• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Government's Role over Man to Man Relations

Dr. K.R. Allen

Dr. K.R. Allen

Member
Real Person
In examining some of the theological and philosophical nuances that permeate the plural marriage movement on the whole there seems to be an area that needs more precise articulation in regard to how a patriarchal society would interact with and/or believe it stands (or should stand) in regard to civil authority.

Most all agree that it is God who joins a man and woman together. Granted even the precise time of that is debated but overall people on a broad scale still seem to lean towards the emphasis being that the foundational premise to which guides all else is the idea of what Christ has taught when he said: "what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matt. 19:6).

In preparing for some hefty research I would like to get the opinions of others here on the following questions. These relate to the extent as to which God gives government (state government) authority to govern man to man relationships.

Many scholars, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. Paul Fink, and even Dr. Rushdoony (to name just a few), who all come to the subject with slightly different angles concerning the Law of God, they all seem to agree though that at least some portion of God's Law should be overseen by the government rulers in geographical lands. Again the pendulum inside of that regarding how much and to what extent varies but even with the variations all scholars in the Evangelical tradition agree that a legitimate, duly constituted government has some authority over people's physical lives. Some claim it is the role to make the Mosaic Law code the law of the land (theonomist theologians), some think that only a portion of it (man to man laws; such as with the second half of the ten commandments) should be in the hands of the government.

Therefore, here are my questions. For this research I am doing I would like to gather as many thoughts as I can from you all here on the following questions.

1. Patriarchy places a strong emphasis on the man being the ruler of his home. In the OT and NT God spoke against adultery. In light of Romans 13 where government is said to be an agent of God's justice do you think in your opinion government should impose and enforce laws against adultery (defined herein as a man that takes another man's lady)? Should (a) the government have that much authority to get involved in the homes and lives of those who have acted in adultery and thus impose punishments or (b)should the government not have any hand or say in that just as it is believed by many in the patriarchal movement that government should have no hand in who joins together physically? And if the latter how does that fit with the legal code of Moses where adultery was a crime of the land?

2. Again, with the strong emphasis on patriarchy and the man's rule over his family and home, should, in your opinion, a duly and properly constituted government have the right to intervene when a spouse has abused another spouse physically? Or, should there not be any civil government authority that interferes in the home? And if the second then how does that fit with the Bible's teaching where the legal code of Moses opposed physical abuse?

3. Lastly, if your view is that government should not have a role in two adults who consent to join together then how would that fit with the idea that government has the right to govern in the area of (a) murder, (b) adultery, (c) theft/stealing, and (d) bearing a false witness about another (such as in court testimony etc) which all relate as well to man to man relations? In other words, how does one justify in their mind the idea of no civil government involvement is needed or desired in a physical relationship beginning but also argue that the same civil government has no right to govern in either its ending (such as with adultery) or with other physical areas with man to man relations? What justifies the one exception if the other areas are not excluded from the civil government authority?

Thanks everyone for your help with this.

If you like you can post your thoughts here or even private message me. Either way will work.

Dr. Allen

PS. Let's not turn this post/thread into an extended inner debate. These questions are important for some research and an ongoing debate would hinder the research effort.
 
1... in your opinion government should impose and enforce laws against adultery (defined herein as a man that takes another man's lady)? Should (a) the government have that much authority to get involved in the homes and lives of those who have acted in adultery and thus impose punishments or (b)should the government not have any hand or say in that just as it is believed by many in the patriarchal movement that government should have no hand in who joins together physically? And if the latter how does that fit with the legal code of Moses where adultery was a crime of the land?

(b) If you are part of a religion you should practice what that religion teaches to the best of your understanding and ability and the government should not interfere unless there is a threat to an individual or community.

The Muslims have Sharia law and those believing in and practicing Islam should be allowed to apply their laws, but at the same time nobody should be forced to stay in any particular religion nor should their religious laws be applied to anyone outside of their religion.

