I am done preparing our lesson for the last Theology 2 class. Now, I want to utilize the same reference for the CVE05 Christian and Values Education for Adults class. I find John Murray’s discussion of the ordinance of labor in the 4th chapter of Principles of Conduct very insightful and useful at the same time. However, when Murray mentioned capitalism, though I appreciate his exegetical insights, I think his argument would be more forceful and convincing if he engaged with reliable economic literature. Since I consider his discussion of slavery to require more time for the students to appreciate it, I decided to remove it entirely and instead insert an expanded discussion on capitalism. To achieve my goal in this article, I would like to divide the material into two sections:

• John Murray’s ordinance of labor

• Capitalism

Source

Originally, I intended to publish one article for this lesson. However, as I started writing, it appears that it is not possible to contain the material in just one article. I think it will take a series of three articles to complete this lesson. Anyhow, I still have two days to do this.

John Murray’s Ordinance of Labor

As for John Murray's ordinance of labor, it will take two articles. I already have 4,000-plus words excluding the discussion on capitalism.

In discussing the biblical background of labor, I will cover the Old Testament, the New Testament, and a few labor principles, and I will stop with the God-oriented motivation of labor. In the next article, I am planning to pick up the relation of capital to labor and, from there, the overview of capitalism.

Old Testament Background

We can divide John Murray’s exegetical basis for the ordinance of labor into the Old Testament and the New Testament. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, he mentioned that the first allusion to the institution of labor was after the fall, when God pronounced a curse upon Adam (Genesis 3:17-19). However, it should be noted that the curse is not in the labor itself, but “the pain and hardship connected with labor and the frustration that man will encounter by reason of the curse upon the ground.” Lamech, Noah’s father, echoed these words on the latter’s birth (Genesis 5:29).

Nevertheless, despite the curse, labor remains beneficial to man. Through labor, we have food on the table. The reward associated with labor was not removed. Cain and Abel have their respective work (Genesis 4:2). Among the descendants of Cain, Moses identified a few of them associated with distinct types of labor, such as raising livestock, playing musical instruments, and forging tools (Genesis 4:19-22). It is not inappropriate, therefore, to deduce that as the human race developed, various forms of labor also increased. Noah’s ability to build an ark and later becoming a farmer were instances of this (Genesis 9:20). Among Noah’s sons, the curse pronounced upon Canaan and the blessings upon Shem and Japhet were all related to labor.

As we shift our attention to the patriarchal period, we find similar development. Abraham was rich, Jacob was hardworking, and Esau grew his wealth too. We find no indication that wealth was considered evil. The blessing received by Jacob from his father Isaac would not make sense if not understood economically (Genesis 27:28). The same thing with Esau’s wealth (Genesis 27:39).

Reaching the period when God gave the Decalogue to Israel, the fourth commandment explicitly teaches us His command about both labor and rest (Exodus 20:9). Here we see that we cannot understand work apart from rest and vice versa. Murray noted that the fourth commandment identified “constancy” and “cycle” in both labor and rest. Violating these constancy and cycle in labor and rest, in the mind of Murray, is the root cause for many of our economic ills. We don’t see labor as a duty and a blessing. We want to make our labor shorter and rest longer. For Murray, moral degeneration is an offshoot of this violation.

New Testament Background and Labor Principles

The New Testament material is very explicit about labor. Some of them are as follows:

• Indictment of idleness as impiety

Typically, we interpret Paul’s instruction to withhold fellowship from wayward brethren as something doctrinal and moral (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 John 10-11; 1 Corinthians 5:11). We don’t usually see it from the economic perspective (2 Thessalonians 3:11). Idleness and being a busybody are as serious an offense in the eyes of the apostle as teaching false doctrine and living an immoral life. See how the apostle Paul judged the idle (2 Thessalonians 3:10). He even described them as worse than unbelievers (1 Timothy 5:8, 13-16).

• Labor as evidence of faith

From the foregoing observation, the unmistakable implication is that genuine faith in Christ is evident in labor to earn livelihood and provide for those who depend upon us. Here, Murray identified three implications from the relationship between faith and labor.

One, to consider labor as incompatible with faith, is an anomaly. The specific example given here by Murray is that idleness becomes more outrageous when it hides behind piety and communion with God. He cited the Pharisees and scribes as guilty of this iniquity. Murray explains Mark 7:9 as follows:

What our Lord had in mind was the open breach of the fifth commandment in deference to the tradition that a man was relieved of the necessity of giving support to his father and mother if that wherewith he would have assisted them was given to God. They had made void the word of God by their own tradition (cf. verse 13). It is the spurious religiosity that substitutes the supposed dedications of religious devotion for the concrete and practical duties of divine ordinance.

Two, filial responsibility. The apostle Paul confirms Mark’s teaching. For him, “the way of godliness is that children should 'learn first to show piety to their own family and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God'" (I Timothy 5:4).

Three, the dissipation of time and energy. Minimum compliance becomes the rule in the workplace. Such deterioration of labor is most evident in industry. Workers prefer ease and entertainment rather than hard work. Even the church didn’t escape such influence. Murray raised this question:

How may we expect the social and economic structure to be permeated with the conception of the obligation, the dignity, and the pleasure of honest and conscientious labor if the church itself shows so little of blood, sweat, and tears in fulfilling its vocation?

I am surprised when Murray connected idleness to the idea of “economic parasites,” that the apostle Paul prevented from happening in ministering to the widows (I Timothy 5:3, 6, 7). He then asked another surprising question about the danger of ministers of the gospel becoming economic parasites:

But what shall we say when the ministers of the Word become parasites and bear the reproach of being dead while they live indolently and delicately?

