Latest / Reformed Thinking / Dishonesty (Exodus 20:15) | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Dishonesty (Exodus 20:15) | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
So you probably consider yourself a pretty honest person.
0:02
I think most of us do. Yeah, right.
0:04
I mean, if you were listening to this deep dive on your commute
0:07
right now, or maybe you are folding laundry at home.
0:11
You look at your life and you check off the big boxes.
0:13
You do not rob banks. No, you do not rob banks.
0:16
You do not shoplift electronics, right.
0:17
And if a cashier hands you a $20 bill instead of a 10 for your
0:21
change, well, you hand it back. Because you are a good citizen,
0:25
you feel secure in your moral standing.
0:27
Yes, you do. But back in July of 1740,
0:32
Jonathan Edwards stood in a New England meetinghouse and
0:36
mathematically, relentlessly proved that nearly every single
0:39
person sitting in those wooden pews was an active, unrepentant
0:44
thief. Wow, that is quite the
0:46
accusation. It is welcome to Reformed
0:49
thinking today. The mission of our deep dive is
0:51
to investigate a sermon Edwards preached on Exodus 20.15.
0:55
Thou shalt not steal. That is the one.
0:56
We are going to take a high definition X-ray of your daily
0:59
transactions, your work habits, your casual conversations, and
1:02
even your charitable giving. Edwards is about to expose
1:05
fractures in our integrity that, honestly, we have spent our
1:09
entire lives learning how to hide.
1:10
Let us set the stage here. What is the theological bedrock
1:14
Edwards is standing on for this? Well, to understand the sheer
1:18
force of what he is doing in this text, we have to look at
1:21
how we view the law. As Protestant Christians who
1:24
adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, we do not
1:27
view the 10 Commandments as some archaic list of civic
1:31
suggestions. Like they expired in the Bronze
1:33
Age. Right.
1:34
The Confession, which was drafted by brilliant theological
1:37
minds in the 1640s, makes a very crucial distinction about the
1:41
laws God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai.
1:43
OK, what is the distinction? It teaches that the moral law,
1:47
which is summarized in the 10 commandments, is perpetual.
1:50
Meaning it never. Expires never.
1:52
It binds all mankind in all eras, across all cultures,
1:55
forever. God's law is a direct reflection
1:58
of His unchanging character. So when Edwards is preaching on
2:01
the 8th Commandment in the middle of a sweltering
2:03
Massachusetts summer, he's not just giving his congregation
2:06
financial advice. No, not at all.
2:09
He is unfolding the eternal standard of a holy God regarding
2:13
true justice and human property. Let us start right there with
2:17
how Edwards categorizes those laws from Mount Sinai, because
2:22
it sets up his entire definition of what theft actually is.
2:25
Yeah, he points out that God delivered different types of
2:28
legislation to the Israelites. Some laws were ceremonial.
2:31
Right, dealing with animal sacrifices and temple rituals,
2:35
and then some were judicial organizing the civic government
2:39
of the nation of Israel. But those specific laws were
2:41
temporary. Yes, they acted like scaffolding
2:44
for the Jewish nation and they were taken down once Christ
2:47
arrived. But the 10 commandments are
2:49
different. Very different.
2:50
They are the permanent moral law.
2:52
And Edwards notes they are divided into two tables.
2:55
Yes, our duties to God are in the 1st 4 commandments and our
2:58
duties to our fellow man are in the last 6.
3:01
And the 8th commandment sits right there in the second table.
3:03
Designed to protect a neighbor's estate and possessions.
3:06
But then he gives a summary definition of the forbidden act
3:09
that completely reorients the conversation.
3:12
What does he say? He defines theft as an unjust
3:15
usurping of our neighbors property without his consent.
3:18
That covers an enormous amount of ground.
3:20
It really does. I mean, he is not talking about
3:23
a burglar with a crowbar. He's talking about any mechanism
3:27
of usurpation. The mechanism of how Edwards
3:30
arise at that massive definition is fascinating.
3:33
He is using a specific interpretive method that Jesus
3:36
Christ himself established. And the Sermon on the Mount.
3:39
Right. Yes, in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus
3:42
confronts the religious leaders of his day, the Pharisees, who
3:45
had this highly convenient microscopic of the law.
3:49
They like to keep things very literal so they could find
3:51
loopholes. What precisely?
3:53
The Pharisees read the commandment Do not murder and
3:55
concluded that as long as there was no physical corpse bleeding
3:58
out in the street, they had kept the law perfectly.
4:01
But Jesus shatters that illusion.
4:03
He does. He expands the prohibition to
4:06
reveal that unjust anger, malice and hatred are the actual root
4:10
of murder. So they violate the very heart
4:12
of the commandment. Right, and he does the same
4:15
thing with adultery, linking it to the private intent of lust in
4:18
the mind. And Edwards takes that standard
4:21
and applies it directly to the 8th commandment.
4:23
Yes, the prohibition against stealing must be understood in
4:27
its widest possible latitude. It includes all things of the
4:30
same nature or kind. So stealing encompasses
4:33
absolutely any method by which you wrongfully interfere with
4:38
your neighbour's rightful ownership.
4:40
Anything at all. I want to introduce an analogy
4:42
here because I think visualizing this changes how we interact
4:46
with the concept of morality. OK, let's hear it.
4:49
Our modern instinct is to treat the moral law like a do not
4:53
cross police tape at a crime scene.
4:56
Sure, like a boundary. Right.
4:58
Police tape is restrictive. It just tells us where the
5:00
forbidden zone is, and our natural inclination is to walk
5:04
right up to the yellow tape. Put your toes right on the line.
