Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)1
Ninth Commandment transgression has become one of our society's more acceptable sins, with few or no consequences. This sin, however, is never overlooked by Yahweh2:
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.... A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish. (Psalm 19:5, 9)
In the previous installment, I principally addressed Leviticus 5:1, which stipulates that a witness to any crime must testify to that crime. The Ninth Commandment not only condemns false testimony, it demands truthful testimony.
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.... Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter.... And thou shalt take no gift [bribe, NASV]: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. (Exodus 23:1-8)
Ronald Knox rendered verse 8, "they blind even the prudent." James Moffett rendered it, "a bribe blinds even men whose eyes are open." In other words, it blinds the eyes of those who know better. Solomon explained that a bribe affects the heart of a man:
Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth [corrupts, NASV] the heart. (Ecclesiastes 7:7)
Put simply, bribes pervert righteous judgment:
A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment [justice, NASV]. (Proverbs 17:23)
Woe unto them ... which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! (Isaiah 5:22-23)
In The Institutes of Biblical Law, R.J. Rushdoony commented upon the effect of a bribe on a judge:
The judge thus must be blind to the persons in the case, and must see the issues involved. A bribe reverses this order, and the judge is then blind to the issues and sees only the persons.3
Rather than placing emphasis on the judge or witness, the Jerusalem Bible, emphasizes the victim of bribery:
You must not accept a bribe, for a bribe ... is the ruin of the just man's cause. (Exodus 23:8)
A righteous man is impervious to bribes; he hates a bribe in the same way he hates all unrighteousness:
He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts [bribes, NASV] shall live. (Proverbs 15:27)
A righteous man hates unrighteous bribery and refuses to participate in it as either the briber or the bribed:
YHWH,4 who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear YHWH. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. (Psalm 15:1-5)
Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16:19)
In this instance and in Exodus 23:8, the righteous or just man is simply a good man with righteous preferences, as opposed to a righteous man of conviction. While a truly righteous man can be tempted, he cannot be bought for any price. Once bought, he ceases to be a man of conviction and becomes a man of preference.
It is important to understand this distinction. Only a man of conviction will remain righteous under temptation and persecution. A man of preference - possessing few, if any, convictions - will not normally do so. Convictions are determined by Yahweh's moral laws; preferences are determined by expedience.
An unnamed man in 2 Samuel 18 proved himself to be a man of conviction, while Joab, who went on to kill David's son Absalom, proved himself to be a man of preference:
And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak.... And a certain man saw it, and told Joab.... And Joab said unto the man that told him, And, behold, thou sawest him, and why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? And I would have given thee ten shekels of silver, and a girdle. And the man said unto Joab, Though I should receive a thousand shekels of silver in mine hand, yet would I not put forth mine hand against the king's son: for in our hearing the king charged thee and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Beware that none touch the young man Absalom.... Then ... Joab ... took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak. (2 Samuel 18:9-14)
The New Testament also provides examples of both types of men. Judas Iscariot was likely a man who often exhibited good preferences, provided they were expedient. But he was not a man of conviction. He not only accepted what was essentially a bribe, he initiated it:
Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:14-15)
Conversely, the Apostle Paul was a man of conviction under even the worst of situations and, therefore, would not participate in a bribe:
And after certain days ... Felix ... sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.... He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. But after two years ... Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound. (Acts 24:24-27)
Although he was innocent of the crimes for which he was imprisoned for two years, Paul would not be party to a bribe. Christians5 should be diligent to cultivate convictions instead of simply preferences, both in themselves and in their children. Only the former will help a man remain true to his God through the worst of times (Matthew 24:13).
Bribes are not limited to the judicial arena. Today's congressmen, for example, are guilty of taking bribes whenever they accept, prosper by, and are influenced by the gifts of special interest groups:
The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it. (Proverbs 29:4)
Many of these same congressmen clamor about reforming the laws regarding bribes, while at the same time enriching themselves by accepting vacations at expensive resorts, taking gifts, and pocketing favors. The fact that these hypocrites use reform laws or the lack thereof as their excuse demonstrates what unscrupulous, reprobate scoundrels they really are.
With the foregoing in mind, we can see Exodus 23:8 was written not so much for the righteous man's benefit, but rather to keep a man of good preferences from going bad (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Because bribery can cause unjust judicial determinations, it demands the same judgment as does any false testimony that can pervert judgment:
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:18-21)
If not forced to forfeit his life as per lex talionis, any judge convicted of taking a bribe in a non-capital case would, of course, immediately be removed from the bench. One of the qualifications for a judge - provided in Exodus 18:20-22, 2 Chronicles 19:5-7, 1 Timothy 3:1-3, and Titus 1:5-7 - is a hatred of covetousness or filthy lucre by which he might be bribed. How many judges today would be out of a job if this were a requirement in the United States' judicial system?
