Occupy: Biblical Property Rights

In the last exciting blog post, I outlined the similarities between the Occupy Movement and the Communist agenda, which (in the words of Karl Marx) boil down to this: “The abolition of private property.” At the end of that post, I posed the following questions for further investigation:

Is private property really a right?

Why would we think that the abolition of private property is a bad thing?

What does the Bible say about the Christian view of property rights and charity?

Is private property really a right?

“No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions(property).” - John Locke

“The right to private property meant at the same time the right and duty to be personally concerned about your own well-being, to be personally concerned about your family's income, to be personally concerned about your future. This is hard work.” ~Mikhail Khodorkovsky

From this and other writings, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self–evident,

That all men are created equal,

That they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights,

That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

“Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” ~John Adams

“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights.” ~Potter Stewart

All rights come from God. They do not come from the government (though if they did, then all government-sanctioned slavery or genocide is morally acceptable), and rights do not come from the majority (though if they did, then any minorities which the majority see as having less rights really DO have less rights). America is founded upon the idea that all unalienable rights come from God – and only God can revoke those rights. Any government which tries to tread on those rights is acting wrongfully.

Locke spoke of the rights of life, liberty, and property. To gain property is seen as being personally concerned about one's future, and so Jefferson penned the famous line about our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property rights are a subset of personal rights, since the right to private property means to be personally concerned with your future and your families well being through hard work.

Yet, those are all just ideas and claims. To verify the claim that property rights come from God, we will later in this look at what the Bible says specifically about private property rights.

Why would we think that the abolition of private property

is a bad thing?

There would be several reasons.

#1 - There would be disincentive to work. “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

#2 - A socialist economic system has been shown again and again to result in increasing poverty for the whole country.

“'Who were the first Communists?' asked a farmer named Aristar.

'You tell us,' said the rest of the ward.

'Adam and Eve,' came the reply. 'And why? Because they had no clothes, no house, they had to share the same apple — and still thought they were in paradise!'” - Richard Wurmbrand (a pastor who was imprisoned in Communist Romania for 14 years)

#3 - Personal inability to provide for self, family, or tithe. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

#4 – Such a system would attempt to justify forcible taking of property from those who had done nothing wrong to deserve it.

#5 – Such a system would also give more power to government than is rightfully within the role of the government, and would take away the liberty of everyone in the country under that government.

The Christian view of property rights and charity (according to Karl Marx)

It's interested to note that Karl Marx addressed the same question of whether the abolition of private property was just or in line with Scriptural/Religious principles:

“The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.”

“(The opponents will say:) 'There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.'

...Whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas [the aforementioned religion, freedom, justice,etc], which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.”

Karl Marx, then, did believe that the abolition of private property went against religious principles, and put forward the idea that religious principles (along with freedom and justice) were relics of unfair civilizations and needed to be thrown out along with those structures of civilization. But let's look at what the word of God says, because God's law has the highest authority, and God's law judges human law - not the other way around.

What does the Bible say about the Christian view of property rights and charity?

What is a right? Basically, a human right is some part of a person's existence that God forbids other people to threaten without just cause.

For instance, humans have the right to life: “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) Therefore, no one is allowed to take away the life of another human, except with just cause: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed.”(Genesis 9:6)

Additionally, humans have the right to personal property: God also forbids people from taking another person's property without just cause.

“The right to personal property is embraced within the command -"Thou shall not steal." Certainly nothing could be stolen if it did not belong to someone. In other words, if a right to something did not exist there could be no theft. God thus recognized the right of property by preserving and protecting that right with a law, a law that forbids any one else from taking possession of what another owns. Thus, the right to property has always been regarded as a natural and inalienable right, for it comes from God.” - Charles A. Weisman

Biblical laws and principles regarding taking property from another without just cause:

#1 – Stealing is forbidden (Exod. 20:15; Lev. 19:11, 13; Psa. 62:10; Prov. 21:7; Amos 3:10; Deut 5:19; Matt. 19:18; Mark 10: 19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Pet 4:15.)

#2 - Theft from the poor is especially wrong. (Proverbs 22:22)

#3 - If one strikes a thief, who is breaking into a building, and that thief dies, it does not qualify as murder. (Exodus 22:2)

#4 - We are exhorted to stop theft in the land by having a thief labor with his hands. (Ephesians 4:28)

Not even kings are above this law – King Ahab killed Nabaoth in order to take forcible possession of his vineyard, and the prophet of God reproaches him two-fold: “Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?” The wrongs listed include murder and violating the right of private property.