5:06
Yes, see how close we can get without technically crossing
5:09
into the penalty area. We all do that.
5:11
But what if we think of the moral law not as police tape,
5:15
but is an architectural blueprint for human flourishing?
5:18
Oh, I like that. A blueprint shows you where
5:21
every load bearing rivet, every steel beam and every electrical
5:25
wire must be placed so the building does not collapse on
5:28
the people inside. Right.
5:29
If the law against theft is this broad blueprint covering all
5:33
human interaction with property, it changes the stakes entirely.
5:37
If it really does. If we violate the blueprint in
5:39
microscopic ways every single day, the structural integrity of
5:43
our society is compromised. I will pick up that blueprint
5:46
analogy and take it a step further.
5:48
Go for it. If you remove a single load
5:50
bearing rivet, let us say the basic trust between an employer
5:55
and an employee regarding time management, the structural
5:58
integrity of the entire macroeconomic system begins to
6:01
sag, and this ties directly into the Reformed doctrine of total
6:05
depravity. Which people often
6:06
misunderstand. They do.
6:08
Total depravity does not mean human beings are as evil as they
6:11
could possibly be at all times. It means that the infection of
6:14
sin has tainted every single faculty of our nature, including
6:18
our logic and our reasoning. So our fallen minds naturally
6:22
seek out the police tape because we want loopholes.
6:25
Yes, we want to justify our small daily selfishness, but a
6:30
strict, expansive definition of the law destroys those
6:33
loopholes. The Apostle Paul calls the law a
6:36
schoolmaster. Designed to show us our absolute
6:39
inability to measure up to God's standard.
6:41
It reveals our desperate need for the grace of Christ.
6:44
Because once you accept that theft includes any unjust
6:48
usurpation of property, you are forced to look in the mirror and
6:51
admit you are guilty. So since theft is any unjust
6:55
usurpation, Edwards starts categorizing all the varied ways
6:59
we accomplish this. And the very first major
7:01
category he identifies completely upends our normal
7:04
categories of crime. Because it involves stealing by
7:07
doing absolutely nothing. The dishonesty of withholding,
7:10
yeah. Edwards argues that we steal by
7:12
withholding what is rightfully due to our neighbor.
7:15
He points specifically to broken promises and unfaithfulness in
7:18
business agreements. He observes people breaking
7:21
agreements simply because the terms become inconvenient over
7:24
time. Or because they change their
7:25
minds after the fact. He talks about a hired laborer
7:28
who does not work hard for the day's wages.
7:31
Or a manager entrusted with a task who fails to oversee it as
7:35
diligently as if it were his own private business.
7:38
We have to examine the theological physics of a promise
7:41
to grasp why Edwards calls this theft.
7:44
OK, let us break that down. When you make a promise to
7:47
someone, or when you enter into a binding agreement, that verbal
7:51
or written commitment instantly transfers a property right?
7:54
Really. Instantly.
7:55
Yes, it invests your neighbor with ownership of your future
7:59
action or your future resource. So when Tuesday rolls around and
8:03
you decide to break that promise because you are tired or because
8:05
a better offer came along. You are not simply being
8:08
unreliable, you are physically taking their property.
8:11
You are withholding A possession that belongs to them.
8:14
The logic holds firm with daily labor too.
8:16
How so? If an employer purchases your
8:18
time, your physical effort, and your mental focus for an 8 hour
8:21
window, those specific resources now belong to the employer.
8:25
So if you withhold your diligence, you are pocketing
8:28
something they already paid for. Let us translate this into the
8:31
modern workplace, because the applications are staggering.
8:34
Oh, absolutely. We have a whole lexicon now for
8:37
this behavior. We talk about quiet quitting.
8:39
Where an employee decides, without telling management, to
8:43
do the absolute bare minimum required to avoid termination.
8:47
Right. Or consider the massive shift to
8:49
remote work. That is a big one.
8:51
Think about the person's sitting in their Home Office, keeping
8:54
their chat status green by jiggling the mouse every 10
8:58
minutes. While spending two hours
8:59
scrolling through a social media feed or binge watching a
9:02
television show. Based on the logic Edwards is
9:04
laying out, is that individual actually violating the 8th
9:08
commandment? Yes, I would say so.
9:11
I propose that this modern time theft is the exact behavior
9:14
Edwards was targeting. If you were listening to this,
9:17
evaluate your own work ethic today.
9:19
Are you managing your employers or your clients resources and
9:22
time with the intense diligence you apply to your own personal
9:25
bank account? Edwards argues that if you do
9:28
not manage their affairs as if they were your own, you are a
9:31
thief. He is unsparing on this point.
9:33
He states that if you are hired to accomplish a piece of work
9:37
and you do not use the care, the contrivance and the diligence
9:40
that you would employ if the affair was your own, you are
9:43
withholding what is due. It is a severe, uncompromising
9:47
standard. It completely incinerates the
9:49
common modern excuses. Like my manager does not
9:52
appreciate me. Or this corporation makes $10
9:54
million a year, they will not miss my two hours of lost
9:58
productivity. The 8th commandment does not
10:00
contain an exemption clause based on your employer's profit
10:03
margins or your personal job satisfaction.
10:06
No, it does not. If you agreed to provide a
10:08
specific service for a specific wage, failing to provide that
10:12
service in full is theft. So from withholding our labor
10:15
and our focus, the text moves to withholding literal funds.