In the Old Testament David committed adultery yet he was not stoned to death. Nathan the prophet told him "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die." We need to remember that an eye for an eye was not condoning retribution but rather limiting punishment. While David deserved to be stoned to death the Lord put away his sin. Jesus showed this same kind of mercy to the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." Also we are commanded to forgive others:

Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

If a believer is committing adultery (or any sin for that matter) we are told to confront them. If they do not repent we are told to do so again with witnesses. If they still do not repent we are to remove them from our assembly. God will judge them in due time.

2. Again, with the strong emphasis on patriarchy and the man's rule over his family and home, should, in your opinion, a duly and properly constituted government have the right to intervene when a spouse has abused another spouse physically? Or, should there not be any civil government authority that interferes in the home? And if the second then how does that fit with the Bible's teaching where the legal code of Moses opposed physical abuse?

As I stated above if there is a threat to an individual or community it is the government's responsibility to protect either or both.

3. Lastly, if your view is that government should not have a role in two adults who consent to join together then how would that fit with the idea that government has the right to govern in the area of (a) murder, (b) adultery, (c) theft/stealing, and (d) bearing a false witness about another (such as in court testimony etc) which all relate as well to man to man relations? In other words, how does one justify in their mind the idea of no civil government involvement is needed or desired in a physical relationship beginning but also argue that the same civil government has no right to govern in either its ending (such as with adultery) or with other physical areas with man to man relations? What justifies the one exception if the other areas are not excluded from the civil government authority?

Just as there are business contracts that the courts have to assist in dissolving when there are disputes, the government would need to assist in dissolving personal contracts where there is no religious authority assigned to do so.

(a) murder - is a threat to an individual and it is the responsibility of the government to protect an individual.
*The heathen community believes life begins long after conception so they do not consider it murder to end the life of a baby in the womb. They would also probably euthanize most individuals that are no longer a productive part of their society.
**I believe life begins at conception so I would want to be part of an assembly that does not allow abortion. I also believe it is murder to end the life of an individual based on my opinion of their value to the assembly.

(b) adultery can cause emotional hurt, but does not physically harm another individual so the state should not be involved.
* It is unlikely that the heathen community would want the government involved in dealing with adultery (based on their definition) on a criminal basis.
** I believe the Bible shows adultery to be when a woman sleeps with someone other than her husband. If she is unrepentant she should be removed from the assembly. Her husband should forgive her and leave the door open for her to return if she repents...unless she has married another man in which case we are told it would be an abomination for him to take her back and she cannot return to the assembly.

(c) theft/stealing is universally understood to be causing harm to an individual and the government is responsible to be involved.

(d) bearing a false witness about another (such as in court testimony etc) again is causing harm to the individual by damaging reputation and possibly causing punishment by the government. This should be punishable by the government.
*The heathen community is rather lax on this punishment because it is difficult to prove, and most people have less than perfect memories and often believe that what they are saying is true even if it isn't.
** I like the Jewish tradition of imposing the sentence on the individual that gave false testimony to the extent allowed for the offense that was wrongly assigned to another individual due to the false testimony. If we could implement that for those in our assembly intentionally doing so there would be a lot less of it amongst us.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
In examining some of the theological and philosophical nuances that permeate the plural marriage movement on the whole there seems to be an area that needs more precise articulation in regard to how a patriarchal society would interact with and/or believe it stands (or should stand) in regard to civil authority.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I have always contended that merely suggesting that the government get out of marriage is too simplistic of an approach. Great topic for discussion.

1. Patriarchy places a strong emphasis on the man being the ruler of his home. In the OT and NT God spoke against adultery. In light of Romans 13 where government is said to be an agent of God's justice do you think in your opinion government should impose and enforce laws against adultery (defined herein as a man that takes another man's lady)? Should (a) the government have that much authority to get involved in the homes and lives of those who have acted in adultery and thus impose punishments or (b)should the government not have any hand or say in that just as it is believed by many in the patriarchal movement that government should have no hand in who joins together physically? And if the latter how does that fit with the legal code of Moses where adultery was a crime of the land?

2. Again, with the strong emphasis on patriarchy and the man's rule over his family and home, should, in your opinion, a duly and properly constituted government have the right to intervene when a spouse has abused another spouse physically? Or, should there not be any civil government authority that interferes in the home? And if the second then how does that fit with the Bible's teaching where the legal code of Moses opposed physical abuse?