What would be just cause for taking someone's property?

#1 – Under the Old Testament judges, one who has stolen property is to repay double to the owner. (Exodus 22:7-9)

#2 – Under Old Testament Kings, one who steals due to hunger should not be despised, but must later pay back sevenfold when he can afford it. (Proverbs 6:30)

In the Old Testament, there were many passages dedicated to specific property rights and designated territories for each of the tribes of Israel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_allotments_of_Israel).

In the New Testament, we read about private property rights very specifically – for both land and money:

Acts 5:4 “While [your land] remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?”

And Christ said specifically, in His parable: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (Mt. 20:15)

Finally, there are many commands that cannot be obeyed without having private property:

• Give Tithe to the House of the Lord (from your own resources): “Bring your sacrifices every morning, Your tithes every three days.” (Amos 4:4)

• Work to provide goods for your own household: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

• Give from your own property to benefit the poor:"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." (Proverbs 22:9) "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." (Luke 12:33)

• Reward men individually according to their labor: “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.”(2 Thessalonians 3:10) “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

What about Biblical Communism?

Acts 2:45-47
“Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.”

This form of “communism” involved the voluntary giving of private property – the principle of sowing and reaping was still the form of income, each man was providing for his family, and also voluntarily giving to provide for the poor. This upheld the rights of private property because all giving was voluntary and charitable, not forced, which is what charity is:

“But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver'” (2 Corinthians 9:6-7)

References:

Charles A. Weisman, http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/18.html

New King James Version (for all Scripture quoted)

Spanking: Appropriate or Harmful?

Note: As a student pursuing my Bachelors in Psychology, the topic was sure to come up. So here are some of my thoughts, as presented in a paper I was assigned to write.

Some studies lump all types of spanking and corporal punishment together, and have shown that, all together, it's not emotionally or psychologically healthy for children. One study discriminated a bit more between types of corporal punishment, based on frequency and intensity, and discovered that occasional and mild spanking of preschoolers is harmless.(Ballie, 2001) Studies that discriminate more between types of corporal punishment are needed to debunk the myth that all spanking is either abusive or damaging to the child. True abuse is defined as follows: the willful infliction of a cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or any injury that results in a traumatic condition.(California "Child Abuse" & Corporal Injury Laws, n.d.)

Now I need address the following terms, for the sake of clarity: discipline, punishment, positive discipline, and corporal punishment. Discipline is the process of teaching someone and raising them up to follow a specific path; this is similar to discipling someone, or discipleship. The word discipline, though, is most often used to refer to negative consequences that lead to appropriate learning. Positive discipline is a subset of discipline, and refers only to discipline that helps children feel connected, is respectful and encouraging, is effective in the long-term, teaches, and invited children to discover their capabilities.(About Positive Discipline, n.d.) Punishment, on the other hand, is more of “this for that,” or “an eye for an eye.” The attitude of “You destroyed my property, so I will hurt you.” This is a different motivation from the desire to train up a child. Finally, corporal punishment is the intentional infliction of physical pain, and can be for punishment or discipline, and can be harsh or gentle.

Today, in fact, a news article came out surrounding a situation in which this very question came up: At what point does discipline move from corporal punishment to physical abuse? A video of a Texas judge beating his 16-year-old daughter with his belt went viral, and while some think that it's acceptable discipline, a large group of people have responded with outrage.(http://www.fmnewschicago.com/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1565910) I think that the situation fell on the side of “physical abuse” rather than appropriate discipline. Where is the line drawn? I believe that the line should be drawn with consideration to six aspects:

• Length/Intensity: Obviously, if a spanking is too long, it no longer serves the purpose of teaching or training, but just inflicts pain. A seemingly endless spanking also can quality as cruel and can result in a traumatic condition. An appropriate length might be 4 swats, or for a really serious offense, 12, but not more than that. Intensity refers to how hard the child is hit, and with what instrument. Belts and wooden items are much more dangerous than hands or rods which are flexible and designed not to cause damage to a child. However, on very young children, even a flexible rob would be way too intense.