10:19
This brings the conversation to the dishonesty of debt and the
10:22
reality of misplaced priorities. Edwards has incredibly sharp
10:26
words for individuals who neglect to pay the debts they
10:29
owe. He lists a few common reasons
10:31
why people fall into this trap. Living above their financial
10:34
means, basic covetousness, or sometimes just sheer
10:37
carelessness with their bookkeeping.
10:39
But he uses a specific hypothetical example that is
10:42
devastating. He describes a person who
10:45
possesses the actual cash to pay a tradesman, but.
10:48
Chooses instead to spend that money buying gay clothing for
10:52
their children or using it to advance their own estate.
10:56
They hold the funds in their hand, but they prioritize their
10:59
own luxury over their neighbors rightful property.
11:02
And then Edwards tackles the ultimate rationalization.
11:05
Withholding payment because the creditor is affluent.
11:08
Right in the debtors mind, the wealthy person can well bear to
11:11
lie out of his money. The psychological autopsy
11:14
Edwards performs on these choices is brilliant.
11:17
The debtor in that example is actively elevating their
11:20
personal desires or their family social status above the
11:23
requirements of basic justice. They look at the silver in their
11:26
hand. They know perfectly well it is
11:28
owed to the tradesman who did the work.
11:30
And they make a calculated decision that their child's
11:32
fashionable appearance is a higher priority than obedience
11:36
to God's law. And regarding the wealthy
11:38
creditor excuse, Edwards completely dismantles it.
11:42
He points out to his congregation that the very
11:44
definition of a debt means the money belongs to the creditor.
11:48
In the eyes of God, an unpaid debt is stolen money sitting in
11:52
your pocket regardless of the balance in the creditor's bank
11:56
account. The personal wealth of the
11:58
person you owe grants you 0 moral right to detain their
12:02
property. It is just as unlawful to
12:04
withhold what is due to a millionaire as it is to openly
12:08
pick the pocket of a millionaire.
12:10
That makes me think immediately about our modern credit card
12:13
system and how we view delayed payment.
12:15
We live in a society fundamentally built on
12:17
leveraging future earnings for current consumption.
12:21
Is carrying a credit card balance to buy luxury items a
12:24
form of theft against your own future or against the creditor?
12:27
Let us say you buy an expensive piece of technology or book a
12:30
luxury vacation that you do not strictly need.
12:33
Fully knowing you cannot pay the statement balance at the end of
12:36
the month. You are making a deliberate
12:38
choice to delay justice. I would suggest that delaying
12:41
payment for your own convenience is akin to treating someone
12:44
else's wallet as a 0 interest loan facility without their
12:48
actual consent. You are forcing the creditor or
12:51
perhaps the small business owner who is waiting 3060 or 90 days
12:55
on your invoice to bear the financial burden of your
12:58
lifestyle choices. Now, while modern credit
13:01
agreements obviously have explicit terms, conditions and
13:04
interest rates legally baked into them, the underlying moral
13:08
principle Edwards highlights is totally applicable.
13:11
When we delay paying a local tradesman or we string along a
13:15
freelance graphic designer for two months because keeping the
13:18
cash in our own account is better for our monthly cash
13:21
flow. We are making them suffer for
13:23
our convenience. Edwards states that we rather
13:25
choose to put our creditor to inconvenience by being without
13:28
what properly belongs to him than to put ourselves to
13:31
inconvenience by being without what does not belong to.
13:34
Us. That is a massive failure of the
13:36
biblical command to love our neighbor.
13:38
It is prioritizing our own financial comfort over their
13:41
rightful property. So we've looked at withholding
13:43
what belongs to a neighbor through broken promises, shoddy
13:46
work and unpaid debts. Yes, and now Edwards pivots to
13:50
the second major category of his sermon, actively taking what
13:53
belongs to a neighbor. And he begins this section by
13:56
examining negligence and fraud. For negligence, he goes straight
14:00
to the agrarian laws of the Old Testament.
14:02
Citing Exodus 22.5. He uses the example of a man
14:06
letting his beast, his ox, or his sheep wander over and eat a
14:10
neighbor's field. Doing nothing to prevent damage
14:12
to someone else's property is legally and morally classified
14:16
as an active taking of that property.
14:18
And then he moves to fraud. This is the section that becomes
14:21
highly uncomfortable for anyone involved in commerce or sales.
14:25
Oh yeah. He defines fraud as concealing
14:28
defects in goods sold, keeping silent about known flaws.
14:31
Charging more than an item is worth if the hidden flaws are
14:34
known. Or the buyer falsely claiming an
14:37
item is worthless to manipulate a lower price.
14:39
He quotes Proverbs 20.110 where the buyer says it is not, it is
14:44
not to drive the price down, but then walks away boasting to his
14:47
friends about the incredible bark and he just secured.
14:49
The focus Edwards places on silence as a primary mechanism
14:52
of theft is incredibly sharp. In secular common law there is a
14:56
well known concept, Caveat emptor.
14:58
Let the buyer beware. The burden is on the purchaser
15:01
to inspect the goods. But in the jurisdiction of God's
15:04
moral law, the burden is firmly placed on the seller to be
15:08
truthful and transparent. If a seller knows a specific
15:11
defect exists and the buyer pays full market price believing the
15:14
item is flawless, the seller has taken money for a value that
15:18
simply does not exist. The seller is directly profiting
15:21
off the buyer's ignorance. Edwards equates this to taking
15:25
payment for a ghost for something the buyer never
15:28
actually received. You are pocketing cold hard cash
15:32
in exchange for an illusion. And Edwards ensures the buyer is
15:35
not let off the hook either. Right, downplaying the true
15:38
value of an item, acting like you are doing the seller a favor
15:42
by taking it off their hands just to manipulate them into a
15:44
lower price. Is the exact same sin operating
15:47
in reverse. It is using deceit to unjustly
15:51
usurp the property of your neighbor.