Rushdoony argues that only the person receiving the bribe is to be punished. He wrote about this in both Law and Society and The Institutes of Biblical Law:
Law and Society:
Very plainly, Scripture condemns the taking of bribes.... On the other hand, Biblical law has no penalties for offering bribes. This is a point which troubles many Christians.
The fact is, however, that Scripture sees the problem very realistically. The judge or public official is the person in a position of power. In my travels back and forth across the country, and in my conversations with people from abroad, a clear pattern emerges with respect to bribery.
First, the bribe is normally solicited by the official in power. It is the standard means of doing business with him. If contracts are to be issued, none are granted without a pay-off. If a decision is to be rendered, a bribe is a prerequisite to any kind of fair consideration. Granted that many who offer bribes are themselves corrupt, the fact remains that all who offer bribes would, on the whole, prefer to do business with civil authorities, their courts, and their agencies, without the pay-off. It adds very substantially to their cost of operation; it leaves them open to legal reprisals, and more people giving them than those receiving them are sentenced for bribery....
This already makes clear a second aspect of bribery. The cost of the bribery is born by the one offering it; it is an unpleasant tax on him which he feels he must pay.... The real profit in bribery is on the side of the receiver. The giver often wants justice, and he resents the partiality involved, and the corruption. If the giver of the bribe has an inferior product and is succeeding only because of his bribery, he is still a creature of the politician, and is sacrificed when necessary. All over the world, bribery is standard operating procedure on the part of civil governments. This corrupt tax leads often to the creation of criminal groups whose function becomes the sale of inferior goods at high prices, with large bribes, to civil authorities at the connivance of those authorities.
In most instances, to punish the one who bribes is somewhat analogous to punishing a rape victim rather than the rapist. True, the briber is not always under a like coercion, but often the coercion is very real, so that bribery comes close to being a form of theft. It involves a monetary theft, and also a theft of justice. One man, who began work for the state and then found that his payments would be withheld, his work condemned, and that he would be wiped out financially, if he did not make a pay-off, said bitterly of bribery: "There's no other way to do business with the government." Bribery must be condemned, but in terms of Scripture.6
The Institutes of Biblical Law:
Because man is a sinner, even the most godly of judges will be fallible and erring, but, by virtue of his faith, will be guided by the law-word of God and His Holy Spirit. The ungodly judge, having no such standard, will naturally be partisan: he will represent a faction or class. For him to accept a bribe is thus logical, however evil: he is there to represent human power, not the law of God and His righteousness. Thus, in terms of Biblical law, while it is a crime for a judge to accept a bribe, it is not a crime for a man to bribe a judge. The judge sins against his office; the man who bribes him deals realistically with the situation. If a piece of meat thrown to a snarling and dangerous dog will enable a man to pass in safety, he will throw the meat to spare his person.7
Rushdoony's reasoning is compelling - but is it Scriptural? Let us begin with the fact that the Law only addresses the bribed. Could this be because, without the complicity of the person being bribed, the briber alone cannot accomplish his intended subornation? Neither party is guilty of any crime without the complicity of the other. However, once the crime is committed, the briber unquestionably becomes an accomplice to the one who takes the bribe. Yahweh simply focused on the one who consummates the sin. Once consummated, both briber and bribed should be prosecuted according to lex talionis.
Rushdoony compared punishing a briber to punishing a rape victim. This is a poor analogy because a rape victim is always the one upon whom the crime is initiated, whereas a briber, particularly in criminal court cases, often initiates the crime to his own advantage. It must not be overlooked that in instances where a rape victim does not resist the rapist, she is punished right along with her assailant (Deuteronomy 23:23-27).
Much more appropriate is the analogy of a briber in comparison to a person who hires someone to commit a murder, as King David did with Joab when David conspired to murder Urijah. Although the Bible condemns the hired killer (Deuteronomy 27:25), nowhere does it specifically condemn the person who initiates the contract. We know, however, that without the contractor - who is at the very least a murderer in his heart, and thus just as culpable in Yahweh's sight according to Matthew 5:21-22 and 1 John 3:15 - the crime would never be contemplated, let alone carried out. I doubt Rushdoony would have provided the same clemency to those who contract for murder as he does for those who contract through bribery. Yahweh certainly held David just as culpable, if not more so, than he did Joab for Urijah's murder.
When Rushdoony exempted from judgment the person initiating a bribe, he was operating from a flawed paradigm. He attempted to apply Yahweh's laws to man-made surrogate governments, even though doing so inevitably produces less than desirable results. This is why Christians should never be satisfied with anything less than total dominion in all areas of society, particularly in government. Christian dominion can only be accomplished when government is based solely upon Yahweh's perfect laws (Psalm 19:7).
Rushdoony essentially argued that in a Babylonian system, the righteous man cannot economically survive without unrighteously conforming to the system. What he failed to point out is that, in Yahweh's perfect system, every man has equal opportunity and equal access to justice and bribery is not standard procedure. This is the paradigm by which everything must be measured. In Yahweh's righteous government, both the one bribing and the one being bribed will be judged the same.