• Anger: This is extremely important. Disciplining a child in anger does sever the connection there, destroys trust, and is more about calming the parent than growing and teaching the child. The example given, that “a parent might lose patience, respond with anger, and spank the child” would be completely inappropriate. If the parent is angry, they must wait until they are not angry before attempting any manner of discipline, save for restraint.

• Unpredictability: I also cannot overemphasize the importance of this aspect. There are two elements of predictability. The first element is that the child knows that a spanking will follow, if they break whatever rule is involved. The spanking cannot be a surprise, or it seems unjust. Additionally, it's very important that the child know how long the spanking will be. There's a huge difference between 4 swats and 39, and if the child doesn't know which they are going to get, it can be completely terrifying and leave the child feeling powerless. Predictable punishment, though, seems much more reasonable and just to a child.

• Purpose: This goes back to the whole discipline/punishment idea. If the purpose is to train the child, the child senses that, and it's part of the connection between parent and child. It will also lead to reasonable measures of discipline which are only designed to help the child. For instance, at the of time of discipline, the parent should talk over with the child what was done wrong, why it was wrong, what should be done differently in the future, and should address the child's thoughts about any difficulties that might get in the way of better behavior in the future. If the purpose is punitive, the child will sense this also, and is more likely to be resentful. Also, the punishments are more likely to be unreasonable, and based on the irritation of the adult. Additionally, it should never be about control, but about teaching and growth.

• Opportunity for reconciliation: After discipline, it's important that the child have the opportunity to receive comfort and reconnect with the adult, and feel completely forgiven. Re-establishing this connection is crucial to the child's development and feeling of being loved and belonging. This helps let the child know that he or she is loved and accepted, even though the behavior in question was not acceptable.

• Age: The question of “when is a child too old to be spanked” is a good question. I don't know exactly, and I think it would depend on the maturity level of the child. Ultimately, though, as children grow to be adolescents, pre-teens, and teenagers, the dynamic between parent and child changes. It's no longer just a “command-obey” sort of relationship. Young adults are trying to figure out who they are, as separate from their parents. Spanking pre-teens and teens can be devastating to the relationship, and can cause humiliation, mental distress, and embarrassment. It breaks trust and leads to a lack of respect.

These are the six aspects that mark the difference between long-term effective and ineffective physical punishment, and between abuse that tears a child down and discipline that builds the child up. I have based this on reading I have done, and also on a lot of personal experience and things that I have personally witnessed in the lives of others. More research needs to be done regarding spanking, and it needs to be research that discriminated between the types of spankings. For example, angry spanking should not be measured together with calm and forewarned discipline. Needless to say, though, there are many other methods that can be used to train and to discipline children besides corporal punishment. Having the child practice a better way of doing things, giving the child additional chores, time-outs, having the child make restitution or apologize, having the child do 10 pushups, or other techniques can also be precisely what is needed.

References:

About Positive Discipline. (n.d.). Positive Discipline - Solutions for Parents and Teachers to reate Respectful Relationships in Homes and Schools. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.positivediscipline.com/what-is-positive-discipline.html

Argosy University, (2010). Module 1. Retrieved on October 30, 2011 from www.myeclassonline.com

Ballie, R. (2001). Spanking study gets big play in the media. American Psychological Association (APA). Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/spanking.aspx

California "Child Abuse" & Corporal Injury Laws | Penal Code 273d pc. (n.d.). California

Dowd, N. E., Singer, D. G., & Wilson, R. F. (2006). Handbook of children, culture, and violence. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Marshall, M. J. (n.d.). Stop Spanking. Stop Spanking. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.stopspanking.com/

VIDEO: Family law judge beats his disabled daughter over downloaded music. - Local News - FM News 101.1 - Chicago. (2011). Home - FM News 101.1 - Chicago. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.fmnewschicago.com/news/local/story.aspx?ID=1565910

The Lesson of Balaam's Donkey

Now the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road.

Then the Angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again.

Then the Angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.



Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”

So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”

And he said, “No.”

Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face.

_________________________________________________

In this story, Balaam physically could not see the danger that he was in. In a more metaphorical sense, this applies to many situations because we all have blind spots in life, and we don't always know what danger we are facing or what trouble we are getting ourselves into. The story of Balaam is a lesson in humility; why should he have paid attention to the perspective of a sub-human creature who was incapable of telling him a good reason for what he was doing? There are several key elements in the set-up to this story, though, and these elements are also seen reflected in many more modern tales, but I'll get to that later.

