. 

We might add parenthetically here that Luther had, during his lifetime 20,000 pupils, and those 20,000 had an important position in revitalizing the face of Europe. So that Luther’s position was not that the state was just God’s hangman, it had a positive, a prophetic function; to speak for God, to declare the Law-Word of God in the domain of justice. 

Now, God specifically declares that, as He deals with the world, His principle of operation, which He asks human authorities to follow is this:

See now that I, even I, am he,

And there is no god with me:

I kill, and I make alive;

I wound, and I heal:

Neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

So that God, as He faces the sinful world, proceeds then to kill and to make alive, to destroy that which is evil, and to prosper that which is good. And as he faces any law-order that fails to fulfil this calling which he delegates to them — to kill and to make alive, He exacts vengeance upon them. 

I set my glittering sword, mine hand takes hold of judgement. 

I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward 

That is, with judgement-- them that hate me. 

God as the supreme law giver has this function, and he delegates to human authorities. All human authorities in every sphere have this function; not only the church, but the state and every calling, to inhibit, to injure, to kill that which is evil, that which is destructive, that which harms and to further that which protects and furthers life under God. In the church it is the binding and the forgiving of sins; in other areas it varies in terms of their function. And so, the Scripture sees everything that man has, and man must do in terms of this function of killing and making alive. 

It surprises us when we realize the extent of this, but when we examine the book of Psalms, for example, we see that music also has this function, to make alive. Conversely, we can say that bad music certainly kills. That’s the way I respond to a great deal of music today. It has a very depressing, killing effect, as far as I’m concerned. But good music makes alive, and this was the function of the Psalms, of music in worship.

Now with respect to people and personal relations, the law spells out certain areas where it is our duty to obey the law and make alive. Some of these areas where we have a function according to the law to make alive are these. First, with respect to widows and orphans. The law specifically requires that we be gracious and kindly to them, that we avoid all oppression. As individuals we have a responsibility toward those who are without protection. And therefore, widows and orphans are to be dealt with kindliness and with helpfulness. And God declares he will hear their cry when they are oppressed and cry earnestly to Him, and He will oppress the oppressors and that He will bring upon them fullness of judgement. Secondly, our neighbors, who are our fellow covenant-members, our neighbors, fellow believers, they are to receive the special favoritism of our day-by-day dealings. 

Earlier we dealt with the fact that the law has several levels. It might be well to repeat that at this point because this is important to understanding the law, to understanding why neighbors, who are our fellow covenant members, are given a special category from strangers, although we are to deal humanely with strangers. According to the Law of God, we do not deal with all people in terms of an equal law. Where justice is involved in courts yes, but we are never commanded in the Scriptures to treat all people in our personal relationships with equality. First, there is one level of law for the family. We deal with our loved ones who are members of the faith, who are of our household, on one level. As I pointed out when we dealt with that, the law requires us, the law, that we support our wife and our children and that we love them with a special kind of love. It would be a sin to love our neighbor’s wife and children the same way we love our wife and children. In fact, we can get into trouble if we do that. 

So there is one level of law where we are required by God’s Law to have a partiality towards our own. Second, there is another level of law, that which deals with fellow-believers. And here again we are to exercise a certain kind of partiality. We recognize that, for all their faults, those who are true believers have a higher standard of character. Sometimes, they are guilty of flagrant sin, but there is a principle in them, Jesus Christ, which makes them different. And while we are not to be fools in dealing with them, we yet deal with them differently than we do, say, with a communist or with a savage in Africa. 

The third level of law is that which deals with non-believers. And while we recognize here there are some variations, and some non-believers having grown up in a Christian community and a Christian world have many ways that they have picked up, as a result, the permeation of Christian life into them. Still, the unbeliever is on a lower level. He is to be accorded justice unto the law, we are not to do him any injury or any wrong, but still, we cannot give to him the favoritism that we do to others. So it is that neighbors, our fellow covenant-members, towards them we have a responsibility to ‘make alive’, that is to further them, humanly speaking, in their need and to create a social condition and a community where we can together thrive.

A third category, according to the law, is the poor. And one of the provisions for the poor was gleaning. We touched on gleaning previously, but it is important again to review it in this context. The poor of the land, whether believers or unbelievers, were to have the privilege of gleaning in all rural communities. That is, no farmer was allowed to strip his trees or his vine or his grain field. The fruit that was hard to get, the solitary bunches of grapes, the grain along the ditch banks and the corners and the edges of the field, all this had to be left. And if they dropped a sheath of wheat, they were to allow it to remain. Then the poor were to be allowed to go in and harvest the field. And each farmer was to give permission to certain of the poor to glean his field. This provided them with food, plus something they themselves could sell for their income. It was hard work, far harder to glean than to harvest because the gleaner had to work harder to get what he did. But gleaning was a means whereby the poor were cared for. 