Such governments, as described by Rushdoony, are essentially no different than the Mafia and its protection rackets. To pay such governments is to help finance their unlawful and wicked activities. Rushdoony's son-in-law Gary North proffers what appears to be a good argument on this point:
An analogous example is the salesman who seeks to sell military equipment or other goods to nations governed by corrupt State officials. What if that nation's customs regarding State purchases recognize the legitimacy, or at least the necessity, of kickbacks and payoffs to public officials? ...Obviously, to make such payment is to subsidize evil - corrupt officials - to some degree. On the other hand, to allow corrupt officials to continue to make personally profitable but socially bad decisions is also to subsidize evil to some degree. Wouldn't it be better to have a bribe-seeking public official profit from a good decision rather than from a bad decision?8
North's reasoning appears sound, except it is in difference to the following passages:
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.... (Exodus 23:1-2)
And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate YHWH? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before YHWH. (2 Chronicles 19:2)
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [expose, NASV] them. (Ephesians 5:11)
Some of North's and Rushdoony's arguments also contradict Leviticus 5:1, which demands disclosure of the crimes of others, even when it means we might financially suffer for exposing or testifying against the wickedness of others.
While I do not agree with Rushdoony and North's open-ended allowance for bribers, particularly as it pertains to business relationships, I do believe the Bible sanctions righteous bribery much the same as it does righteous lying (Exodus 1:15-20, 3:18, 1 Samuel 16:1-2, 19:8-17, 20:28, 21:1-2, etc.), i.e., if such bribery can spare someone an unrighteous beating, torture, or murder.
The word rendered "gift" in Exodus 23:8 and Deuteronomy 16:19 is translated from the Hebrew word "shachad." Shachad is used in the Old Testament exclusively for bribes, including the following two proverbs that endorse bribery:
A gift is as a precious stone in the eyes of him that hath it: whithersoever it turneth, it prospereth. (Proverbs 17:8)
A gift in secret pacifieth anger: and a reward in the bosom strong wrath. (Proverbs 21:14)
Jacob's bribery of Esau in Genesis 32:13-21 is an example of this type of righteous bribery. Had Jacob not bribed Esau, Esau would most likely have murdered Jacob, his wives, children, and servants. Jacob's secret bribe pacified Esau's anger.
North's comments on these two Proverbs are well argued:
Notice the phrase [in Proverbs 17:23], "a reward in the bosom." It produces a mental image of a secret gift, one tucked away in one's cloak. Nevertheless, someone might argue that Solomon did not have civil government in mind when he wrote these two proverbs. Perhaps Solomon had in mind only personal friendship rather than civil justice. But to argue in this fashion makes it very difficult to interpret Solomon's use of the parallel phrase "a gift out of the bosom" in reference to paying bribes to civil magistrates:
"A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom [under his cloak] to pervert the ways of judgment." (Proverbs 17:23).
He had in mind a judge, someone who has the power "to pervert the ways of judgment." Solomon was not talking about gifts of friendship; he was talking about gifts to produce favorable judgments.
It might also be argued that Solomon was simply commenting on the reality of the success of bribery, but not promoting the offering of bribes. If so, then why would he say of a bribe that "whithersoever it turneth, it prospereth"? Does evil always prosper? Not in the long run, certainly. So. He seems to have had in mind the righteous bribe - a gift to an unrighteous judge from a righteous person in order to gain righteous judgment.9
Consider the following two definitions of bribery - the first from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language and the second from Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
To give or promise a reward or consideration, with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct. To hire for bad purposes; to purchase the decision of a judge, the testimony of a witness, or the performance of some act contrary to known truth, justice or rectitude.10
The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior in office, and to incline him to act contrary to his duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity.... Bribery consists in offering a present or receiving one....11
In other words, bribery is unlawful and unrighteous except when protecting yourself, your loved ones, or neighbors from an ungodly, tyrannical government or someone else who intends harm.
1. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity's sake. If you have any questions regarding a passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
2. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
3. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973), p. 535.
4. Where the Tetragrammaton - the four Hebrew characters transliterated "YHWH" and representing the personal name of God - has been incorrectly rendered the LORD or GOD in Scripture, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
5. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the Biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-13, and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, "Baptism by the Scriptures" and "Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered" may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/baptismbythescriptures.php and www.missiontoisrael.org/objectionstobaptismanswered.php, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
6. Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Society (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982) pp. 697-698.
7. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 613.
8. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) p. 794.
9. North, pp. 794-795.
10. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. "Bribe" (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).
11. John Bouvier, Bouvier's Law Dictionary: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Law, 3 vols., s.v. "Bribery" (Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) vol. 1, p. 394.
*In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 that “freely ye have received, freely give.” Therefore, we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.