Lots and the Third Commandment

Edited and modernized from A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments by James Durham (Glasgow: Robert Sanders, 1676), pp. 106-111.

There is one particular, which yet remains to be spoken of on this Third Commandment, which concerns lots, whereby the name of God is wronged, in being not only slighted, disdained, and taken in vain in these events (which yet are guided by him) but their disposal, which is due to God, is denied to him, and attributed instead to chance, luck, fortune, and such like.

We shall then:

1. Show what lotting or lottery is
2. Show how it concerns this commandment
3. Distinguish lots into several sorts
4. Show what sorts of lots are lawful and when they are lawful
5. Show what sorts of lots are unlawful

Definition of Lots

A lot or lotting is the committing of the decision for something in an immediate way to divine providence, without the intervening causalities or influence of any second cause to sway in that decision; so that, when the thing falls out and is decided, there can be no reason given why it is so on man's part, except that the Lord was pleased to dispose. This was the case in that instance of casting lots about the election of the twelfth apostle to replace Judas (Acts 1:23-26). So from Proverbs 16:33, it is clear that that is a lot whereof the whole disposal is of God; and therefore it is said to cause contentions to cease, and to part between the mighty (Pro. 18:18), because none can quarrel concerning that in which man has no hand.

A lot may be many ways appointed, either by the throw of a dice (or the like), or by some other means putting difference between one and another, even as men shall appoint—such as when it is by what beast they shall first see, or by what saying or book they shall first hear, or look on, etc.

How Lots Concern the Third Commandment

The following points will demonstrate how the use of lots concerns this commandment.

First, that which puts God to it (to declare his mind or reveal himself) in an immediate way, especially concerns this commandment, and is a special implicit invoking of him. This is what lots or lotting does, for:

• None other can dispose of them but he (Pro. 16:33).
• What is discovered by those lots is either God's mind, or the Devil's, or is by chance; but it cannot be any of the latter two; therefore it is the first.
• He is put to it more by lots than by prayer, because:
  • It is by an extraordinary way, and often added to prayer.
  • It is for the manifesting of a secret decree; for by it we are to understand what God has appointed and eternally decreed concerning such an event. Hence it is, that in Scripture, prayer is so often (if not always) joined with it; and therefore it must in a special manner belong to this commandment. Indeed, if God be slighted in it, he is wronged; if acknowledged according to his interest, he is in a special manner concerned, where he wholly orders it.

Secondly, it is either a means appointed by him to understand his mind, or not. If it is appointed by him, then it is insofar his ordinance, and therefore his name is concerned in it. If it is not appointed by him, then it is abused.

Thirdly, the meddling with God's secret, or with his will or way of revealing it in his providence, must belong to this commandment; but this, especially, meddles with all of these.

Fourthly, that which cannot be done except that in which the name of the Lord is either wronged or honored must necessarily belong to this commandment, for that is its scope. None can lot without either depending on God for the ordering of it, or acknowledging him in it when it is done. Therefore, God is neglected, not honored, and his name is taken in vain:

• By failing to recognize his providence, and thinking to get that decided some other way.
• By irreverent going about it.
• By attributing it to something else.
• By neither acknowledging God in it nor submitting to it after it is done.

So then these three ways men fail and take God's name in vain: before the lot, during the lotting, and after it is past.

Types of Lots

Lots are ordinarily divided into three sorts:

1. Divine, which are from extraordinary warrants.
2. Devilish, wherein the Devil is either invoked, or, in circumstances, the decision is put to and guided by him.
3. Human, which are ordinarily done amongst men.

Alternatively, they are divided:

1. Divinatory
2. Advisory, whereby men discover what is secret (as Saul found out Jonathan), or are led to some duty.
3. Divisory, by such the land of Canaan was divided (Jos. 13:6).
4. Lusory (i.e., for play), this division is large and comprehensive, and has several steps, according to the weight of the matter, as they are greater or smaller, or indifferent.