Then another category of persons whom we were to help, to ‘make alive,’ that is to further; sojourners and aliens. The law specifically and repeatedly cites the sojourner and the alien as one whom we are to be considerate towards and helpful to. And of course, the Hebrews are reminded, “Remember, you yourselves were sojourners and strangers in Egypt.” So that we are ever to be mindful of people who, in an alien context, are out of place, and things are different and difficult for them.

Similarly, slaves and servants were to be dealt with in kindliness and patience with the full awareness that they do not have the capabilities and abilities we have. So that they were to be dealt with under God, to ‘make alive,’ that is, to assist those who are weaker. 

Similarly, the needy and the defenseless, those who are aged, they are to be dealt with with reverence. Then again, one of these laws which called for making alive was that of Deuteronomy 22:8 which I shall read because it is illustrative of a particular area of law that has had a radical influence of our society:

“When you build a new house, you must make a parapet around your roof, lest if someone falls to the ground you bring bloodguilt upon your house.” ⁱ

Now in Palestine, most roofs were flat, or relatively flat. And during the heat of the summer a good many families lived on the rooftop during the evenings. It was a good place to eat, often to sleep, and almost every home without exception had a staircase that went to the roof. And so the law required that there be either a railing or a raised wall so that there be no injury to anyone. In other words, there was a liability incurred by every homeowner if any neglect on his part led to injury to any friend, or to any friend’s child.

So, the Biblical Law clearly spelled out laws of liability, and our liability laws until very recently very clearly followed the Biblical principle whereby a property owner, if his neglect led to injury to anyone who was legally and legitimately on his property, had to pay damages. Of course, now we have destroyed this principle, and even a thief can collect if he is on your property. 

Now these various laws, all of which had common purpose to make alive, to further the weak and the helpless in society who were deserving, are taken up and reaffirmed in the New Testament. The New Testament says, for example, St. Paul speaking in Galatians 6:2:

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” 

Now, lest anyone misinterpret this and feel that charity was to take the place of individual responsibility, St. Paul immediately added with respect to our personal responsibilities, “Every man shall bear his own burden.” Every man has his own responsibilities, and we are not to bear one another’s burdens when a person has failed to bear their own burden, only when a person is overwhelmed by problems and has sincerely tried to meet them. Thus, it is that St. Paul specifically declares that:

“…if any would not work, neither should he eat.” ⁱⁱ

The implication of which is, let him starve. If he will not assume the responsibility of his own nurture, he is not to be fed.

These laws, therefore, which have as their purpose to make alive, are part of our function under God of restoration. The world is a fallen world, God has called us to restore it to its original purpose. Therefore, in every area of authority, man’s duty is to kill and to make alive, to inhibit, to cut back, to destroy everything that is destructive of man’s life under God and to make alive, to protect, to further everything that enables us better to serve God. The purpose, of course, is that we exercise dominion under God. 

Now, it is impossible to serve God without doing both; both killing and making alive. And the society that attempts to create a better world by doing only one or the other is in for trouble. If we kill only, we end up with tyranny. Stalin was trying to usher in a new world, a paradise, through revolution, through destruction. And so, the work of Stalin was essentially to kill. No man in all history killed more people than Stalin did, and he left the world much worse for his coming although his stated purpose in speech after speech was to create the communist paradise.

On the other hand, those pacifists and liberalists who oppose anything that injures or kills, who are against the death penalty, who want to protect and further everyone, irrespective of whether they are good or evil, are giving life to evil thereby and death to society. And as a result, in the name of making alive, they too are killing. God’s mandate is that we must do both under him and according to his Law-Word, and only so shall we further life, reestablish man in his dominion, and make of this world God’s kingdom.

Let us pray. 

* * *

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we thank thee that thou hast called us to exercise authority under thee. Thou hast made us thy servants with responsibility to kill and to make alive each in our domain. Give us grace, wisdom, and power as we discharge this function unto the end, our Father, that thy kingdom may be furthered, and law and order may be reestablished in thy name and to thy glory. Bless us to this purpose. In Jesus' name. Amen. 

* * *

Are there any questions now? ⁱⁱⁱ

Yes?

[Audience member] We do not have fields to glean today so how should we deal with that?  ^iv

[Rushdoony] Yes. First of all, gleaning did survive until World War II in the United States in many, many communities. This is an important fact to remember. Mr. Stafford here, I believe, has told me that it was in Orange County, at least in his memory. Isn’t that true? In much of the South, gleaning to care of the poor there until recent times. It was once traditional in every American community, so that in most of the smaller communities it did take care of the people. 