1. Character #1 faces danger of some sort
2. Character #2 is a loyal or upright character who has proven untrustworthy
3. Character #1 looks down on Character #2, doesn't think them worth listening to
4. Character #2 tried to prevent bad stuff from happening
5. Character #1 for whatever reason does not hear or does not understand the reason that Character #2 has for getting in the way
6. Character #1 gets angry at Character #2 for getting between them and their goals
7. Character #1 hurts Character #2
8. Finally, Character #1 sees the danger prevented and appreciates Character #2

That's generally how it goes. Where did Character #1 go wrong? Well, other than the obvious mistake of getting himself into trouble somehow, there are the issues of trust, of respect, and of anger. After Balaam had hit the donkey several times, the donkey is able to speak back and he asks whether in the past he had ever gone against Balaam or been stubborn like that. The donkey asks if Balaam has any reason not to trust him, and Balaam has to admit that the donkey had always been a loyal servant and never untrustworthy in that way. Balaam was wrong, then, to judge rather than trust his loyal servant. In Balaam's mind, though, he was a man and the donkey was a donkey, which means that he was right by default. There wasn't the slightest possibility, in his mind, that he should actually heed the donkey.

Similar plotlines pop up here and there. In Lady and the Tramp, for instance, the Tramp knocks over the baby's basset (with the baby in it) while helping Lady to protect the baby from a vicious rat who was attempting to bite the baby. Naturally the noise brings in Aunt who-ever-it-was, and she berates both dogs, also calling the dog catcher to take the Tramp to the pound. The parents get home, and they actually listen to Lady's barking, she leads them to the curtain where the rat (then dead) was lying, and then of course the Tramp is appreciated. The Aunt distrusted all dogs from the very start, despite Lady's habitual past trustworthy conduct, and saw Lady as a lessor being (obviously) so that the possibility that she should actually heed the dog's barking (first warning her of the rat, and later trying to show the dead rat) wasn't in her mind at all. Again, there is a lack of humility that she could have a blind spot, dismissal of input from those she looks down on, retaliation toward those who were protectors, and final revealing of the truth.

In another well known story, It's A Wonderful Life, there is a scene near the beginning where the main character is a child working for a pharmacist. The pharmacist, Gower, accidentally grabs the wrong bottle and inadvertently sends young George to give a child poison. Young George notices this danger, refuses to deliver the drug, and attempts to explain...

GOWER

Why, that medicine should have been
there an hour ago. It'll be over in
five minutes, Mrs. Blaine.

He hangs up the phone and turns to George.

GOWER
Where's Mrs. Blaine's box of capsules?

He grabs George by the shirt and drags him into the back
room.

GEORGE
Capsules...

GOWER
(shaking him)
Did you hear what I said?

GEORGE
(frightened)
Yes, sir, I...

Gower starts hitting George about the head with his open
hands. George tries to protect himself as best he can.

GOWER
What kind of tricks are you playing,
anyway? Why didn't you deliver them
right away? Don't you know that boy's
very sick?

GEORGE
(in tears)
You're hurting my sore ear.

GOWER
You lazy loafer!

GEORGE
(sobbing)
Mr. Gower, you don't know what you're
doing. You put something wrong in
those capsules. I know you're unhappy.
You got that telegram, and you're
upset. You put something bad in those
capsules. It wasn't your fault, Mr.
Gower...

George pulls the little box out of his pocket. Gower savagely
rips it away from him, breathing heavily, staring at the boy
venomously.

GEORGE
Just look and see what you did. Look
at the bottle you took the powder
from. It's poison! I tell you, it's
poison! I know you feel bad... and...

George falters off, cupping his aching ear with a hand.

Of course, after Gower realizes that it was, in fact, poison, he was penitent and very grateful to poor George, who became deaf in one ear after the incident. Unlike the previous two stories, Character #2 wasn't an animal. The dynamic remains the same, though, because George was just a child; there wasn't the slightest possibility present to Gower's mind that the kid saw something that he didn't. Rather, the child seemed to get between the old man and his goals, and there was hell to pay. In this case also, George had been nothing but trustworthy and reliable; there was no reason for Gower to distrust him and turn on him just as there was no reason for Balaam to distrust and turn on his donkey. The motivation is understandable: what underling dares get between a man and his goal, especially without being able to articulate quickly and clearly why? That underling faces wrath for being "in the wrong" automatically, not heard, and getting in the way, even though getting in the way protects the other character from the destruction that lies in that way.