3. Lastly, if your view is that government should not have a role in two adults who consent to join together then how would that fit with the idea that government has the right to govern in the area of (a) murder, (b) adultery, (c) theft/stealing, and (d) bearing a false witness about another (such as in court testimony etc) which all relate as well to man to man relations? In other words, how does one justify in their mind the idea of no civil government involvement is needed or desired in a physical relationship beginning but also argue that the same civil government has no right to govern in either its ending (such as with adultery) or with other physical areas with man to man relations? What justifies the one exception if the other areas are not excluded from the civil government authority?
Click to expand...

I think that not having some legal provisions regarding marriage may open up doors for some other problems - some of which you have touched upon. How is a wife protected, for example, if a husband merely decides he doesn't want her anymore? What about child custody issues if their is a divorce?

Having not wrestled with all the nuances of this topic, I would like to mention that there are some countries that actually have different marriage laws for different tribes within their country. This has intriqued me some, so I have thought that an option that might be be discussed within this topic is the idea of some sort of "organizational sovereignty" provision. Of course, this idea would seem to only work in reguard to marriage itself, not all the other things that this topic touches upon. So, for example, one was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This organization has a very specific understanding of marriage. Therefore, as an organization, they could be granted sovereignty over the marriage/divorce, etc.. within their organization. All members would understand that if they are a part of that organization, all marital issues would agree to submit to this if they were to join up with them.

The federal government could reorganize their family courts to be arbitration systems whereby they would ensure that there be no abuses within the system, etc...

Although, there are problems with this idea, which I won't delineate, here are some of the things it could in theory solve:

1. It would give all groups (secular, or religious) their own criteria for marriages/divorces, etc..
2. It would get the government out of most marriages.
3. It would help protect inviduals from potential marital/custody abuses.

I hope your research goes well in this area. There are a host of things to actually work through, IMHO. However, I think it really need to be looked at apart from the standard "government should be totally controlling marriage" held by many conservative believers. and the "take government totally out of marriage" held by many of us practicing polygynists. This needs to be thought out quite thoroughly and theologically.
 
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 NIV 2010
 
One of my best friends is a retired FBI agent. He said he does not believe in the death penalty, and quite honestly, I can't disagree with that, unlike the 90+ % of his professional colleagues who do.

My reasoning: we live under grace, not Mosaic law. As long as someone is still breathing, there is hope that he will make the right choice about accepting Christ. (I don't know his exact reasoning, but he is a born-again Christian and a Bible teacher.)

He tells of one time that he arrested a scum-of-the-earth type criminal...a serial child molester and murderer. When he was booking the suspect, most cops in the room were making comments about how good it would be to see him die. But he said the Holy Spirit spoke to him, saying something like this: "Satan won twice here - once when that man committed his crimes, and now once again because of the hatred being directed toward him."

Jesus died for the child molesters, too.

My opinion is that the government should step in only if someone harms another person in some way. Now that opens a whole can of worms, because how do we define harm...?

How can we protect the innocent (our children) without interfering in parental rights? Is spanking a child abuse, or is it appropriate correction?

Things like that can be decided only on a case-by-case basis. We all know the "rules" - don't spank the ornery little brat when you are angry, etc. - but who knows besides the parent?

I have seen more damage done to kids by CPS (the mis-named "child welfare system") and their actions than any parent could ever inflict. Several kids I know were actually removed from a Christian home and placed in the care of a family that openly worshiped Satan!

My personal philosophy about human government is "as little as possible to get the job done." Unfortunately, those in power keep enlarging the job description...
 
PolyDoc,

I think you may have a very good point. I used to believe that a Bible believing Christian would only believe in the death penalty for certain sins. Apostle Paul taught that the Law was good and just in the book of Romans. Yet, he did not advocate the death penality upon the man who was having sex with his father's wife which the Law required (Lev. 18:8; 22:11; Deu 22:30). Instead, he advocated disfellowshipping the man (1 Cor. 5). Later, he shares that if this same man has repented, bring back into the body (2 Cor. 2).