15:53
Wait, let me push back on this, or at least try to find the line
15:55
here regarding modern salesmanship and marketing.
15:58
OK, Where is the boundary between highlighting a product's
16:01
best features, which is just good business, and committing
16:04
fraud by concealing its limits? Let us use a detailed
16:07
hypothetical to look at that. Imagine you are selling used
16:10
car. OK, a used car.
16:12
You spend the weekend detailing it.
16:14
You make the paint shine. You vacuum the interior.
16:17
You highlight the incredibly low mileage in your online
16:20
advertisement, sure, but you know for a fact that the
16:23
transmission slips a little bit when the temperature drops below
16:26
40°. Oh, that is a big issue.
16:28
But you do not explicitly lie about it.
16:31
If they asked, you would tell them, but.
16:33
You just do not mention it, right?
16:35
A young couple comes to take it for a test drive on a warm,
16:38
sunny July afternoon. The car runs perfectly.
16:41
You notice nothing wrong and they pay your full asking price.
16:44
According to the standard Edwards is setting, you are a
16:47
thief. You did not break into their
16:49
house in the dead of night, but you took their money through the
16:52
strategic, calculated use of silence.
16:55
Your omission was literal act of theft.
16:58
Under the framework of the moral law, you have accurately
17:00
diagnosed the crime. If you accept a higher price
17:03
than the car would fetch if the transmission issue were publicly
17:06
known, you have stolen the financial difference in value.
17:10
Your silence is the crowbar you use to commit the theft.
17:13
The reformed understanding of the law demands truth in the
17:16
inward parts. It requires us to actively
17:19
protect our neighbors, estate and well-being as if it were our
17:22
own. Ask yourself, would you want to
17:25
hand over your hard earned savings for a car with a hidden
17:28
expensive transmission problem? Of course not.
17:31
Therefore, the Golden Rule, the command to do unto others as you
17:35
would have them do unto you, demands you do not inflict that
17:38
exact scenario on anyone else. This escalates rapidly.
17:41
We go from hidden fraud and calculated silence to
17:45
overtaking. Edwards moves into the use of
17:47
force, systemic oppression, and the manipulation of the legal
17:51
system. He defines violent taking not
17:53
just as open robbery in an alleyway or piracy on the high
17:56
seas. He defines it as taking
17:58
advantage of a neighbor's poverty or absolute necessity to
18:01
extort them. He cites Leviticus 25 and Amos 4
18:04
issuing severe warnings against oppressing the poor.
18:07
A prime example uses is raising the price of provisions during a
18:11
time of public scarcity. We call this price gouging
18:13
today. But he also notes that extorting
18:15
affluent people just because they possess deep pockets or
18:19
because they need your specific services urgently, is equally
18:22
abhorrent. And perhaps the most shocking
18:24
part of this section is his commentary on the legal system
18:27
itself. He argues that taking advantage
18:30
of human laws to gain what moral honesty forbids is a violent
18:34
dealing with our neighbors. That specific point about human
18:37
jurisprudence requires a solid understanding of the reformed
18:40
perspective on the hierarchy of law.
18:42
In this theological tradition, human laws are always, without
18:46
exception, subordinate to God's higher moral law.
18:49
The state creates legal codes to try and maintain civic order and
18:53
secure property rights. But human lawmakers are
18:56
inherently fallible. Therefore, the legal code will
18:59
always contain gaps, unintended loopholes and complex
19:03
technicalities. What Edwards is arguing is that
19:05
just because a state law allows you to do something or provides
19:08
a clever loophole for you to acquire someone else's property.
19:11
It provides 0 excuse for you before the throne of God.
19:15
You might win the civil court case based on a brilliant legal
19:18
technicality. The judge might bang the gavel
19:21
in your favor. But God, the Judge of the
19:24
universe, will evaluate you by his own moral law.
19:28
Legality does not equal morality.
19:30
Using a legal loophole to ruin a neighbor financially is, in the
19:34
eyes of God, an act of sheer violence.
19:36
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, specifically
19:39
regarding his point about price gouging, because this crashes
19:43
headlong into modern macroeconomics.
19:45
All right, let us hear the pushback.
19:47
If food is scarce, or let us say a massive hurricane is offshore
19:52
and portable generators are in incredibly high demand, doesn't
19:56
the free market dictate higher prices?
19:58
That is the basic law of supply and demand.
20:00
Right. If a Christian business owner
20:01
keeps prices flat during a severe shortage, their inventory
20:04
gets wiped out in 5 minutes by hoarders who will probably just
20:07
resell the items themselves. So how is a business owner
20:10
supposed to balance basic market economics with Edwards's strict
20:14
moral prohibition against depressing the needy?
20:16
Does the mechanics of the market excuse the raising of prices?
20:20
You are getting on a massive, difficult tension.
20:23
We have to remember that Edwards is not writing a textbook on
20:26
macroeconomics or supply chain management.
20:29
He is diagnosing the spiritual condition of the human heart.
20:32
His primary concern is the internal motivation of the
20:35
seller. Are you raising the price
20:37
slightly to manage your inventory, ensure broader
20:40
distribution to more families, and cover your own increased
20:43
costs of securing emergency freight?