Therefore, the lesson of Balaam is simply this:

We all have blind spots. Therefore, if some loyal underling (even one below your statue, your rank, your education, your age, or sub-human) gets between you and a very urgent goal then follow these three steps: Respect their motivations even if you don't understand or you disagree; Listen to their perspective if you can to try to consider their angle on what the danger might be; Whatever you do, don't hit them in anger just because they stand between you and your goal. If anything, it is better to be too gracious than too quick to condemn.

Sowing and Reaping

God is Ruler and God over the universe. He makes things happen as He justly chooses. We know some of how God likes to run things from His Perfect Word:

Galatians 6:7
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."

Some people in the world see that life seems to operate according to the rules of cause and effect, and conclude then that the universe is like a giant clock, in no need of a Ruling sovereign. They will say "of course the wheat grows! It does not come from God, but science dictates that it must grows!" They do not realize that they very laws of science are from God. That God decrees that the wheat must grow, has put science in place, and continues to command science to continue in the same way. In the same way, cause and effect is seen in work, in relationships, etc. In the same way, this is not because there was no other way it could have happened, but rather because it pleases God to make the world operate generally in that manner.

On this tangent, when we sow evil, God justly judges us by giving us the reaping of that evil.

Beautiful and terrible case in point:

Ahab and his prophets...

2 Chronicles 18...
Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?”
So they said, “Go up, for God will deliver it into the king’s hand.”
But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not still a prophet of the Lord here, that we may inquire of Him?”
So the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is still one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord; but I hate him, because he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil. He is Micaiah the son of Imla.”

All the false prophets lie. The King wants a lie (as we see, as the story unfolds) and God sends a lying spirit into the mouth of all those prophets. They know that this is not the truth from God...

Then he came to the king; and the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?”
And he said, “Go and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand!”
So the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”
Then he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, "These have no master. Let each return to his house in peace."

This is incredible! Ahab knows that his victory is a lie, and asks for the truth. He, then, still rejects the truth...

Then the king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and return him to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son; and say, ‘Thus says the king: “Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and water of affliction, until I return in peace.”’
But Micaiah said, “If you ever return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Take heed, all you people!”

Ahab's heart desired a lie, God gives him the lie he wants. God also gives him truth, and Ahab, who hears the truth and recognizes it as truth, blocked it from his heart, choosing instead to listen to what he knows is a lie. "Hearing, he hears not." Thus God gives him the reaping of what He had sown, and he perished in battle. What a sobering story.

Some may read the story and think to themselves, "Why would a God of truth send someone lies?" I may be wrong, but it seems to me that God wants all to believe truth, and He punishes those who want lies by giving them what they want. What a terrible and just punishment. In fact, it reminds me of hell. Some people simply want no part in God, and God gives them exactly what they ask for, sending them to the only existent place where He is not.

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
C. S. Lewis

God, and the Hardening of Hearts

I would just like to take a moment, or perhaps a bit longer, to reflect and ponder over a couple of interesting stories in the Bible. The first story is the story of Pharaoh, the ten plagues of Egypt, and the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The second story is the story in Isaiah of the Israelites whose ears were closed. In both stories, there is aspect that God shut people's ears from the truth, or hardened their hearts to His commands. If God desires that people obey Him, why would He stop them from obeying His moral law? In addition, if He is a kind and reasonable God, why would He command people to do righteous acts that He Himself has prevented them from doing? Very mysterious indeed! As a child I regularly could be found reading a mystery. I still love mysteries.

A Hard Heart

Taking a look at the story, there are several verses that speak specifically about Pharaoh's heart. Some of these verses simply say that "Pharaoh's heard grew hard." That by itself is a very clear statement of fact, but does not seem to shed much light on the source of the hardening, or the reason. Some of the verses say specifically who determined the hardening. Let's look at the timeline here:

Exodus:
8:15 "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said."

8:32 "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go."

9:12 "But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses."

9:34 "And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants."

10:20 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go."

