6. Law: Partial and Impartial (Remastered)

Law: Partial and Impartial

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture this morning is several verses all on a common theme with respect to the law. First of all, from the Exodus 12:49:

“One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”

Then from the Exodus 28:12:

“And thou shalt put the two stones upon the shoulders of the ephod for stones of memorial unto the children of Israel: and Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord upon his two shoulders for a memorial.”

Then from the Exodus 28:29:

“And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the Lordcontinually.”

Then back to the Exodus 23:24:

“Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.”

And finally two verses from Deuteronomy 23, the fifth book of Moses. Deuteronomy 23:17-18:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lordthy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

This morning our Scripture has been a series of verses from the law, all of which deal with a common theme. It would take a great deal of time to go into these passages in detail, and perhaps might be confusing if we were to give them in too great of detail. So that we shall consider a certain point that the law makes which these verses have in common. First of all, let us consider the verses in Exodus 28 that dealt with the stone of memorial on the ephod and breastplate.

Now, the ephod and breastplate were items of the High Priest’s garb which he wore as he went to the most holy place, that is, to the throne room of God. The priest represented the covenant-people before God, and as a constant reminder when he went there; both in his function religiously, and in his function politically, because the most holy place was the throne of God, the King of Israel, the ephod had on its shoulders two stones upon which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. The breastplate had twelve gems upon it, and on each of the gems was engraved the name of a tribe. Thus the priest, as he functioned in his office, could not pray promiscuously. His primary concern was the people of God; both politically and religiously.

This therefore brings out an important aspect of the law. There is both a partiality and an impartiality to God’s Law and there must be the same in our law both religiously and spiritually. The impartiality first of all. In Matthew 5:45 our Lord says that God causes the sun to shine upon the just and the unjust, and the rain also to fall upon both alike. Moreover, in the Scripture which we read, Exodus 12:49, the equal protection of the law, as far as justice is concerned, extends to both the homeborn and the stranger. And the word ‘stranger’ here means ‘alien.’ This of course, is emphasized in a number of other passages in the law. In Leviticus 24:23 and Numbers 9:14 and in Numbers 9:15, 15:16 and 29, there’s to be one law for all.

On the other hand, there is, the law specifies, a definite partiality. God intervenes again and again in history to overthrow the enemies of His people. The law is given to protect Israel from subversion, and total toleration is never legally possible, nor is it permitted by the Law of Moses.

The idea of total toleration, of course, is a fiction, it is an impossibility. No law can ever extend total toleration. Religiously, for example, there is not a single practice anywhere that has not had religious sanction. For example, human sacrifice has often been, and still is in many parts of the world, a religious requirement. Similarly, prostitution and homosexuality have been often aspects of religious worship, and were very central aspects of the religious worship of the Canaanite fertility cults. Similarly, there is not a single human practice; whether it be adultery or whether it be murder, which has not been required by some religious practice somewhere. Thus, there cannot be total toleration. There can only be toleration of any other faith in so far as it does not offend the people of the ruling faith.

This matter, for example, came to the United States Supreme Court about 125 years ago with respect to polygamy and Mormonism, and the Supreme Court had to come to the conclusion that it was impossible to extend toleration to this form and practice. “Because,” they said, “if we do, there is nothing that cannot be permitted then under the name of religious toleration. All one has to do is to set out a religion which requires almost anything and then anything goes and there is no law. And so,” they said, “this country being Christian, and the common law of the land therefore being Christian, no other faith can be tolerated except insofar as it conforms to our moral standards and is no in offense to us.” This law stood until it was breached under Roosevelt in the ’30’s when the use of narcotics by the peyote cult among the Indians was legalized, and now increasingly we are moving toward intolerance with respect to Christianity and total toleration towards various other cults.

The law must be partial because the law represents a principle of order and it must therefore be intolerant towards anything that violates that principle of order. And since the law represents an enacted, morality and behind that enacted morality stands a religious faith, the law is of necessity intolerant. Moreover, the Biblical and moral requirements are for partiality. We are to pray for the good of others, but we are first of all responsible for our own household and he who does not care for his own, provide for his own, says St. Paul, is worse than an infidel. i Our first responsibility is towards our own household, toward those of our own faith. We are to be merciful unto others, but there is a partiality required of us both religiously and politically. To tolerate subversion, for example, is itself a subversive activity. The law, therefore, has an impartiality; one standard of justice for all. But it has a partiality in that it defends a particular law-order, and it cannot tolerate a destruction of that order. Thus, first of all the law has an impartiality, but it has also an impartiality.