20:45
Or are you looking at a line of desperate, terrified people and
20:48
thinking, here's my golden opportunity to maximize my
20:52
profit margin at the expense of their suffering?
20:55
Edwards explicitly condemns taking occasion from the
20:57
necessity of poor people to raise the price of provisions
21:01
even above the current market rate.
21:03
If starving people will hand over almost any price for a loaf
21:06
of bread rather than watch their children go without it, and you
21:10
exploit that desperation to line your pockets.
21:12
You are an oppressor. The Christian business owner
21:15
must operate with a conscience held captive to the Word of God.
21:18
Recognizing that exploiting human vulnerability is abhorrent
21:22
to the Lord, regardless of what the invisible hand of the free
21:24
market. Moving from overt oppression and
21:27
legal loopholes, we arrive at the precise definition of secret
21:31
theft. This introduces A fascinating
21:34
discussion that highlights the nuances of consent.
21:37
Edwards defines strict stealing as a design taking of our
21:40
neighbors goods from him without his consent or knowledge.
21:43
He carefully differentiates this from robbery, which is done
21:46
openly and aggressively. An extortion which forces a
21:49
person to give their consent against their true will.
21:51
He also makes a very crucial distinction between explicit
21:54
consent and implicit consent. For example, he mentions that a
21:59
general custom might imply consent.
22:02
Like grabbing an apple from a neighbor's orchard, if that is
22:05
the understood, universally accepted cultural norm of the
22:08
village. We must focus highly on the word
22:10
designed in his definition. Edwards is constantly evaluating
22:14
the intent of the human heart. If you walk away with someone's
22:17
property by pure accident or through an honest absent minded
22:20
mistake, it is not strict theft in the moral sense.
22:23
You must make full restitution the moment you realize the
22:26
error, of course. But the moral culpability of a
22:28
thief is entirely tied to the design.
22:31
The specific premeditated intention to conceal your action
22:35
is what legally proves your guilt in the courtroom of your
22:38
own conscience. You take the item privately
22:40
because you know with absolute certainty that the owner would
22:43
not give you their consent. The desire for secrecy is the
22:47
undeniable evidence that you know you are committing a wrong.
22:50
And regarding implicit consent, Edwards is very careful to build
22:54
a fence around it. He notes that implicit consent
22:57
relies on an established long standing custom where it is
23:01
universally presumed no sensible injury is done to the owner.
23:05
It is not a blank check. You can write yourself to assume
23:07
someone would not mind if you took their property.
23:10
Let me apply this design taking without knowledge to digital
23:13
property, because this is where 18th century theology meets the
23:16
modern era head on. Think about the casual nature of
23:20
digital piracy. Pirating A newly released movie,
23:23
downloading copied software that costs hundreds of dollars, or
23:27
illegally streaming a pay-per-view sports event.
23:29
The corporation or the creator who owns the copyright does not
23:32
explicitly know you are doing it in that exact moment.
23:36
And you certainly lack their consent.
23:39
You are acting like a digital ghost sneaking through the back
23:42
door of a movie theater without paying for a ticket.
23:44
Does Edward's definition catch 21st century digital piracy?
23:49
I argue it catches it perfectly. You are engaged in a design
23:53
taking of goods without consent or knowledge.
23:56
The fact that you are duplicating a digital file
23:58
consisting of ones and zeros rather than physically carrying
24:02
a television out of a store. It does not alter the moral
24:05
geometry of the ACT 1 bit. The moral geometry is identical.
24:08
You are unjustly usurping the Creator's property right to the
24:12
fruits of their own intellectual and creative labor.
24:15
The premeditated design is there, the lack of consent is
24:18
there, and the secrecy of doing it behind a screen in your
24:20
living room is there. And this reality naturally
24:23
forces us to confront the psychological gymnastics we use
24:26
to justify our secret thefts. Having strictly defined what
24:29
stealing is, Edwards transitions to the anatomy of self deception
24:33
and the elaborate, dishonest excuses we formulate in our own
24:37
minds. Human beings are brilliant
24:39
defense attorneys for our own sins.
24:41
We construct entire legal defenses in our heads before we
24:44
even commit the ACT. We really are phenomenal at
24:47
justifying ourselves. Let us examine the three main
24:50
excuses Edwards highlights from his own pastoral experience.
24:53
Excuse number one is they owe me.
24:56
This is the justification used when someone takes matters into
24:59
their own hands to seize property.
25:01
Instead of following a regular open and legal proceeding for
25:04
collecting a debt they feel they are owed.
25:07
Excuse number 2 is I did them a favor.
25:10
Edwards provides this incredibly specific, highly relatable
25:13
example of someone helping out at a neighborhood gathering,
25:17
maybe a barn raising or a large harvest meal.
25:20
The person secretly takes extra food or supplies home, thinking
25:23
their unpaid labor more than covers the cost of the
25:26
provisions. Edwards does not mince words
25:28
here. He calls this justification
25:30
unmanly and vile. And excuse #3 is it is just a
25:34
small matter? This is the rapid
25:36
rationalization that the item in question is so incredibly cheap,
25:40
so inconsequential, that it is not even worth the breath to ask
25:44
for it. Let us dissect that third excuse
25:46
first, the small matter defense, because it is the most common.
25:50
Edwards dismantles this with flawless, airtight logic.
25:53
He argues that if an item is truly too small to ask for, then
25:57
why do you feel the need to conceal taking it?
26:00
The very fact that you slip it into your pocket when no one is
26:02
looking proves that your own conscience suspects the owner
26:06
would object. Furthermore, he establishes A
26:08
crucial principle of property rights.