10:27 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go."

11:10 "So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out of his land."

Some think that this timeline is meaningless. Perhaps it is. Else, perhaps it's very specific for a reason, and it's some sort of clue to the mystery. Pharaoh hardens his heart... does it again... then God does... then Pharaoh does again... then God does it repeatedly.
This brings to mind a verse:

Romans 9:18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

Now that's quite interesting.
In fact, it reminds me of another verse which might shed light of who He wills to have mercy on, and who He likes to harden:

Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."

That makes me start to wonder if God likes to give men the reaping of what they sow. It makes me start to think that if God works everything according to the good pleasure of His will, and that God is pleased to give men the reaping of what they sow. Those ideas seem to suggest that God might be inclined, according to His nature, to harden the hearts of men who sow the hardening of heart in their life.

In fact, now that I think about that, it seems very similar to the everyday occurrence of bad habits: I am tempted to disobey God, and I choose to harden my heart. Again, I am tempted, and again I choose to disobey and pursue sin. It becomes a habit, and before I realize it, I am making those same sinful choices without realizes it. Then I realize it, and choose, again, purposefully to indulge my desire. It stays a habit, and continually I give in without even thinking about it. I choose to harden my heart, and choose again, and then it is chosen for me, and then I choose again, and then it is a strong habit. That seems quite similar, if not identical to what was going on with Pharaoh in that passage. Sometimes sowing and reaping is positive, when we choose to do right. Other times, sowing and reaping is a form of judgment.

Job 4:8 "Even as I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."

__________________________________________________

Which brings me into the story in Isaiah.

Isaiah 1:9-10
And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

Hearing, they hear not, lest they return and be healed. Interesting.

Isaiah 6:11
"Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered: “ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant..."

A - Israel has rebelled(1:2): Despite the message to "hear" and "give ear" twice (1:2,10), and God saying "let us reason together,"(1:18) Israel is said to "not know" because they do "not consider"(1:2) - getting drunk instead.(5:11) they ignore God's Word purposely(5:11-12), and despise/reject the Word of God(5:24) This all provokes God to anger (1:4, 5:25) to the point that He will not relent 'til their "dross is purged." (1:25, 31)

B - Israel, unashamed and blatant in their sin, (3:9) who do not seriously consider God's work(5:12), and who blatantly, having rejected the Word of God, call good evil, and evil good (5:20), they proudly ask God to give an account of His thoughts and counsel(5:19) [Not to listen to it, but for, as we hear God berating them for later, the clay to judge the potter (29:16)]

C - God's not gunnu make His will known to those scoffers! Instead, God says them, through Isaiah to "keep on" hearing but not understanding His Word,(6:9) and tells Isaiah to "make their ears heavy"(6:10 as opposed to earlier when Isaiah kept saying stuff like "hear this!"(1:2) For How Long? God's punishment is complete. (6:11, refers back to 1:25,31)

D - Chapters pass, while God judges the people, without commands to "listen up!" to Israel. [This is interesting because it supports the theory that God, being kind and reasonable, does not command people to do that which they are unable to do. While they were unable, He did not command them to listen.] (D = chapters 7-28)

E - God talks about the whole hearing and seeing issue, first referring to His closing of their eyes (namely the prophets) and sending His word like a letter to an illiterate man. (29:10,12) God then goes on and on about why He's doing all that - Why He's so mad at Israel, why He's punished them all this way, ending in a call for them to repent. He sharply rebukes them for, among other things, honoring Him verbally (related to ears) but not their heart(29:13) (kinda like hearing they hear not, but includes speech) wanting to know (the first type of hearing) God's counsel not to heed it (the second type of hearing) but to judge God's counsel. (29:16) Complains that they choose to rebel, and take counsel, but purposely not God's counsel, again not heeding God's true words.(30:1) He calls them children who will not hear (they choose, will, not to hear), and who say to prophets of God not to see and prophecy truly, but rather to speak smooth lies.
(30:10) Once again because they, in their pride and thinking they know better despise God's Words(30:12) God wraps it up with a call to repentance from all this (31:6)