Second, the text we read, Deuteronomy 23:17-18:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lordthy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Now, the law establishes a principle here. The vow of such persons, homosexuals, and prostitutes, could not be brought to the Altar. Such persons could not make a gift to God, they could not make a vow to God, they could not be taxed for the support of the state. Now, here again is a very interesting legal principle. There is no place before the law for outlaws, they are not citizens, and therefore the States, the social order, does not need their support.

Now, the Biblical Law says there’s a marked difference between sinners before the law, in the sense a sinner before the law is still within the law, there’s a marked difference between a sinner before the law and an enemy of the law. Now, the sinner before the law is someone who has broken the law, but is still within the framework of the society. The outlaw is not interested in breaking the law, but in overthrowing the law. There is a place, therefore, for the sinner before the law, but not for the outlaw. No tax or offerings from the enemies could be received. They were forbidden to offer it, and it was forbidden to receive it. The outlaw received justice, he could not receive citizenship, this is an important principle. To tax criminal activity, and this is a principle that has been obscured in our day, to tax criminals, to tax prostitutes, is to give them a legal standing as financial supporters of the law, and they are therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law. This should enable you then to understand something of the legal revolution we are undergoing.

The law can take three attitudes towards outlaws. There can be the Medieval attitude. Now, the Medieval attitude was that a heretic had no rights before the law, no promise to him had any legal standing. For example, John Hus was given a safe conduct to the Council of Constance. The minute he got there the safe conduct was withdrawn because it had no standing, he was under suspicion of heresy, and he was seized and burnt at the stake. In other words, he had no rights before the law, this was the Medieval attitude, this was the violation of the Biblical Law. The modern, liberal state on the other hand says, “We will tax everyone equally,” but it does not tell you, “We will give equal protection therefore under the law to everyone whom we tax.” As a result what is happening? Today, libel and slander have ceased to be crimes, murder and rape are becoming increasingly immune, especially rape. Self-confessed criminals are released. Recently the Supreme Court released a twice-convicted rapist. With respect to Capital punishment, the Supreme Court not too long ago ruled that no-one who was excluded from a jury for refusing to believe in capital punishment… Well, there could be no conviction if from the jury someone had been denied membership from the jury for refusing to believe capital punishment. In other words, those who deny the law must be required to enforce to law, which means they will not enforce it. What is happening? Capital punishment is negated. Under the same principle, if anyone believes that murder is not a crime, and is excluded from the jury, is being denied his rights and the criminal who has committed murder, will have been denied his rights.

Why are we getting into this legal impasse? Why is the Supreme Court moving in this direction? Why of course, under equal protection. If you admit to the rights of citizenship any and all, you give equal protection to any and all. There has been a move for some years in a number of States, including California a few years ago, to remove the old law, which comes from the Bible, that anyone convicted of a crime is denied his citizenship. Fortunately, the voters of California turned it down. But the Supreme Court has nullified all this, and to all practical intents they have citizenship. If they have citizenship, they are entitled to equal protection, whatever they’re doing, and we are moving in that direction.

Now the Biblical Law differs both from the Medieval attitude and the modern liberal attitude.

“One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” ii

A person was innocent until proven guilty by two witnesses. But, not all could be citizens, only the law-abiding. Nor could taxes be collected from people who had no legal standing before the law.

To cite an example of the equal protection of the law. The word for prostitute in the Bible is a ‘strange woman,’ or a foreign woman. Whether she was of Hebrew blood or not made no difference, she was a foreigner the minute she became a prostitute. The same was true of a homosexual, even more so because there the word, and as the Scripture gave it, the price of a ‘dog.’ He was not only a foreigner, he was more than that, he was subhuman. No such person, once they became that, had any citizenship. But, remember the case of the two prostitutes before Solomon? A very significant fact. They had the right of appeal, through the courts in their case, all the way to the supreme judge of the land; Solomon. One law, but not equal citizenship and equal rights of citizenship. This, then, is a second aspect that appears in the law with respect to the partiality and the impartiality of the law.

A third aspect of the law, as it appears here, is that law is a form of warfare. Indeed law is the major and continuing form of warfare. We have forgotten this fact, in fact, it has been studiously obscured for some generations so that I’m sure that in almost any school if you were to mention this fact, they would look at you in shock. But law is warfare. What does the law say? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, therefore the law says we are at warfare against any who kill and steal. And so the law organizes society to conduct warfare against those who deny the social order, or who seek to destroy it. In fact, law is the finest and best means of warfare, it is the normal form of warfare. Through law, society arms itself, the policemen are armed, to protect itself and to put down the enemies of society. Now, what you do in military action is simply to arm more people because you have an enemy alien of great size. But law is the major, the continuing, form of warfare. Every law, therefore, is a declaration of war against something and someone.