I got curious about this idea, and that is why I asked Google’s AI mode this question:

Following Murray's discussion of the 4th chapter, in what sense do ministers of the gospel become economic parasites?

And here is the summary of AI’s reply:

In his discussion of the fourth chapter of Principles of Conduct, John Murray handles the idea of ‘economic parasitism’ by looking at the biblical layout of work. While he does not mean that gospel ministers actually are parasites, he addresses a common secular or critical objection: if a group of people is exempted from manual or material labor, do they not become economic parasites living off the sweat of others? Murray dismantles this notion by framing the ministry through the following principles:

Labor is More Than Physical Production: Because Murray anchors work in the pre-Fall creation mandate, he argues that "labor" cannot be reduced purely to physical farming, manufacturing, or commercial trade. Labor is the exercise of human faculties to steward God's world and fulfill His will. Spiritual stewardship is a valid, grueling, and vital category of human labor.
The New Testament Defense of Compensation: Murray highlights that the New Testament directly addresses this objection. He points to the Pauline principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire" (1 Timothy 5:18) and Paul's use of Old Testament agrarian law ("You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain") to justify pastoral support.
A Value Exchange of a Different Order: According to Murray, the minister is not taking from the economic pool without contributing. Instead, there is a reciprocal exchange: the congregation provides for the minister's material needs so that the minister can work full-time to meet the community's spiritual, moral, and ethical needs.
Preserving the Six-Day Principle: By being financially supported by the church, the minister is not violating the Fourth Commandment's demand to work six days. Rather, the support frees the minister to dedicate their six days of labor entirely to the intense work of prayer, study, governance, and pastoral care.
Thus, in Murray's view, gospel ministers are only "parasites" if one holds a purely materialistic, secular view of economics. Within a biblical framework, spiritual ministry is a distinct form of productive creation-mandated labor that is crucial for the health and moral order of society.”

• Vocation

The third labor principle we can glean from the New Testament is that vocation is the idea behind the institution of labor. Here Murray connects the fourth chapter to the previous chapter about marriage and celibacy. We remember that the family is the basic human institution, in which every member prepares for the fulfillment of his respective calling in life. From this perspective, each person’s labor is viewed as a divine vocation. To prove his point, Murray gave us an extended quote from John Calvin:

It is to be remarked that the Lord commands every one of us, in all the actions of life, to regard his vocation. For he knows with what great inquietude the human mind is inflamed, with what desultory levity it is hurried hither and thither, and how insatiable is its ambition to grasp different things at once. Therefore, to prevent universal confusion being produced by our folly and temerity, he has appointed to all their particular duties in different spheres of life. And that no one might rashly transgress the limits prescribed, he has styled such spheres of life vocations, or callings. Every individual's line of life, therefore, is, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander about in uncertainty all his days ... It is sufficient if we know that the principle and foundation of right conduct in every case is the vocation of the Lord, and that he who disregards it will never keep the right way in the duties of his station. He may sometimes, perhaps, achieve something apparently laudable; but however it may appear in the eyes of men, it will be rejected at the throne of God; besides which, there will be no consistency between the various parts of his life. Our life, therefore, will then be best regulated, when it is directed to this mark; since no one will be impelled by his own temerity to attempt more than is compatible with his calling, because he will know that it is unlawful to transgress the bounds assigned him. He that is in obscurity will lead a private life without discontent, so as not to desert the station in which God has placed him. It is the consciousness of divine vocation in the particular task assigned to us that will imbue us with the proper sense of responsibility in the discharge of it.

Reflecting on such a lengthy paragraph, two key ideas stuck with me:

- Vocation is a cure to prevent the mind of man from wandering and distractions.

- Understanding labor as vocation instills in us a sense of responsibility to faithfully discharge our tasks at hand.   

• God-oriented motivation of labor.

Here we are reminded of the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism about the chief end of man (I Corinthians 10: 31; Romans 14: 7, 8). This would mean being mindful of the principle of God-orientation in labor.

Murray identified the specific situation that evolved into a mindset that is exactly opposite of the above principle:

When labour involves drudgery, when the hardship is oppressive, when the conditions imposed upon us are not those which mercy and justice would dictate, when we are tempted to individual or organized revolt, when we are ready to recompense evil on the part of our master with the evil of careless work on our part, it is just then that we need to be reminded, 'whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance. Ye serve the Lord Christ'(Colossians 3: 23, 24).

Pleasing men is the end result in such a situation. And this is exactly the context where God-oriented motivation must be applied. If not addressed, men-pleasing breeds destructive attitude and mindset. In fact, Murray categorized men-pleasing as sin since it violated the first principle of labor, which is doing your service to please God. And even the most sacred vocation on earth is not free from such an evil. Examples of unproductive attitude and mindset that men-pleasing generates include boredom, lack of pleasure in work, drudgery, pay-cheque becomes the primary concern, and the most dangerous of all is that it dulls our moral judgment. Here's how Murray describes this last destructive outcome:

Perhaps the most tragic result of all is the way in which eye-service betrays moral judgment. If we seek to please men, then, in the final analysis, it is expediency that guides conduct. And when expediency becomes the rule of life, obedience to God loses both sanction and sanctity and the workman is ready to be the accomplice in furthering ends which desecrate the first principles of right and truth and justice.

I stop here. As mentioned above, the next article is about the relation of labor to capital. How I wish I can squeeze the following two articles into one.

Grace and peace!