26:11
The owner, and only the owner, has the sole right to determine
26:14
the value of their possessions. The person taking the item
26:17
cannot arbitrarily decide that the property is worthless to
26:20
justify their theft. And regarding the 1st 2 excuses,
26:23
the vigilante justice and the unpaid labor, they're rooted in
26:27
a total arrogant disregard for orderly society.
26:30
You cannot install yourself as a private judge, a private jury,
26:34
and a private executioner to seize goods just because you
26:37
harbor a grievance or feel you were under compensated.
26:39
That mindset leads to absolute societal chaos.
26:43
I want to spend a minute on that second excuse the potluck theft
26:46
example because it functions as a perfect high definition mirror
26:49
for modern entitlement. Let us look into the psychology
26:52
of how we build these mental courtrooms.
26:54
Think about taking office supplies from your work place.
26:57
You are packing up your bag at 5:00.
27:00
You grab a handful of expensive gel pens, couple of premium
27:03
notebooks, and maybe a printer ink cartridge.
27:06
In your head, the internal monologue runs totally like
27:08
this. I answered emails for two hours
27:11
on Saturday morning. I miss my kids soccer game.
27:13
To finish that presentation, the company owes me.
27:17
They did not pay me overtime. This ink cartridge is basically
27:19
just fair compensation for my extra effort.
27:22
We process this entire trial in our minds in three seconds.
27:26
We decide our employer owes us a debt, so we extract our own
27:29
payment in the form of stationary.
27:31
Edwards is pointing a finger right at that entitlement,
27:34
exposing how sin uses grievance to bypass our conscience and
27:37
calling it vile theft. That internal monologue of
27:41
entitlement is a textbook manifestation of human
27:44
depravity. Notice how we brilliantly twist
27:47
the narrative. We cast ourselves as the
27:49
oppressed victim who is simply seeking cosmic justice and
27:52
balancing the scales. When in objective reality, we
27:56
are the perpetrator committing a secret theft against our
27:59
employer. And Edwards points out that the
28:02
desire to keep the ACT secret completely dismantles the entire
28:06
excuse. If you truly, genuinely believe
28:09
those office supplies were rightfully yours as legal
28:13
compensation for your Saturday emails, you would openly walk
28:16
into your manager's office. Hold up the ink cartridge and
28:20
declare that you are taking it in lieu of overtime pay.
28:23
But you do not do that. You bury it at the bottom of
28:26
your bag because you know they would never consent.
28:28
The secrecy is the absolute proof of your guilt.
28:31
If justifying the theft of office supplies is
28:34
uncomfortable, where Edwards goes next is terrifying.
28:37
We move from defrauding our employers and our neighbors to
28:40
what he considers the most egregious, highly aggravated
28:43
form of theft imaginable. Attempting to defraud the
28:46
Almighty, we are talking about the public offering plate.
28:49
Edwards addresses a specific fraud that was apparently
28:51
rampant in his own Northampton congregation.
28:54
People were putting bad, clipped or counterfeit money into the
28:57
public contribution box meant for the poor.
29:00
They wanted to save their public credit.
29:03
They desperately wanted the people sitting in the pews next
29:05
to them to see their hand dropping money into the box,
29:09
gaining the reputation of generosity.
29:11
But they put in coins that they knew perfectly well no merchant
29:14
in town would accept in trade. Edwards links this direct
29:17
hypocrisy to Malachi 1.14. Where God curses the deceiver
29:23
who has a healthy male in his flock, but vows and sacrifice is
29:27
a sick, lame or corrupt animal to the Lord.
29:30
An animal a human governor would reject in a second.
29:33
The theology operating behind the specific fraud is terrifying
29:38
when you understand the mechanics of it.
29:40
In the Reformed tradition, the financial contributions gathered
29:42
for the poor in the Christian Church act as the modern New
29:46
Covenant equivalent of Old Testament sacrifices.
29:48
The book of Proverbs explicitly states that giving to the poor
29:51
is lending to the Lord. The deacons who hold the
29:54
offering plate are acting as Christ's appointed receivers.
29:57
Therefore, when you drop a counterfeit coin into that box,
30:00
you are not just tricking the deacons.
30:02
You are attempting to pass off counterfeit currency to the
30:05
creator of the universe. Edwards immediately references
30:09
the terrifying narrative of Ananias and Sapphira in the 5th
30:12
chapter of Acts. They sold a piece of real
30:14
estate, kept back a large portion of the profits for
30:16
themselves, but presented the rest of the money to the
30:19
apostles as if it were the full entire amount.
30:22
They wanted the public glory of total radical sacrifice without
30:26
paying the actual cost. The Apostle Peter told them they
30:28
had not lied to men, but to God the Holy Spirit.
30:32
Offering bad money to purchase the optics of generosity is that
30:36
exact same sin. I see so many modern parallels
30:39
to this and it goes far beyond the physical offering plate.
30:42
Think about a massive corporation or a wealthy
30:45
individual making a highly publicized televised donation
30:50
that actually cost them nothing. Perhaps it is a convoluted tax
30:53
write off loophole that ultimately benefits their bottom
30:56
line, but they hire a massive PR firm to paint them as selfless
31:00
philanthropists. Or on a much more personal
31:02
personal level that hits closer to home, think about the
31:04
motivation behind donating broken appliances, heavily
31:07
stained clothing or completely unusable items to a charity shop
31:11
in late December. Just so you can claim an
31:13
itemized tax receipt at the end of the year.