Now, one of the major weaknesses of the so-called ‘free world,’ or what is left of the free world today, is that it doesn’t recognize this fact, the Marxists do. The Marxists are very open about it. Marxist law is warfare against non-Marxists. Therefore, in spite of all their weaknesses and evils, they have an efficiency; they face the fact that law must be warfare. Now, their warfare is vicious and brutal and anti-God to the core, but we have to face the fact that Biblical Law sets down the requirements of godly warfare in the society.

Now of course, when you bring up this matter of law-as-warfare, some always bring up, and this is the standard objection, in fact the central objection that is always thrown at the person who deals with Biblical Law: “Well, the God of the law is such a ugly, rueful God, after all He condemned the Canaanites to death, He required the Israelites to kill them all, this is immoral!” Well, first of all, it is true, God did require the judicial execution of Canaan, all of Canaan, and promised the people they would be corrupt and it would eventually destroy them if they did not obey, and His Word is true. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to mend their ways. That’s more patience then we could exercise is it not? The Canaanites were addicted to every kind of perversion, every kind of evil imaginable. I refer to the fact that homosexuality and prostitution were religious practices required of everyone, and the kinds of things that were commonplace among the Canaanites of little children through adults, are such that, to this day, even in our modern day of pornography, there’s very little that’s honestly said about Canaanite culture. They were thus sentenced to death.

But here’s an interesting fact. God told the Israelites that they were to give at all times the full justice of the law, one law to the home born, and one law to the stranger, to Egyptians. They are specifically warned that this law applies to Egyptians as well, why? They had just left Egypt, and what had happened there? Egypt had tried to wipe them out. You recall the law that all Israelite babies were to be killed? Egypt had tried to wipe out Israel. God had brought judgment upon Egypt, but God was saying, “You cannot judge in this situation in terms of your personal feeling. Your natural inclination would be to say to yourself, ‘Well, the Egyptians tried to wipe us out, and they were vicious, they were brutal, they killed our little children, we’re going to wipe them out!’” No. However evil they were, and God brought judgment upon them, there was not the total depravity there that there was among the Canaanites. “And so, the Canaanites, who’ve done nothing against you, are to be sentenced to death because the standard is not what they did to you, but what they are.” And so the Egyptians were to receive equal protection of the law at all times. They could not act with vengeance towards an Egyptian, but the Canaanites were sentenced to death.

All law, therefore, is a form of warfare and law is a state of war, a state of war which inflicts limited penalties all the way on up to the death penalty. Every law-order, therefore, will be attacked. The question is, “Will it resist attack?” And so the question we face today is this; our law-order has been under attack, it is rapidly being destroyed, has it lost the capacity to resist attack? There is never peace with evil, the idea of peace is an illusion. There can never in all creation be total peace, there can be peace for us in Heaven, but there can never be peace between Heaven and Hell. There can be peace for us in the United States, but there can never be peace between the United States and crime. Peace is only possible because of warfare against evil. Peace at any price leads to slavery and to death.

John Philpot Curran over a hundred years ago declared:

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance, which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.” iii

Curran’s statement has been shortened into saying, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Those who seek peace with evil therefore are seeking slavery, and the surest peace is death and the tomb.

Thus the law has much to teach us. It teaches us first that law is partial as well as impartial. It is partial to the godly, the moral, the law-abiding citizen. But law is warfare against criminals and against enemies of the social order.

Let us pray.

* * *

We thank thee, our God, for the great and godly heritage that is ours, for a law-order established on Biblical foundations. And we pray, our Father, that in these days, when thy law-order all over the world is under attack, and its very existence in Heaven is denied, that thou wilt make us valiant in its defense. Make us ever mindful that now is the time to rebuild the foundations, for the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of our own Lord and of His Christ. We thank thee, our Father, that we have been called to victory, that ours is a sure and certain cause. Make us bold therefore, and ever mindful, that if God be for us who can be against us? Our God we praise thee. In Jesus' name. Amen.

* * *

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you expand on your comment on ‘guilty until proven innocent?’  iv

[Rushdoony] Just this. The Bible says the person is innocent until proven guilty, and our American law still reflects the Biblical principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty except in two areas, which I cited last week. In military law the Napoleonic principle prevails that you are guilty until proven innocent, and in bureaucratic law.

