• 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.

Lex Terrae: The Law of the Land

Doc

Member
Real Person
In the Book of Romans, the apostle Paul admonishes believers in Christ to submit to the civil authorities over them. The relevant passage comes from chapter 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxers, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:1–7

This is the principle of obeying the “law of the land,” sometimes called by the Latin phrase lex terrae. Much of the time, this law is a great blessing, curbing the tide of anarchism which would otherwise wreck the nations. And we as Christians certainly ought to obey the law of the land, not only because disobeying it brings God’s wrath upon us by way of civil punishment, but also because our consciences reveal to us that obedience is right.

Paul goes further than simply declaring the principle, he makes it the responsibility of other Christian leaders to do so as well, such as Titus, who is exhorted to “Remind [Christians] to be submissive to rulers and authorities…” (Titus 3:1). The apostle Peter concurs with Paul when he exhorts, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13).

The fact that Christians are to obey the law of the land is not disputed.

And that has led many an opponent of polygyny to claim that Christians should not engage in polygyny because it is against the law of the land in the United States and other countries. These laws come in a variety of forms, whether laws against polygamy, bigamy, cohabitation, or some mix of the above.

Unfortunately for the opponents of polygyny, biblical polygyny does not require the breaking of man’s law. If one defines marriage as a union codified by a state-certified marriage license, then yes, biblical polygyny would be against the law. Obtaining multiple marriage licenses in order to have multiple living spouses is bigamy.

However, the state does not define marriage. God does. And biblical marriage is much simpler than what people often try to make it today: the permission of the bride’s father is the only requirement, no license required.

As such, a polygynous man could cohabitate with his wives in a biblically valid marriage, and as far as the state is concerned, they’re just a group of people living together. No marriage licenses obtained means no bigamy committed.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that the privileges granted to spouses by the state would not be bestowed.

It’s because of that the law of the land should be changed so a man can have legally recognized marriages to multiple women. In the United States and other democracies, that is a goal which can be worked toward by anyone who would want the full, biblical definition of marriage recognized by the state.

It should also be noted that the day polygyny becomes a legally recognized lifestyle — and that day is coming rather quickly — the argument that it is a sin because of it is against the law of the land would instantly be defeated.

At best, the law of the land makes polygyny rather impractical in nations such as the United States. In other nations or societies, polygyny is accepted.

In the Scriptures, sin is not defined by the apostles or others by the law of Babylon or the law of Ethiopia, but rather it is said that sin is the transgression of the Law, specifically the Law of God as given to Moses.

And in that Law, which is binding on all men wherever they may be, polygyny is not condemned nor discouraged.

http://friendofpolygyny.com/articles/le ... -the-land/
 
If marriage is of God then why is the solution multiple licenses for one man codified by state? Ican understand social and practical benefits but spiritually? I don't know...
 
Great topic, Doc (and one near and dear to my heart).

For the most part I know we are on the same page with respect to licenses. If anything, however, I'm a bit more "hard-core" -- in that I have come to understand what Jeremiah was saying about the human heart being "desparately wicked; who can know it?"

I heard a line by Walter Williams (a personal fave of mine) the other day that is relevant: He said that if you die, and then wake up in a new place and find that it has a "Bill of Rights" - you'll know you're in Hell. Why? Because it would be an affront to God! The purpose of a Bill of Rights is to protect you from rulers who CANNOT be TRUSTED!

Which is why I noted this:

The unfortunate [sic] side effect of this is that the privileges granted to spouses by the state would not be bestowed.

I think our one King and Master is a "jealous God"; He would rather have us rely on Him, and His blessings, than that of an impostor, the "prince of this world". We are even told that "friendship with the world is enmity with God"; so "how much more so" then, the acceptance of worldly blessings in preference to His provision?

It’s because of that the law of the land should be changed so a man can have legally recognized marriages to multiple women. In the United States and other democracies, that is a goal which can be worked toward by anyone who would want the full, biblical definition of marriage recognized by the state.

Back before we were ever a 'democracy', the Founders unanimously declared that there were once Truths which we "held to be self-evident". Sadly, that has been rejected, and that Declaration is no longer even taught in "schools".

So this one is MUCH tougher. (Especially when the Founders were so absolutely dead-set against "democracies"; Benjamin Rush called it "the Devil's own government", and Madison of course noted that "such democracies were ever spectacles of turbulence and contention, and were...as short in their lives as they were violent in their deaths". Even Franklin's response to the famous question, "What form of government have you given us?" was "A Republic, madam - IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!" We failed.)

But the good news is that we still, at least in principle, have a dual form of government. BOTH of these are "legal" within a Constitutional framework that guarantees freedom of contract. We literally are given a choice of who to serve, and which "benefits" to select: a "democracy" of private law, based on civil contract to a corporate government which grants limited "civil liberties" to its subjects who volunteer into it (but in EXCHANGE for "God-given Rights"), or, in contrast a choice to follow God's Word, and serve "Him only" - since we know we cannot serve two masters! That latter choice is protected by a First Amendment, which tells would-be tyrants (given man's wicked heart -- particularly for those drawn to power) "thou shalt NOT" when it comes to such matters of the free-will. (Such freedoms, of course, are now considered "loopholes", and those who serve the Adversary are rapidly seeking to "close them".)