Aside from an extraordinary warrant, all advisory and divinatory lots are unlawful and a tempting of God, who has now given us other ways and means to direct us in what is fitting for us to do.

There is no question that Devilish lots are abominable, which include the foretelling of fortunes, horoscopes, or deaths, the finding of lost things by naming all suspected persons, turning the riddle, etc.

Yet we dare not condemn all divisory lots, if rightly gone about, for the following reasons:

• They are frequently made use of in the Scripture (Jos. 7:13-15; Acts 1:23-26). Indeed, they seem to be from the light of nature (Jon. 1:7).
• The use of them is moral and perpetual, to cause contentions to cease and to part between the mighty (Prov. 18:18).
• When they are rightly gone about, they are an honoring of God and a manifest acknowledging of his providence.

Lawful Use of Lots

The use of lots is rightly gone about in accordance with the following:

1. The matter should be weighty or of some consequence. In other words, it should either be weighty in itself, or it should attend such consequence or inconvenience which adds weight to what is in itself light. Otherwise it is (as is frivolous swearing) but a disgracing of his ordinance.
2. It should be necessary; a matter that, without many inconveniences, cannot in another way be decided. Otherwise, to put God to reveal his mind in an extraordinary way, when there is an ordinary means at hand, is a tempting of God, and akin to leaping over a wall despite there being an ordinary passage to walk through.
3. It should be with a due respect to God, acknowledging him to be the Decider, calling on his name in the use of it, and looking to him for the decision, as we see in almost all lotting, and even of those heathens (Jon. 1:7).
4. It should be done in the right manner:
   • With reverence, as if we were to hear God pronounce the sentence and speak his mind; as the people stood before the Lord while Saul was being chosen (1Sa. 10:19, 22).
   • In the faith that God guides it; and so, without anxiety and fear.
   • In sincerity, committing it to him, both in heart as well as in appearance; abstaining from all fraud, tricks, or anything which may have influence, as a second cause, to mar or cast the decision. This would amount to a high way of mocking God, by putting the decision to him, and yet endeavoring to give the answer ourselves.
5. Lastly, there should be, after the lot, a reverent acknowledging of God's mind, without fretting or grumbling, and a cheerful submitting to it, as we see in all instances in Scripture.

These rules being observed, we think that lots may be used for dividing of stations, charges, or portions which cannot otherwise be done without offense or prejudice.

Yet, I would say these few things for caution here:

• You should not use them in petty things, where the matter is of such a small value (or no value at all) that you are indifferent to the outcome, or when the matter is of such a weight that you would rather abandon it than to give an oath in it. In such a case (and there would be here a proportion kept), you should rather hazard some loss than put it to a lot, out of that reverence you owe to God's name. All the cases in Scripture are weighty. In your ordinary merchandise, I desire you to remember this.
• You should not fail to use your reason and honest skill in sharing and divisions so as to prevent the use of a lot. People sometimes commit themselves to a lot for ease, when yet their reason, rightly made use of, might bring an acceptable decision. God has not given reason to man in vain or for nothing. When reason is sufficient, proceed with that and forbear a lot.
• Let it be in such a matter, and so used, as you may seek God in it and invoke his name by prayer. To lot in something that people will not or dare not pray in does not agree with any example in Scripture, nor with that tenderness which a believer should have at such a time. It should then be in a matter respecting a promise.

Unlawful Use of Lots

On the contrary, we may see how men fail here:

First, in weighty things, by not keeping the right manner before the lot, in the time of it, and after it is past, when it does not end strife.

Secondly, in trivial things, by making it too customary, so that people use the lot in almost everything, and contrary to its nature, making ordinary that which is extraordinary. The lot is an ultimate Judge and Decider, even as an oath is for ending all controversies. As one says, it is likened to Moses, the great matters should be reserved to it (Ex. 18:21-26)—indeed, it is greater than Moses, it is God himself, thus in his providence, passing a decision—the lesser things should be decided in other ways.

