Do governments have the moral authority to prohibit polygamy?

[Bartato]

I understand that governments can and frequently do prohibit polygamy, but I'm asking if that action is morally legitimate in God's sight.

The Creator Himself clearly permits polygamy in the Bible.

Here are a few parallel questions.

Could a government prohibit other types of marriages which the Bible permits?

Could a government prohibit interracial marriage? Could a government prohibit remarriage after the death of a spouse? Could a government prohibit marriages where the age gap between the man and woman exceed an arbitrary number (say 10 years)?

I would suggest that governments do not have this moral authority. They might do these things, but I believe they would be sinning in the process.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[ASyers41]

I do not believe that the Government has any authority in marriage. Paul states in Acts chapter 5 that we are to obey God rather than man. When we gave the State power to rule and make rules over family is when we started down the road we are on now to where the family no longer has the man as the head, the woman no longer has female qualities about her because she’s so defiled with so much seed in her that she has no control over her emotions etc., children are disrespectful to parents and do things that they would be dragged outside the city and stoned for as examples. Anytime the government is in charge there will be no godliness in it.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I would suggest that governments do not have this moral authority

YHWH restricted even Israelite kings to ministering His law. He already said what was right and wrong. ...and NOT to add or take awsy from it. Any and EVERY man made (so called) law does just that.

I suggest people read Lysander Spooner's Natural Law for a clearer picture of why we should not recognize any man made law.

 

[Bartato]

YHWH restricted even Israelite kings to ministering His law. He already said what was right and wrong. ...and NOT to add or take awsy from it. Any and EVERY man made (so called) law does just that.

I suggest people read Lysander Spooner's Natural Law for a clearer picture of why we should not recognize any man made law.

Thanks Jolene,
I wouldn't hold to quite as strong of a theonomistic and libertarian view as you but do agree that this is something that governments are not authorized to prohibit.

 

[Bartato]

I do not believe that the Government has any authority in marriage. Paul states in Acts chapter 5 that we are to obey God rather than man. When we gave the State power to rule and make rules over family is when we started down the road we are on now to where the family no longer has the man as the head, the woman no longer has female qualities about her because she’s so defiled with so much seed in her that she has no control over her emotions etc., children are disrespectful to parents and do things that they would be dragged outside the city and stoned for as examples. Anytime the government is in charge there will be no godliness in it.

You raise a good point that these types of prohibitions cross over into the family sphere of authority.

God seems to have ordained multiple independent spheres of authority, including the family, the church, and the state. Of these, the family is most basic. It alone existed before the Fall. Moreover the family is the most basic building block of society.

The state and the church must not try to usurp that which is given to the family.

 

[MeganC]

No government ever held moral authority. A government is a collection of people and hopefully they are a moral people.

Quite seriously, the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler could have been a decent government were the Germans then a moral people. They were not.

Alexis de Tocqueville long ago understood this about America when he said,

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

 

[Bartato]

In Romans 13 we see that God established civil authorities to punish evildoers and commend those who do good. The civil authority does NOT get to define good and evil. God defines these things for us.

(I corrected my typo mistake here)

 

[MeganC]

In Romans 13 we see that God established civil authorities to punish evildoers and commend those who do good.

Nope. Nowhere in Romans 13 does it oblige a government to punish evil or commend good. It just says that everyone has to bow down and go along with whatever tyrant happens to come into power.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This is one of those passages where I part ways with Scripture as it was interpreted. This is where I care more about the words of someone who knew the price of tolerating an evil government...

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

 

[Bartato]

Nope. Nowhere in Romans 13 does it oblige a government to punish evil or commend good. It just says that everyone has to bow down and go along with whatever tyrant happens to come into power.

I know that Romans 13 is "the life verse passage" of the tyrant and the cowardly churchmen. I think they misunderstand it.

I assert that it does teach us that God requires rulers to punish evil and commend good. You quoted it yourself.

...... The authorities that exist have been established by God. ...... For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. ..... Then do what is right and you will be commended. .....God’s servant for your good. ..... God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

A proper ruler (as opposed to the tyrant) commends those who do good, and punishes the wrongdoer.

This is one of those passages where I part ways with Scripture as it was interpreted. This is where I care more about the words of someone who knew the price of tolerating an evil government...

Are you disagreeing with the text itself, or with the popular statist approved interpretation of the text?

Many people interpret the text to mean "God requires you to just do whatever the government says".

Others, including our American founding fathers, and their predecessors in the Protestant Resistance tradition (Witherspoon, Lex Rex, Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate etc) interpret it very differently.

They emphasize that the civil ruler is a "servant of God", that he must promote good and discourage evil (as defined by God Himself in the Bible). If he does those things then he is a "ruler", and we obey him.

If on the other hand he punishes those who do good, and rewards the evildoer, and terrorizes the innocent, then he is not "a ruler" and the servants of Christ are not mandated to obey him by Romans 13.