Paul put into practice the Law, yet, he applied it differently in a few places - like this one and the one about muzzling the ox. These are things to certainly consider regarding the overall picture.
 
He tells of one time that he arrested a scum-of-the-earth type criminal...a serial child molester and murderer. When he was booking the suspect, most cops in the room were making comments about how good it would be to see him die. But he said the Holy Spirit spoke to him, saying something like this: "Satan won twice here - once when that man committed his crimes, and now once again because of the hatred being directed toward him."

Jesus died for the child molesters, too.
Click to expand...
his reason for dying was not so that abusers could escape punishment, but that they might be forgiven.
forgiveness does not invalidate the consequences of sin.

could it be that the Holy Spirit was only saying to carry out justice w/out the hatred?

when i see every person getting instant cures for aids at the time that they repent of homosexuality, then i will have to modify my beliefs. but until then, actions have consequences. no matter how much you tell your creator that grace reigns.

ps, who would decide if the repentance was real?
lets go back to the "if people were moral, we would not need laws" idea ;)
 
I am against the death penalty in the U.S. as it is today, because we want to reduce the power that a corrupt government has to decide who lives and dies. And because sometimes mistakes are made. However I think in some circumstances a death penalty is a good thing.
 
DaPastor said:
PolyDoc,

I think you may have a very good point. I used to believe that a Bible believing Christian would only believe in the death penalty for certain sins. Apostle Paul taught that the Law was good and just in the book of Romans. Yet, he did not advocate the death penality upon the man who was having sex with his father's wife which the Law required (Lev. 18:8; 22:11; Deu 22:30). Instead, he advocated disfellowshipping the man (1 Cor. 5). Later, he shares that if this same man has repented, bring back into the body (2 Cor. 2).

Paul put into practice the Law, yet, he applied it differently in a few places - like this one and the one about muzzling the ox. These are things to certainly consider regarding the overall picture.
Click to expand...

That might have something to do with being under Roman rule instead of Israeli rule at the time or it might not.
 
It certainly may be the case, but remember, it is written for our admonition and example.
 
steve said:
his reason for dying was not so that abusers could escape punishment, but that they might be forgiven.
forgiveness does not invalidate the consequences of sin.

could it be that the Holy Spirit was only saying to carry out justice w/out the hatred?
Click to expand...


Very well said!! Without justice there would be those that proclaim 'I repent' without actually meaning it just so they wouldn't suffer any punishment. Yahushua came so that we might be forgiven of our sins. Not so that we don't have to own up to our decisions. Even a child when they're in trouble will say 'I'm sorry daddy, I'm sorry daddy' hoping that'll settle it and you won't punish them.
 
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Click to expand...
grace is hiding under the table :D
 
I'll repost here to help give the questions again:

Therefore, here are my questions. For this research I am doing I would like to gather as many thoughts as I can from you all here on the following questions.

1. Patriarchy places a strong emphasis on the man being the ruler of his home. In the OT and NT God spoke against adultery. In light of Romans 13 where government is said to be an agent of God's justice do you think in your opinion government should impose and enforce laws against adultery (defined herein as a man that takes another man's lady)? Should (a) the government have that much authority to get involved in the homes and lives of those who have acted in adultery and thus impose punishments or (b)should the government not have any hand or say in that just as it is believed by many in the patriarchal movement that government should have no hand in who joins together physically? And if the latter how does that fit with the legal code of Moses where adultery was a crime of the land?

2. Again, with the strong emphasis on patriarchy and the man's rule over his family and home, should, in your opinion, a duly and properly constituted government have the right to intervene when a spouse has abused another spouse physically? Or, should there not be any civil government authority that interferes in the home? And if the second then how does that fit with the Bible's teaching where the legal code of Moses opposed physical abuse?

