It is thus also evident that the abuse of the lot in games, entertainment, and gambling is a dreadful abuse of the providence of God. There are games which are played solely with one’s skill or strength, and there are games played together with others such as chess, checkers, handball, fencing, shuffle board, etc. These are lawful in and of themselves, but they must be played with a holy objective: to refresh a weary mind, to preserve the health of the body, or to render one more fit for his next task. It must occur neither too frequently nor too long, for then you would fail to achieve the objective. You would waste your time and the heart would be estranged from God and become attached to the game. There are also mixed games which are partly played by chance and partly by skill, such as the game of cards, backgammon, etc. These are as unlawful as games of pure chance, for the casting of the lot also rules such games. If chance is entirely against someone, his skill will be of no avail. Then there are games which are entirely dependent on chance, such as games in which dice only are used, straws are drawn, etc.
It is unlawful to play games of chance, be it all by chance or in conjunction with skill. This is evident for the following reasons:
First, there is neither a command, example, nor argument in God’s Word from which one can logically deduce the legality of games of chance.
Evasive Argument #1: This can also be said of other games in which use is made of either skill or strength.
Answer: This is not so, for it is founded upon God’s Word that one may rest, sleep, eat, and drink, and at the same time, may endeavor to keep soul and body in good condition in order to be fit for the service of God.
Evasive Argument #2: A game of chance can also serve that purpose.
Answer: This cannot be so, since it is nothing but sin—and a soul, if it were sensitive to sin, would be distraught. One may not draw a conclusion by relating that which is founded upon God’s Word to that which is not founded upon it.
Secondly, the use of the lot is a religious activity governed by the Word of God, which states the circumstances when, the manner in which, and the purpose for which it may be used. It is a religious activity; that is, it is a seeking for guidance from the Lord and a making request that He would reveal His will. Therefore prayer precedes its use (Acts 1:24–26). It must be used in weighty circumstances wherein God’s hand needs to be observed in an extraordinary manner. This was true for the selection of the two goats, the division of the land of Canaan, and the selection of a twelfth apostle. It must be done in faith, believing that the entire disposal is of the Lord (Prov. 16:33), that He will reveal His will, and that one must rest in this with delight. It must also be used to settle disputes (Prov. 18:18). All these dimensions are absent, however, in the game of chance, and it is thus unlawful.
Thirdly, the lot is an extraordinary means by which to discern God’s will in a situation of extraordinary importance. However, in a game of chance there is neither a weighty matter to be determined, nor a dispute to be settled. One does not endeavor by such a game to know the will of God in order to be subject to it. Thus, to play a game of chance is to tempt God, and is therefore forbidden. “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Mat. 4:7). To tempt God is to depart from the ordinary way prescribed to us and to desire something extraordinary from God. It makes a mockery of God’s providence and makes Him a servant of our foolish will.
Evasive Argument: The gambler may say: “I do not even think about this; I am only interested in honor and financial gain.”
Answer: It is sinful to have such objectives, and it is even sinful not to think about God. One must think about God in everything. If one does not think about God in the act of lying, is it therefore no sin?
Fourthly, the outcome of the casting of the lot—which the gambler hopes to be to his advantage—is not in the hands of the player; and yet he is hopeful. In whom does he put his hope—in the devil? No. Is it fate (which the heathen designate as an idol) as if it were able to bring something about? No. Does one expect it then from the dice? Then one designates them to be his God. It is abominable to expect any happiness from any other source but God.
Evasive Argument: The gambler may say, “I do not expect the outcome from anyone; I only look to the outcome.”Answer: This would be the answer of the atheist; the outcome is ruled by God (Prov. 16:33). It is thus inherent in the issue itself that one expects happiness from God in an extraordinary way—this being by a game. This is nothing else but a tempting of and mocking with God, and to make Him a servant of one’s lust.
Fifthly, games of chance—not due to chance itself—inherently engender harmful consequences. They draw the heart from God, which, due to His righteous judgment, is occupied with a bewitching power. If the outcome of the casting of the lot is disappointing, a silent fretfulness toward God arises in the heart, even though this may not be expressly stirred up. From this comes cursing, blaspheming, and displeasure toward the winner. The one loses his goods (be it much or little) and the other receives a profit which is corrupt and contaminated.