31:15
You are essentially giving away trash, claiming a financial
31:18
benefit from the government, and patting yourself on the back for
31:21
being a charitable citizen. The sheer blinding arrogance
31:25
Edwards identifies here is astounding.
31:27
We actually convince ourselves we can outsmart God's accounting
31:30
system. We think God is impressed by the
31:33
public optics of our giving while completely ignoring the
31:36
fraudulent substance of the gift.
31:38
It is the ultimate spiritual folly.
31:40
God is omniscient. He sees the hidden intent of the
31:43
heart just as clearly as He sees the bang Ledger.
31:46
Attempting to defraud an all knowing God is an act of deep
31:49
spiritual blindness. Edwards is urgently pleading
31:52
with his congregation to wake up to the reality that God will not
31:56
be mocked by their clipped coins.
31:58
And this urgency brings us to a crucial pivot in his sermon,
32:01
where he traces these deeply ingrained habits of deceit back
32:05
to their earliest origins. He examines how these habits do
32:07
not just appear in adulthood, but start very early in life.
32:11
Addressing a specific cultural problem of his day.
32:14
Children stealing fruit from neighbors.
32:17
Yes, the fruit tree defense and the heavyweight of parental
32:21
duty. Edwards tackles the incredibly
32:23
common practice of children stealing fruit from neighbors
32:26
trees or private enclosures. Apparently people in this town
32:30
were actually using a specific Bible verse to justify letting
32:33
their kids do this. They cited Deuteronomy 23.24,
32:38
which allowed an Israelite to eat grapes to their fill when
32:41
occasionally passing through a neighbor's vineyard.
32:44
Edwards completely debunks this blatant misuse of Scripture by
32:47
doing some basic historical contest work.
32:50
He clarifies the agrarian realities in ancient Canaan.
32:54
Vineyards were everywhere. They were massively abundant.
32:57
So a traveler grabbing a handful of grapes as they walked by
33:00
caused no sensible injury to the vineyard owner.
33:02
But in 18th century New England, battling harsh winters and rocky
33:06
soil, orchards were rare. Cultivated fruit was scarce and
33:09
highly valued. Therefore, the loss to the owner
33:11
when children stripped a tree was significant.
33:14
You cannot apply the cultural norms of ancient Israelite
33:17
vineyards to rare New England apple orchards to justify theft.
33:21
That is a brilliant piece of biblical exegesis by Edwards.
33:25
He absolutely refuses to let people RIP a verse out of its
33:29
historical and cultural context to provide theological cover for
33:33
their sin. But the heavier theological blow
33:36
in this section falls entirely on the parents.
33:39
Edwards delivers a severe, terrifying exhortation to
33:42
parents who tolerate this behavior in their children.
33:45
He states that parents who know their children are stealing
33:47
fruit and do not thoroughly, actively restrain them are
33:50
bringing the judgement of God upon their own heads.
33:53
He cites the harrowing example of Eli the priest from the Book
33:56
of First Samuel. Eli's sons were making
33:58
themselves vile by stealing meat from the Tabernacle sacrifices
34:02
and abusing the worshippers. Eli knew about it.
34:04
He gave them a mild, weak verbal reprimand, saying why do you do
34:08
such things? But he did not actively stop
34:10
them because he failed to physically and legally restrain
34:13
his sons. God judged Eli's entire house
34:17
forever. Edward's point is clear.
34:19
By tolerating minor thefts in youth, parents are actively,
34:23
deliberately training their children in the dark arts of
34:26
injustice. This directly challenges our
34:28
modern parenting norms in a very uncomfortable way.
34:32
We have this pervasive cultural boys will be boys mentality or
34:36
this psychological safety net where we assume kids just go
34:40
through mischievous phases. If a teenager steals a
34:42
neighbor's Wi-Fi by guessing the password, or a child shopless a
34:46
candy bar from the grocery store or illegally downloads a video
34:50
game. Do parents excuse it as just a
34:53
harmless phase? Do they issue a mild scolding,
34:56
pay for the candy bar, and move on without any real consequence?
34:59
Edwards views parental tolerance of theft as a sin equal in
35:03
weight to the theft itself. The requirement upon the parent
35:06
is not just gentle modern instruction, it is active,
35:10
thorough, uncompromising restraint.
35:13
If you let your kid practice minor injustice when they are
35:15
10, you're preparing them to be a major fraud when they are 30.
35:18
That is correct. In the Reformed view, the home
35:21
is the primary school of the moral law.
35:23
It is the first government a child encounters.
35:25
If the 8th commandment is not strictly enforced in the living
35:28
room in the backyard, it certainly will not be respected
35:31
in the corporate boardroom or the marketplace later in life.
35:34
And this sobering reality leads us to the final and perhaps most
35:39
critical application of the entire text.
35:42
What do you do if you are listening to this deep dive
35:44
right now and the X-ray has revealed the fractures?
35:48
What if you realize you were guilty?
35:50
What if you have withheld labor, or strategically delayed paying
35:53
debts, or concealed defects in a sale, or justified keeping the
35:58
office supplies? This brings us to Edwards is
36:00
urgent call for restitution. Restitution.
36:04
Edwards states that making restitution is an absolute, non
36:07
negotiable duty. He explains a concept that
36:09
changes everything. Theft is not a past tense event.
36:13
This is crucial to grasp if you stole something 10 years ago and
36:17
you still have it sitting in your garage, or you still hold
36:19
the financial profits you gain from selling it.