3. Lastly, if your view is that government should not have a role in two adults who consent to join together then how would that fit with the idea that government has the right to govern in the area of (a) murder, (b) adultery, (c) theft/stealing, and (d) bearing a false witness about another (such as in court testimony etc) which all relate as well to man to man relations? In other words, how does one justify in their mind the idea of no civil government involvement is needed or desired in a physical relationship beginning but also argue that the same civil government has no right to govern in either its ending (such as with adultery) or with other physical areas with man to man relations? What justifies the one exception if the other areas are not excluded from the civil government authority?
 
i thought that i had this answered in my mind, until i started seeing all of the "gotchya's"

it seems to me that it can only be worked out in a theocracy, so it aint agonna happen any time soon.
the best that we can do for now is going to be a compromise

sorry, not tyrying to be sarcastic.
 
Ok well you asked so here are my answers in order:

1. No the government should not have authority in the matter of adultery. The government that governs best, governs least. We might think it is a great idea to have our definition of adultery enforced by law; however we may not always be the ones in charge (if ever). We live in Western society, and these things are best left as private matters.

2. Yes, assault is a much more transparent issue and easier to establish than adultery. This is a plain issue that would be enforceable even in the most libertarian of legal codes. Non-initiation of force is a key part of freedom.

3. Question 1 could be settled under contract law and arbitration without any government. Question 2 again could be enforceable under most moral codes between individuals and communities. In other words, I am not a fan of government involvement in general, but that is another question.

The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses comes to mind in support of your arguments, a good read but our society is heading in the opposite direction. And the Handmaids Tale for an alternative perspective.

ylop
 
could it be that the Holy Spirit was only saying to carry out justice w/out the hatred?
Click to expand...
I think your statement hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

There is no sin we humans can commit that can not be forgiven other than to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Mark 3:28-29 NKJV "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; (29) but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"
Click to expand...

But we are not to hate the sinner, no matter how heinous his sin.
 
DiscussingTheTopic asked,
What if God commanded us to hate someone, then would it be ok, to hate?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. But where in the Bible are we commanded to hate any person?

Are we to hate Satan? He's not a fellow human, and God made no provision for his salvation.

As much as we might try to say otherwise, even a serial child molester, rapist, and murderer is a human for whom Jesus died.
 
Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolatians are human. And, as a much better example, part of a Psalm of David:

Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
Psa 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

Which is not a command, but should be more than enough to dispel the 'hate the sin not the sinner' modern ideology. I mean, Christ in his Revelation points to a certain group to hate, and David in his psalm boasts of hating those that oppose the lord.


But as to the death penalty, I agree the mass of malice turned to the criminal is not a victory for our side whatsoever. The point of the Law (divine and secular) is to protect the innocent and keep evil away from the people. Death does that, and I'm not sure people who think that's so horrible have really considered the alternative; leaving them in a cell for decades until they die anyway. I could understand opposing the death penalty on the grounds they want the criminal to suffer the indignity of living in a box and losing personal liberty for as long as possible, but to oppose it on the criminals behalf is not really sensible. Discussing the Topic raised the only two serious objections to the death penalty: wrongful conviction and wanting to limit governments powers. The first is a problem any way about it, time can't be turned back any more than death can be reversed, but the second I tend to agree with.

Keith

1. Adultery is a serious problem for society at large, its not just a personal matter but affects both immediate and extended families, it is also a very real offense to the individual its commited against. It's certainly within any governments jurisdiction, and I believe the reason it is not illegal is because our governments are busy actively promoting promiscuity rather than doing their job. A theft they will prosecute, but this much deeper harm is left ignored... Nonsense.

2. A properly constituted government has a role to mediate disputes and arbitrate agreements people have made together. If there is a complaint of abuse within any contract or agreement that is something they should investigate.

3. It is not my view. That view is centrally responsible for the decay of family we've seen since the Trudeau era (in Canada) while we can use that policy to help polygamy be restored, it is not a good or sound social policy on the whole.
 
...that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans...
Click to expand...

That is not a command to hate the Nicolaitans, but to hate their deeds. (If it is a command...)

Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
Psa 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Click to expand...

Matthew 5:43-45 NKJV "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' (44) But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, (45) that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Click to expand...
How can we share the Gospel with someone we hate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top