Lotting Games

Thirdly, we may gather from what has been said how we are to evaluate such games and pastimes as run on lottery (having that for their very foundation) and have an immediate dependence on providence for their outcome, as follows:

1. That they involve a lottery cannot be denied, for they have all that is in lotting. There is in them a putting of things to a doubtful event as to us, and that event is guided by either God or some other. Whichever of the two, it will be a breach of this commandment to so trivially, for our pleasure, take the name of God in vain, as many formally do, for none can tell how such a thing will come to pass by any reason.

2. That to use a lot in this case is a sin may also be made out clearly:

• Since it is against the purpose of lots (which is to divide or decide where there is controversy), it likewise perverts their purpose, and becomes sinful, just as swearing, where there is no controversy, is a sin.
• There is either no necessity at all to take that way, or there is but a made necessity of our own; it must therefore be a tempting of God. As, suppose this to be the purpose of lotting, to know in the upshot whether so much money should belong to you, or to me; no doubt that point of right to whom the money belongs may be decided as well at the entry; therefore this way of decision is in vain.

3. Lotting cannot be lawful which has no reverence to God, but dishonors his name, nor is consistent with the right manner of lotting. But the lotting in such games is such, for it is not only in fact contrary to the former rules, but in its own nature is inconsistent with them. This is clear:

• From the great frequency of lotting in these games.
• In the little dependence on God for the event that is in them; and indeed a spiritual frame of dependence on him, cannot well (if at all) consist with them.
• From its inconsistency with serious prayer. Can or dare men truly pray in earnest for God's guidance in these things—in every throw of dice or shuffling of cards? Or in faith expect still the revealing of his decree that way? Or when it is done and past, can they suitably acknowledge him in it? Men dare not look so seriously on these things; indeed, they know they dare not.

4. That way of lotting which cannot but occasion the wronging of the name of the Lord and his providence cannot be right. But the lotting in such games is such, for we must say that either God's hand is not at all in such things (and so we deny his providence), or we must say that he may be put to it in his immediate providence to declare his mind by this common and coarse way—and that in our sport, and for our pleasure—which is a notable disgracing (to say so) and profanation of his name. It is for this reason that men so often swear, curse, fret, and shout in these games at cards, dice, etc. (wherein chance, luck, fortune, etc. are so much looked to, and in a manner deified) and altogether overlook and disregard the majesty of God, as if he had no providence at all in such things.

5. What is done without warrant of either precept or practice in Scripture cannot be done in faith. There can be no such warrant drawn from Scripture for such plays or games wherein lottery is not merely accidental and rarely incident (as may be the case in other lawful recreations, if that which is an unintentional, unexpected, surprising incident of providence can even be called lottery), but whose very foundation is lottery. In these games, the decision by a lot is intended, waited for, and all throughout the game referred to and hung upon. Indeed, it is unsuitable and inconsistent with the way lots are used in Scripture, which is always in most grave and important things; but this way of using them is manifestly to abuse them.

6. That which has a native tendency to make any ordinance of God vile and contemptible cannot be lawful. It is obvious to any serious and impartial observer that lotting in these games has such a tendency to make contemptible the ordinance of a lot (and of prayer, which should at least be joined with it). Neither can it reasonably be thought that lotting, which is to be employed, with prayer to God, in so sacred a manner, and appointed by God for such an end as an oath is, can lawfully be used in and for such a vastly different manner and purpose.

7. If lots belong at all to this commandment, then these lotting games are unlawful, for they cannot with any religious reason be supposed to be commanded in it, and therefore they must be forbidden. And if in trivial things lots be unlawful, much more in such games which do not end strife and contentions, but often and ordinarily begin and aggravate them, and therefore do the ancients declaim against this as a sacrificing to demons, and invented by idolaters.

Objections

Objection: These things are thought but very little of by men.