F - God turns away from His not sharing His counsel,(32:3, 35:5) and once again calls on the Israelites to actually hear. (34:1, 40:1, 40:6, 44:8, 45:22, 47:8, 48: 12, 49:1, 66:14) He still occasionally refers to them deep down knowing stuff, (40:21,28; 44:8) and blames them for not answering when he called, and choosing not hearing when he spoke, and choosing evil, choosing also to forsake the Lord, and forget stuff. (65:11-12)


__________________________________________________
End of Isaiah... Wow! Pretty intense! Anyway, as I see it, Israel did not listen to God, choose not to hear, or to heed His counsel, only asking to hear the will of God that they could judge the potter. God is angry, and closes their ears until His judgment is done, then calls them to repentance, calls them to listen and hear. It is quite interesting to note that before God choose to close their ears, the Israelites ignored God's Word purposely, and that God responded to that in wrath. In His wrath, He dealt out judgment, and as part of that judgment, the closing of their ears until the judgment was complete. Again it reminds me of these two verses:

Galatians 6:7 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."

Job 4:8 "Even as I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."

It seems in both the cases that God wants people to do right, and when they do not, when they choose to harden their hearts and ignore His Counsel, that He judges them with physical punishment, including at the same time the hardening of hearts and closing of ears as part of the punishment. This goes hand in hand with what the Word says about God habitually giving people the reaping of what they sow.

Another aspect of the story is that we know that through the judgment on Egypt, God wanted to make His justice and power known throughout the nations.

Romans 9:17
" For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”"

Does that mean that He wanted Pharaoh to sin, so that He could punish Him? That doesn't sound very likely to me in light of the Scripture that states that God does not want people to sin, that He takes no pleasure in wickedness.

Psalm 5:4
" For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You."

We know, however, that God exploits evil, and that when evil happens, God uses it for good.

Genesis 50:20
" But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."

Given that Pharaoh would sin, would it be possible that God wanted to use it to make His justice and power known throughout the nations? I believe that God wants no one to sin, but if people do sin, He takes full advantage of that and uses it to make good happen.

Perhaps if Pharaoh would not have sinned, and the ten plagues were an important part of God's plan, He would have shuffled history and put in Pharaoh's place another Pharaoh who would have hardened His heart (Esther 4:14). (see blog about sovereignty and God shuffling history Here ) Oh, and if God knew about Pharaoh's future sin, which He obviously must have, then it would explain why He told Moses about the future and the plan in Exodus 7:1-5.

__________________________________________________
I read these stories, and it brings me to believe that:

1. God does not give commands that He doesn't want people to obey. He wants all to do righteousness, and punishes those who rebel against that. (2 Pet. 3:9, Lev. 18:25)
2. God is not mocked: Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. Sow hardness of heart, and God will judge you by hardening your heart. (Job. 4:8)
3. Given that people do disobey God, God uses the situation powerfully to glorify Himself through the just and public punishment of said evil-doers. (Josh. 2:10)
4. God does not give commands that people are unable to obey. While He closed the ears and hearts of the Israelites, He did not command them to listen. The constant command to Pharaoh was disobeyed before God hardened his heart. (Isa. 7-28 , Ex. 8:15)
5. This judgment on hard hearts and closing of ears is the just reaping of the sowing, helpful in proclaiming God's power and righteousness, and is in direct opposition to Satan's desires. (Gal. 6:7, Rom. 9:17, Prov. 15:10)

__________________________________________________

P.S. That was the conclusion, but let me just add some clarification to that last point there: The devil is a tactician - we know this from his famous and sneaky roaring lion ambush mentioned in 1 Peter 5:8. If I were the devil, I would encourage people to harden their hearts, rebel against God, and hurt other people a lot. Then, when God's punishment comes, I would stop tempting them, so that they might listen to God that judgment may pass. After that, when things are safe again, I would continue temping the people to harden their hearts, and they would probably listen to me because they learned nothing from judgment. In helping the people avoiding the discipline and judgment of God, I would be better able to use the people to further the cause of evil. Given that that tactic would make sense, I find it not the least bit surprising that God would sabotage that plan by adding a hardening of hearts as part of the punishment.


___________________________________________________
So what I take away from these stories is this: Don't harden your hearts. (Heb. 3:8) Seriously. Just don't do it. It's dangerous. God will not be mocked: If you sow iniquity, you will reap sorrow. (Prob. 22:8) As I said in my last blog, God punishes those who sow evil by giving them them the reapings of evil... which is an awesomely terrible and just punishment!