I think this is the correct understanding of the passage.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

I would argue that the Soviet government described here is not an "authority established by God" to the extent that it punished good and rewarded evil. It terrorized the innocent. It was a terrorist organization not a "servant of God". I do not think Solzenitsyn had a duty to submit to it.

 

[Mark C]

I understand that governments can and frequently do prohibit polygamy, but I'm asking if that action is morally legitimate in God's sight.

Actually, they do NOT have the Authority, particularly in a nation once founded on "sefl-evident Truths" that He exists, and that the sole function of government is to "secure these Rights," which come from Him alone.

The First Amendment answered the question over 200 years ago, as a CONDITION OF RATIFICATION of the Constitution:

NO. The Right to "free exercise" of our faith in Him, and obedience to YHVH, is not alienable. (For the leftists: that means that they got NUTHIN' to say about it. Period.)

That is decidedly NOT true, however, if you "trade that birthright for a cup of pottage." If you ask permission, via a license, for example, and Big Brother says, "NO, peon - you may not," you're screwed. Sorry.

 

[Mark C]

In Romans 13 we see that God established civil authorities to punish evildoers and commend those who do good.

Why do you assume He established "civil authorities?" It quite clearly does NOT say that.

For just one easy example, why do you presume he wasn't just talking about obeying Pope Peter the First?

(And, if Paul did, he both contradicted his Master, since He - see Exodus chapter 1 - praised, blessed, and rewarded the midwives who VIOLATED their 'king', and he's a hypocrite, too. When he and others were delivered from prison, he would've said, 'no, I deserve to be here...I violated Romans 13.')

 

[Maddog]

Nope. Nowhere in Romans 13 does it oblige a government to punish evil or commend good. It just says that everyone has to bow down and go along with whatever tyrant happens to come into power.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This is one of those passages where I part ways with Scripture as it was interpreted. This is where I care more about the words of someone who knew the price of tolerating an evil government...

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

There was another book I read years ago that had similar discourse. It was about the underground church in Russia. Sergia Kordakov or something like that. Early 70's. Anyone remember that?

 

[Joleneakamama]

Thanks Jolene,
I wouldn't hold to quite as strong of a theonomistic and libertarian view as you but do agree that this is something that governments are not authorized to prohibit.

Can you point to even ONE law that man has made, that is unique (not already covered in principle by YHWH) that improves society?

I maintain ALL so called laws just serve some special interest group, and impose unjust burdens on the rest of mankind.

Here is a fun exercise. Read Isaiah 33:22 then read the first commandment. Repeat until it sinks in.

He ONLY authorized even Israelite kings to minister His law.
Even Israelite kings were in the wrong...sinning..when they "made" laws.
To submit to any such man made law is to acknowledge another God....because if it is not in COMPLETE HARMONY with what He said......it is changing it. Period!

Another really good read is Bible Law VS the United States Constitution. I doubt very seriously that a Christian could real that whole volume and still be "for" our present "baal."

 

[Mark C]

Many people interpret the text to mean "God requires you to just do whatever the government says".

I often refer to the GIV* version, which says,
"When Big Brother says 'jump,' you say, 'how high?'"

-----------------------
* Government-Inspired Version

And, when I teach this, multiple times annually, I always point out the the FIRST example we see of "disobeying government" is Exodus 1 (the midwives) - but it is HARDLY the only.

David, for example, should have submitted to Saul and let himself be killed. How dare he "rebel against what God has instituted..."

And there are others, even in the 'new' testament. The GIV is just plain wrong, and the same guy who gets mis-translated in Romans 13 is contradicted himself (yeah, sure) in Acts 5 (esp v 19.)

 

[NBTX11]

Why is the government even involved in regulating marriage anyway? Who gave the government this authority, and how did they assume it and why? Why should any government care who marries who? Marriage was obviously instituted by God so when did man start to cede the authority of marriage to other men (government).

 

[Mark C]

It's always all about control.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Why is the government even involved in regulating marriage anyway? Who gave the government this authority, and how did they assume it and why? Why should any government care who marries who? Marriage was obviously instituted by God so when did man start to cede the authority of marriage to other men (government).

The short version....the council at trent is when religous wannabe government (the church at Rome) took for themselves authority over marriage. Civil governments followed suit. The laws against interracial marriage was why licenses first were a thing in the states...permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal.

 

[frederick]

Why is the government even involved in regulating marriage anyway? Who gave the government this authority, and how did they assume it and why?

It's involved because it contravenes biblical truth and that's what satan wants. No one gave the government this authority, the people who make up the government just took it because they wanted that satanic control. And unfortunately, the people at that time accepted it.

 

[FatherRuleMemes]

It's always all about control.

And taxes

 

[Bartato]

Why is the government even involved in regulating marriage anyway? Who gave the government this authority, and how did they assume it and why? Why should any government care who marries who? Marriage was obviously instituted by God so when did man start to cede the authority of marriage to other men (government).

I can see the government enforcing the marital regulations that God established.

The government could punish adultery.
The government could punish homosexuality.

The government punishes other Biblically defined crimes, such as theft and murder.