[Audience Member] Where is this applicable in the U.S?  v

[Rushdoony] Before various government commissions, such as the labor relations board and so on.

[Audience Member] Internal Revenue Service?

[Rushdoony] Internal Revenue also, yes.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you expand on equal citizenship as against the outlaw and their protection?  vi

[Rushdoony] Equal citizenship. Equal citizenship you see. We are licensing them, we are giving them the right to equal protection then. In other words, if you tax a criminal, you are saying he is entitled to the full protection of the law because he is within the law, he is one of those whom the law must protect.

[Audience Member] If a man cannot be convicted and sentenced to death, they have legalized murder, is that not right?

[Rushdoony] Not quite. To understand this let’s get back to something of the origins of taxation. Originally, only the person who was a free man and a citizen was taxed, the slave was not taxed, the foreigner was not taxed. So that there were three levels of standing before the law; the slave, the non-tax paying free man who was a foreigner or had a lesser position, and then the free man who was a citizen and a taxpayer. Moreover, this free man who was a tax payer also was liable to conscription, he also alone had the right to vote. In other words, he bore the responsibility; it was his order, he protected it, he provided for it.

Now we fail to realize that sometimes the slave, because the slave in ancient society, in earlier society, sometimes could operate, and often did, on his own on the side, he might become quite rich. It was not uncommon for slaves to buy their liberty. He might sometimes have a great deal of money, quite a few assets because he had used his spare time to dicker and deal and accumulate, but he was still a slave. Because to be a free man meant that you assumed the responsibilities of defending a law-order, and you alone had the right to determine the nature of that order, to vote.

Now, when we go back to Rome, for example, we find that to be a Roman citizen was a very important privilege, it was a restricted privilege, it meant a great deal. But what happened before Rome fell? They extended citizenship finally to just about anybody and everybody, promiscuously, until it had no meaning. Well, citizenship today has virtually no meaning because it doesn’t confer any special responsibility and special privilege. We have destroyed the significance,and now we’re destroying the significance between the citizen and the criminal, and we’re protecting the criminal at the expense of the citizen.

Now not too many years ago, some of you may recall it, there was quite a bit of hue and cry because when the income tax amendment was passed they began to collect income taxes from madams who were running houses of prostitution, and it was regarded as a fearful step. But most people thought, “Well, let them pay. If they’re making it, then let them pay.” But they didn’t see the implications of it, you see. You were then saying they ultimately must have the same protection that anybody else has.

In effect you are legalizing crime when you tax crime, that’s it. You see this is a principle of law that is hidden from us, but in effect you are legalizing it because then you face conflict, “Oh, we have some laws against you, but we’re also promising you the equal protection of the law, we taxed you for that.” And guess which law is giving?

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you distinguish between the outlaw and the lawbreaker, Dr. Rushdoony?  vii

[Rushdoony] Yes, alright. If you and I violate a traffic law we are sinners before the law, you see. But this doesn’t mean we don’t believe in traffic laws, we got careless or we were trying to get by with something in the moment, but basically we are for traffic laws. But supposing we denied traffic laws in principle and we were out to break them and tie up the courts fighting them, some people are doing this, you see. They are right now advising people how to foul up the courts with very simple traffic violations in order to break down the law. Now, there’s a world of difference you see between you and I and such a person. We are sinners before the law, they are outlaws using the processes of the law to destroy the law.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on the meaning of ‘due process?’  viii

[Rushdoony] Due process of the law is simply… yours is a very good question and this is a subject really for a lawyer to get into. But due process of law is a very important and highly necessary concept. What we are seeing is that due process of law is being used by these people for their ends when they are trying to destroy, really, due process of law. In other words, due process is for the protection of the innocent.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Do you think that it’s possible for any individual to establish law and order in place of riots, any one individual without the help of [the state]?

[Rushdoony] No, of course not. It requires far more than one individual. You see, one of the things we’ve lost sight of, in fact it has been intended that we lose sight of it, citizenship means that you are, well you can’t use the term in-law because it has another connotation, but there are outlaws and there are those who are within the law.

Now, a citizenship confers police power. This is why the constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms. Every citizen has police power. There is the citizens right of arrest. Now, all this is subject to law, as is the police power. But this is the meaning of citizenship; every citizen has the right and duty to apprehend criminals, to help enforce the law, to assist those to whom he delegates the power without surrender in the discharge of their duties. This is the one right a citizen has that he delegates without surrender. We delegate our right to vote, for example, in the house and in the Congress and in Sacramento we can never exercise it in person; but this is a power we delegate without surrender.