36:21
You are continually wronging your neighbor every single day
36:24
you retain it. You're living in an active,
36:26
ongoing state of theft. He issues a severe warning
36:29
against the common practice of waiting until your deathbed to
36:32
make restitution in your will. He says that coming before the
36:35
infinitely holy Judge of the universe with stolen goods still
36:38
clutching your hands is a fearful, catastrophic risk.
36:43
He provides the only way out. If you go to your neighbor,
36:45
confess your theft, and the neighbor freely forgives the
36:49
debt, you are acquitted before God.
36:51
Because at that moment of forgiveness, the neighbor has
36:54
officially gifted the value to you.
36:56
But otherwise, physical restitution must be made or
36:59
explicit orders left in your will for it to be made
37:02
immediately after your death. This teaching is firmly rooted
37:05
in Reformed theology concerning the true nature of repentance.
37:09
True repentance is not just feeling emotional sorrow or
37:11
shedding tears about what you did.
37:14
It involves A fundamental change of mind that must inevitably
37:17
lead to a physical change of action.
37:19
You cannot sincerely ask God for forgiveness while willfully,
37:23
stubbornly holding onto the profits of your sin.
37:25
The story of Zacchaeus, the tax collector, in the Gospel of Luke
37:28
is the prime biblical example. When salvation came to his
37:31
house, his immediate, unprompted response was to restore Fourfold
37:35
to anyone he had defrauded. Keeping the stolen goods proved
37:39
that you love the sin more than you desire reconciliation with
37:43
God. Restitution is the physical
37:46
proof of a spiritual repentance. Wait, let me push back on how
37:49
this works in the real world, because life gets incredibly
37:52
messy and complicated. OK, what is the scenario?
37:55
What if the person you wronged 30 years ago is dead and you
37:58
have no idea where their family is?
38:00
Or what if the entity you defrauded is a faceless
38:03
multinational software corporation that you do not even
38:06
work for anymore? How does one make restitution
38:09
when and the direct path to the victim is completely closed?
38:12
You cannot just write a check to a deceased person.
38:15
And sending a $20 bill in an unmarked envelope to the
38:18
corporate headquarters of a massive retail chain feels
38:21
absurd. Is it giving that money to a
38:23
random charity just a modern version of buying medieval
38:26
indulgences to clear your conscience?
38:28
That is a very fair challenge, and the Reformed tradition has
38:31
addressed this exact logistical nightmare historically.
38:35
It is not about buying an indulgence, it is about the
38:37
principle of restoring the value and cleansing your own hands of
38:41
the unjust game. If the direct victim is
38:43
deceased, restitution should be made to their lawful heirs.
38:47
If no heirs can possibly be found after diligent search, or
38:52
if it is a situation with a massive corporation where direct
38:55
restitution is practically impossible to route correctly to
38:59
the actual shareholders you injured.
39:01
The moral principle of divesting yourself of the stolen value
39:04
remains absolute. In those specific cases, the
39:08
funds should be redirected to charitable giving to the poor or
39:12
to the Church. The logistics of the situation
39:14
can never, ever be used as a convenient excuse to keep the
39:17
stolen gain in your own bank account.
39:20
The point is that the money does not belong to you and you must
39:23
divest yourself of it for the benefit of others rather than
39:25
continuing to enrich yourself with a stolen asset.
39:28
We need to pull back and look at the massive scope of everything
39:31
we have covered in this deep dive.
39:33
We have laid out Edwards 8th Commandment blueprint.
39:36
It is not just about the burglar with a crowbar.
39:39
It covers our exact work hours and how we manage our employers
39:42
time. It covers the psychology behind
39:44
our unpaid debts and our deliberately delayed invoices.
39:47
It covers our sales pitches, our marketing omissions and our
39:51
justification for price gouging. It covers the elaborate secret
39:54
rationalizations we build in our minds for taking what we think
39:58
we are owed. And the counterfeit generosity
40:00
we put in the offering plate. It even covers how we discipline
40:03
our children when they take things that do not belong.
40:06
The scope is truly comprehensive.
40:09
It leaves absolutely no corner of our daily lives unexamined.
40:13
And so the challenge for you, the listener, is to run a
40:16
ruthless audit on your own life using Edwards's strict
40:19
definition. Take the time this week to ask
40:22
yourself, is there any area, any relationship, any transaction
40:26
where you are unjustly usurping another's property without their
40:30
consent? Are you holding on to anything,
40:32
whether it is time, money, physical goods or the truth in a
40:36
business deal that rightfully belongs to someone else?
40:39
The moral law is a flawless mirror, and we must possess the
40:42
courage to look closely at what it reflects about our own
40:44
hearts. And I will leave you with a
40:46
final thought to chew on that builds on all this source
40:49
material. We live in an age of data
40:51
brokers, surveillance capitalism and hyper targeted advertising.
40:56
Our personal data, our daily habits, our physical locations,
41:00
our private preferences has become highly valuable monetized
41:04
property. If Jonathan Edwards were
41:06
preaching this exact sermon today, how would he view the
41:09
massive tech companies that harvest our personal data
41:12
through incredibly confusing 100 page terms of service agreements
41:16
that they know no human being actually reads?
41:19
Are we participating in a vast societal system of mass implicit
41:24
theft? Consider how the 1740 logic of
41:26
consent and knowledge applies to the digital footprint you will
41:29
leave behind today. Are they unjustly usurping your
41:32
property? We started by talking about the
41:34
fuzzy, comfortable X-ray of our own oral landscape.
41:36
Edwards has given us the high definition scan.
41:39
The fractures are clearly visible.
41:40
The question is, what will you do about them tomorrow?