It is a serious error to see theocracy, the rule of God, as government over men by a group of men in the name of God. The Biblical doctrine of theocracy means the self-government of the Christian man. In Biblical law, the only civil tax is the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16).
~R.J. Rushdoony, Sovereignty p. 31
10 comments:
Last Sunday, we were trying to remember the particulars of a Biblical tax, and couldn't remember if it was at birth or when the men were older.
Good quote except the last line. I've always wondered where he got "poll tax" out of a requirement that all the men pay an ounce of silver to the priesthood before going to war. That looks to me like a payment to the Church, not the State.
With all due respect, I think that Rushdoony's defintion of theocracy is problematic because, some one person, or one group of Christians are gonna rise to the top. It's inevitable. And, I think that one would have to adhere to sinless perfectionism if one is to expect things to be perfect under a triumphal church.
There isn't a Biblical tax. There is not a single authorized tax by the state in the Pentateuch. However, Samuel did warn that a king would take 10% if they installed one. In the context it was given more as a curse than as a prescription of law. The fact that there is no Biblical definition of a lawful tax makes me think the regulative principle applied to civil government doesn't work. God left some things unsaid, which forces us to make up with something that works in order to implement the rest of the law. It says "make sure you maintain good roads to the cities of refuge". It doesn't say who should maintain them or how to raise the funds to pay for the maintenance. It just says to do it.
Interesting that, once our Constitution had been drafted, John Adams, I believe it was, declared that this government will ONLY suit a people who are already self-governed by the moral law as found in the Christian bible. It will suit no other people.
Sure, that document is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward recognising the sinful nature of man and setting up checks and safeguards against the innate evil of men gaining the upper hand.
I think Rush is not talking about a "godly anarchy." I believe he is challenging the notion of an oligarchy ruling on God's behalf, when the reality is that civil leaders are chosen to enforce a very small number of civil laws which deal with problems arising when men don't practice good self government. In other words, there is a presumption of limited jurisdiction on the state-- but simply "ruling in God's Name" has been used as an excuse for all kinds of mischief.
Caleb, your statement about some people "rising to the top" is a case in point to what I was addressing above. "rising to the top" in Rush's definition of theocracy, would mean only rising to the top of a severely limited government in society-- civil government is not even treated as "first among equals" in the Bible. And Recall the very low opinion that God has for earthly monarchs... What ken said about taxes in the Bible is very interesting. If Rush's view of taxes is correct, it would mean a civil government living on a bread and water diet... Which is healthy for liberty.
Matt, but there's still no way of guaranteeing that a government will be severely restricted. To be honest, I see this largely based on speculation.
That;s what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do.. find, and seat, honest men who will SERVE us in our government, rather than help themselves to our wealth, power, goods, etc. We really DO get, colletively, the government WE deserve. It reflects our culture, every time. When we hold government up as a god, looking to it to do and provide everything, then guess what? Government WILL take the place of God, attempting to do and provide everything... on ITS terms.
Caleb, what is the alternative?
Post a Comment