Now today, of course, it has been, in effect, surrendered. Thus, people have permitted the right to bear arms to be taken from them in many, many areas, New York City and State, and elsewhere. They refuse when they see a crime being committed to do anything about it. It’s a familiar story how again and again women have been attacked in public and no-one has moved to do a thing about it. And in many, many ways you see we have surrendered our police power. So that it is only as people begin to re-establish their power that there can be godly law and order. Now, I believe of course, that it’s going to go downhill a lot more before something is done, but it will only be done as people begin to rebuild the foundations which are Biblical, educational. As we once again create a citizenry that it knowledgeable of its responsibilities and spiritually fit to discharge them. But the idea that you can elect a man and sit back and see him accomplish something is impossible.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on ‘inalienable rights’ as defined in the Constitution, is that a Biblical idea? ix

[Rushdoony] It would take too long to go into it now. We shall consider it later and I have both a tape and a record on the return to slavery in which I go into this, it can be dealt with there.

Our time is just about up and I would like to share with you an editorial now from the California Farmer for August the 3rd. You’re all familiar with what Cesar Chavez is doing and how badly the grape growers are hurt right with the grape strike. There is a boycott on their grapes; for example, in New York their grapes cannot be received by any supermarket, and the grape growers are trying to go to court to do something about it. They’re really up against it as far as selling their grapes are concerned. But this editorial in the California Farmer:

“If you sign a union contract forcing your workers into a union, or if you allow the union to come on to your place and your workers vote in a union, or if you’re forced by a boycott to sign a union contract, you face certain possibilities. You will guarantee your workers a $1.65 per hour and that rate shall hold for forty hours a week. If the workers work any longer than forty hours a week they get time and a half, or $2.47 1/2 cents per hour and you can stuff all that kind of overtime being paid in the year of a mouse. In a short harvest, fast moving crop, a good worker on a ranch that pays well and has good incentives and unlimited hours can make a bundle in a short time.

Therefore, the guy who gets stuck with the union contract is guaranteed a couple of things. He is going to get all the slow workers who cannot make $1.65 an hour on a piece-work basis. He is going to get guys who get paid whether they work or not, and he is going to be avoided like the plague by the excellent worker who has a chance to make a real killing in the flurry of a quick harvest. We have given you the mathematics of this thing before, but here they are again. The going wage for picking table grapes and Coachella and in the San Joaquin valley is a $1.40 box, plus 25 cents a box bonus. The workers average anywhere from three to six boxes per hour. Three boxes per hour on a ten hour day is $21.50. Six boxes is $29.10 a day. The guy on the union ranch is absolutely limited to $13.20 in an eight hour day, and union dues are subtracted. The farmer that gets unionized is facing a really penalty and if there are any real advantages to belonging to a union we fail to see them.”

Of course, what we have not been told also is that even those ranches that have been paying by the hour, rather then piece work, have been paying better wages than Cesar Chavez has been demanding so that the very places they were picketing at Delano were paying better then the union was asking. Why were they then demanding union recognition? Because it means control; control both over labor and over agriculture. This is the key, not the welfare of the farm workers but power, and this is the key to a great deal in our culture today.

Oh just one, yes Bill.

[Audience Member] What about the imported workers? x

[Rushdoony] They will but they will never come up to the same level and the real issue is power and in Delano they were very flagrant about, they imported people because they weren’t going to get the farmer workers there to strike for lower wages. They imported people from outside to picket. It was as contemptuous an act as possible, they were saying “We are going to unionize you workers whether you like it or not, and we’re going to unionize you farmers whether you like it or not, and our standard is going to be the standard. So if we say you’re going to be unionized at lower wages then you are paying, or you are getting, it’s going to be that way.” It was a deliberate act of contempt. But the papers did not report it, and although it was repeatedly brought out in testimony at the time, when the Senators, including the late Senator Kennedy, went to Delano, it was not reported in the papers. This is not what you are to learn.

Well, our time is up, and we are adjourned.

i. 1 Timothy 5:8.

ii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 12:49.

iii. John Philpot Curran. The Speeches of the Right Honourable John Philpot Curran. Edited by Thomas Davis. Seventh Edition. Dublin: James Duffy and Co. Ltd., 1865, p. 105.

iv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

v.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.