Now, the problem is, it could still work today in the countryside or in small towns so it might work for about 25% of the populations. But what about the cities? Now with the cities, I think here we would have to rethink some of our charitable enterprises in terms of this. A start was made in this direction some years ago, I feel it has lost part of its original function, and has not grown as it was intended to, but its basic intent was gleaning, and that was the Goodwill Industries. 

Now, the whole purpose of ‘Goodwill’ was to apply the function of gleaning to the city. However, it has not been carried far enough. One of the things that they could do there is to enlarge the area of their operation and take in various industrial plants and further sources of materials, but they’ve never felt that they had the capital to expand enough into areas where they could vastly enlarge their operation, and at present it hasn’t had the vision that inspired it in the beginning to keep pace with the times. But you see the potentiality. There’s a vast area of gleaning possible in cities whereby people can be put to work.

Yes?

[Audience member] I believe that Melanchthon has had a preponderant influence over the Lutheran Church of today. ^v

[Rushdoony] Yes. Right. The Lutheran Church today has been heavily influenced by Melanchthon who was a close associate of Luther, but had various meanings that were not congenial to Luther’s position. Luther and Calvin disagreed only with respect to certain doctrines of church order. In particular, the essential difference was with respect to communion. The Lutherans have tended to isolate certain statements of Luther and make doctrines of them, and I feel this statement of Luther’s, “The Prince is God’s hangman,” they’ve taken in isolation and out of context from much else that he has to say.

Yes?

[Audience member] What about Calvin and Luther’s disagreement as to the doctrine of consubstantiation? ^vi

[Rushdoony] Yes, the point of difference is with regard to the doctrine of consubstantiation. Now, when the Lutherans state, as many of their clergy do, that the other churches who deny this, for example, Presbyterian churches or Episcopal or Baptist and the like, that they do not have the real presence in their communion. They’re not accurate. There is a difference between the real presence and the doctrine of consubstantiation and the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

The difference is this; consubstantiation — the Lutherans doctrine, and Transubstantiation — the Catholic doctrine says that the elements, the communion wine and bread, are changed into the body and blood of Christ, that there is a change in the substance of the elements while they remain as far as the accident, the outward appearance, to be still bread and wine, in substance they are changed to the body and blood. Now, at this point of course, I would disagree. The whole idea of consubstantiation and transubstantiation is based Greek philosophy, and has no basis in Biblical faith. But this does not mean that we deny the real presence of Jesus Christ in the elements, the spiritual presence, so that we are truly partaking of Christ. 

Now, that the other doctrine, the Zwinglian doctrine, which went into the congregational churches and now is in many of the Baptist churches, and the modernist churches increasingly, is that it’s simply a memorial. With that I would also disagree. But we do believe in the real presence, this does not mean that there is a literal change in the substance of the elements. 

Along those lines, there was something very delightful in the January issue of Christendom, which is put out by the Fathers of the Oratory. Father Francis Nugent is a particularly brilliant monk and telling satirist. And in this he satirizes the laxity of modern churchmen as they deal with rioting and civil disobedience. And so, he titled the article “Looting and the Catholic Conscience by the Reverend Oxymoron O’Toole.”

“A refreshing spirit of hope in this has been sweeping through the church. ‘Open the windows,’ said Pope John, ‘Open everything except this secret of that Fatima,’ said Genghis Cardinal Cohen. One of the developments which the vast majority of informed Catholics had hoped would result from this new climate was the liberalization of the church’s regulations regarding private property. 

This climate of enlightenment explains why it was such a shock when the Pope recently denounced lawlessness and looting. ‘He has condemned two of our most cherished national pastimes,’ said the Reverend Mr. Sam Bow. ‘He is a pitiful old obscurantist,’ said Anglican Mr. G. Thistlewaite Thrush. The gullible poll reported that 102 out of every 100 Catholics endorsed looting, “If done in the response to the promptings an enlightened conscience,” as theologian Hans Clunk put it. The bishops of Canada said that while they were with the Pope all the way, they could not find it in their hearts to condemn theft, although they did hope the brethren would go easy on the Episcopal palaces.

The American bishops issued a fifty-thousand-word pastoral letter which some said agreed with the Pope, and some said did not. But which are Sunday Boor posted anyways, in between the Songwriters Wanted and Drink Your Ugly Fat Away ads. 

‘The Pope’s statement was not infallible,’ declared sister Greta Garble, of the Silly Sisters ex-cathedra, as she tied herself to a revolving door at Sears Roebuck, thereby blocking the egress of several young looters, though unintentionally. ‘Let the Pope heed these wise words, and keep to his place, and not trouble us in our conscientious pursuit of life, liberty, and loot.’”

Well, our time is up and we are adjourned.

i. Deuteronomy 22:8. Gerrit Verkuyl, trans. The Holy Bible, The Berkeley Version, In Modern English. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959.

ii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Th 3:10.

iii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

iv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

v.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.