Sixthly, add to this the general witness of the godly and scholars of all ages, as well as of synods and imperial decrees. If there is occasionally one who favors games of chance, it is a papist or a worldly person who has no regard for the Bible. Or if there is an occasional scholar who approves, there are those who have refuted them and stopped their mouths. In doing so, such a scholar has brought a blemish upon himself and upon his other writings.
Wilhelmus a Brakel | The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 3 (Reformation Heritage Books, 1994), 124–26.
Editor’s Note: Be sure to watch the Heidelvideo miniseries on gambling.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe to The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
“…there is neither a command, example, nor argument in God’s Word from which one can logically deduce the legality of games of chance…”
is it not, therefore, binding the conscience to take such a prescriptive stance on this?
How should Brakel have put it?
I’m not suggesting that he put what I have quoted into different words. I am curious as to how he can say that there is not a command, example, nor argument from scripture concerning the legality of gambling and not then leave it a matter of Christian liberty?
I ask this with no desire to be quarrelsome, rather to be shown.
Ben,
I’m not sure that we agree about what he wrote.
Are we discussing this sentence?
“First, there is neither a command, example, nor argument in God’s Word from which one can logically deduce the legality of games of chance.”
Yes, Sir!
He’s opposed to games of pure chance. He doesn’t believe that they can be defended from Scripture.
He doesn’t think they are a matter of Christian liberty. He’s making a moral application of an inference from Scripture.
My conscience is not bound by Brakel’s opinion or inference. If the visible church threatened to charge me for disagreeing with Brakel, that could arguably be binding someone’s conscience.
I see! that’s very helpful. My issue had been that if it’s legality cannot be logically deduced from scripture then the most we could call it was unwise, as opposed to calling it unlawful as he does here. What I am getting from your reply is that an individual may hold an opinion that something is unlawful, and even tell others that they believe so, without it being an infringement on Christian Liberty? That is to say that only the visible church should not go beyond scripture, but an individual may?
He doesn’t think that he’s going beyond Scripture. His case is that the absence of any warrant from Scripture means we may not do it.
He has other arguments.
Okay! I think I was misinterpreting his use of “legality”. He means it cannot be deduced to be positively legal, not that the legality is left amiguous.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, Dr. Clark. You have been, and continue to be, a significant influence on my theology, piety, and practice (rings cowbell). I appreciate your time.
Thanks for the encouragement Ben!
the part that makes me nervous is that “a soul which is sensitive to sin would be distraught” as I used to get together with a small group of folks and play cards to degree where no one would win or lose more than $20-40 and never felt a whisper of ‘distraught’ — it seemed pretty harmless.
Paul,
I’m sure people will dissent from Brakel on some things but I thought it useful to let readers see that the Reformed have been thinking about this for a while and that the arguments haven’t changed much over the centuries.
Thinking more about a categorical statement that gambling of any type violates the commandment to not steal. Seems overblown to say thats completely categorical. Two dear buddies on the golf course, they lay $20 on the game, one wins by two strokes. The other pats him on the back warmly, says great game, and will full friendly consent hands the guy a $20. to say the guy who’s now richer committed theft from his dear friend seems a little nuts. You break in to my house, steal my wallet, I didn’t consent, I am a victim of your wrongdoing. But with the golfers here, not so much.
It seems to me that gambling is wrong because it is an unwarranted attempt to circumvent God’s curse, given in the garden. That is because Adam disobeyed God, he was now going to be required live by the sweat of his brow. Gen. 3 Gambling is a desire to escape God’s requirement to work to make a living. I’m not so sure that a friendly wager, for a small token of money, falls into that category. Neither does it seem like it could be considered to be a violation of the law against theft. I think it comes down to the intended purpose. If the purpose is to live without regard for God’s law, that we are required to work for a living and not to steal the money that was produced by another person’s labour it is sinful.
Thanks for your considerate response, Angela. So then I gotta ask, other than perhaps by a technicality (a loophole?) how does a professional investor, a guy who makes his money by the comings and goings of the stock market (a guy like me) do any better according to this standard you are pointing out than a degenerate gambler. It would look to most that folks like me get a lot for doing (nearly) nothing and the profits we realize most certainly originate from the great labor, perhaps though distant, of many others.