Answer: It is true, and no great wonder, for most men are inclined to think little of the breach of this commandment. Their breaches are nevertheless sinful, as many take God's name in their mouth lightly; that they think but little of it does not mean it is therefore not sinful. God has affixed his threat to the commandment the more peremptorily for that very end, that men may not think little or lightly of the very least breach (so as to let pass more gross breaches of it).

Objection: Why may not such plays or games be used as well as other plays wherein sometimes chance or fortune (as they call it) will cast the balance?

Answer:

First, though chance may now and then occasionally occur in those other games, yet that is but accidental. The games in question, however, are wholly (or at least mostly) guided by lotting and immediate providences, the outcome of which cannot come by the best art and skill of men.

Secondly, in these other games there is an intervention of second causes and a use of men's natural and moral faculties for obtaining such an end ultimate (in some respect) and immediate; as for example, when men strike a ball with a club or throw a bowl into a hole, they are guided therein as rationally as they would be in coming down a stairway; and they act therein, as in other things, by second causes and use of means, whether of body or mind. But it is not so in these lotting games, for all is cast and depends upon extraordinary providence, even as if a man, who cannot swim, would commit himself to swimming in or walking upon the water, as opposed to another who would make use of a bridge or boat.

Conclusion

In summary, as lots and oaths are much for one end (namely, the ending of controversy and strife, Heb. 6:16; Pro. 18:18), so ought the same rules to be observed, for the most part, in them both:

1. Before the lot, we should look to and follow God's call, and depend on him in it.
2. In the time of lotting, we should act reverently.
3. After the lot, we should reverence the Lord, and submit to its outcome as to his mind, even if our frame has not been so right. As an oath binds even when rashly taken, yet in a lawful matter, by virtue of God's name which is interposed, so do lots. It is God who decides the outcome regardless of our frame; therefore that decision ought to be looked on as most sacred—God having thought good, beside the general rules in his Word, to give evidence of his mind by lots concerning some particular events.

Though these games at dice or cards may require some skill (e.g., how to manage such throws or such particular cards when one has gotten them); yet the throwing or shuffling itself (casting up so many blacks and no more, dealing such cards and no other, etc.) is by immediate providence, and so must of necessity be a lot; otherwise it is by some other means, which would (if attempted) wrong God also very much. And though skill may possibly influence the outcome of the game, yet there is no skill in the throwing or shuffling; if there be anything that is accounted art or skill, it is but deceit, seeing that the scope is by these to leave it to providence in its decision.

This doctrine concerning such games was the doctrine of the ancients, who did vehemently denounce this sort of lottery, see Cyprian de Aleatoribus, who fathers it on Zabulus and calls it the snare of the Devil, and compares it with idolatry, so Ambrose de Tobia, p. 590. It was also in some councils condemned:

If a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, is addicted to dice or drinking, let him either give it over, or be deposed. If a subdeacon, reader, or singer, commits the same things, let him either give over, or be excommunicated. So also laymen.

Apostolic Canons 42-43. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Second Series, Vol. 14 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

No one at all, whether cleric or layman, is from this time forward to play at dice. And if any one hereafter shall be found doing so, if he be a cleric he is to be deposed, if a layman let him be cut off.

Council in Trullo, Canon 50. Ibid.

This has been the constant ordinary judgment of Protestant writers on this command, and some of them have written peculiar treatises to this purpose, particularly Danaeus, wherein he proves that such lottery is unlawful in itself, and most prejudicial to men. This is likewise the doctrine of the Schoolmen, though none of the most rigid casuists. Indeed, it is the doctrine of our own church, these being condemned of old and of late, as unlawful games, namely by the 1638 General Assembly of Glasgow, according to a former act of the 1596 General Assembly at Edinburgh.

Lastly, consider these two things for deterring from such games:

1. The contrary outcomes (that follow most ordinarily on such lottery): strife and contentions are occasioned if not caused by them, which are ended by the other—so very different are the results.
2. Consider that most men who use them fall often into gross profaning of God's name, or into high passions at best.