So, ultimately, "even the demons" were able to "recognize Him". I have concluded that the problem is not whether those who serve "another master" admit that they "recognize" things in His Word. They lie, and deny. After all, they won't even allow His Word, or His Name, in "their" schools or courts. Their choice seems to have clearly been made.

Blessings,

Mark
 
We must remember though that Paul made that statement in the time of Nero - the ceasar who burned christians for night lights.

We must obey up to the point that it would be sin / against God's will.

Rom 14:23 -But the man who has doubts is condemned ..., because ....is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Paul exhorts all followers that All things can be allowable but all things are not profitable.

So how much one follower vs. another bends under the rod of the state can and will vary. But we are all responsible to know God's will and to not go against it.
 
I have to be honest and confess that one of the original theories that made me think of polygyny was not biblical but quite worldly.

Supposable there is to be this separation of church/religion and state in the USA. And this is usually enforced to limit ones religious expression &/or evangelism.
If this is true then why is the state involved in marriages?
I went to a very diverse, multicultural high school in my senior year and I was close with classmates from Egypt, India, Indonesia.... all over and they were Muslim, siek, religions I can't remember how to spell - I'm sure all get the idea.
BUT whatever their faith, marriage was in it.
Marriage is a ceremony in ALL religions, thus one could easily say that Marriage IS a religious ceremony. - - It is in my mind.--
SO WHY is the USA government involved in religion? Well we do know why and the reasons are unnerving.


Perhaps a legal argument could be that marriage licenses are unconstitutional due to freedom of religion... or from religion depending on who you talk to.. ;)
:idea: Maybe we could get the ACLU to help..... :lol:
 
...this separation of church/religion and state in the USA....

One of my frequent on-air challenges to people when it came to "the law of the land" was a standing $100 offer to anyone who could show me any form of the word "democracy" in any of the "Big 3 documents" (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights). I'd usually add "double your money" if you can find that equally-mythical "separation of church and state" while you're at it. (Neither are in there, of course. Some folks know that the USSC made up the latter doctrine, based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists - but which they then took horribly out of context.)

The real problem with the "law of the land" issue, particularly when folks try to apply it to something like polygyny, is that most people are so HORRIBLY ignorant of what the real "Law" is anyway.

(And yeah, I'll admit it. This really bugs me. I EXPECT people to be ignorant of the Bible when it comes to polygyny. But when they don't know as much as every ten-year-old once did about civics as well, and use that as an excuse for not learning about EITHER...well, keep reading. Hosea said it.)

Most people are simply so out-of-touch about what that "law" actually is that they never even ask the most obvious questions, like:

If the First Amendment so clearly says, "Congress shall make NO law...
...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"
then how can something (like polygyny) that the Bible so CLEARLY condones
EVER be prohibited at all? (Answer: always start with a scapegoat, of course. But think about the question. It CANNOT happen if that prohibition means what it clearly says. So how do you get people to "sign the deal with the devil"?)

(I've even had people say something like, well, I guess if maybe the COURT makes the law, or the PRESIDENT does it by fiat...then THAT must be OK...sigh. :roll: )

Samuel warned the people about asking for a king (I Sam. 8). They ignored the warning, rejected God, and voted for a king anyway. They got Saul.

We were once blessed to know that we lived in a country where the Supreme Law was unanimously declared to be based on a higher Source than any earthly king. The specific "thou shalt not" prohibitions in the Bill of Rights were intended to ensure, to the extent possible in a fallen world, that power over "freedom of conscience" would never be granted to government -- particularly at a centralized level. Even "Trial by Jury" * was once a safeguard against what has now happened.


"This Constitution is fit for the governance of an educated and moral people only. It is totally inadequate for that of any other." - John Adams

However, once the safeguards - from an "educated and moral people", to honest Constitutional money, to enumerated powers, to separation of powers (Isaiah 33:22), to Trial by Jury, to the Bill of Rights, to Demon-ocracy - were removed, the transition from Law based on God's Word to mob rule became inevitable.


The real bottom line is that Hosea had it so terribly right:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..."


But the next verse is even more damning:

"Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children." (Hosea 4:6)

God gave us the choice (Deut. 30, and many other places) -
between life and death, death and cursing, and His Law or man's.

The choice has always been ours to make. But He never said that it would be easy, or even that the world would not "hate us" for it, and for Him.



Blessings,
Mark

---------------------------

* "I consider Trial by Jury to be the only anchor ever devised by the mind of man by which a government may be held to the principles of its Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

"Trial by Jury" is a prime example of the many safeguards AGAINST democracy in the Constitution! Only one man "honest and true", out of TWELVE (hmm - wonder where they got THAT number? :shock: ) chosen at random, who says "NO!" to an unGodly or unConstitutional statute, could once set people free from unjust prosecution. It was truly a personal "conscience veto". It did not last.

It has been readily shown - both by math, and by history, that an honest RANDOMLY selected jury of one's peers (before voir dire, in other words - Latin for "jury tampering" :twisted: ) requires over 95% unanimous opinion among the populace before any 'crime' can achieve a conviction rate even remotely justifying prosecution of that 'crime'.

This is why "jurors" today literally don't have a clue. And those that do will never sit in a jury box. (Got a jury summons? Want to get out? Ask me how. Sadly, it's those who know the answer that shouldn't, of course.)

Among a Bible-literate populace, it would thus be a near impossibility for ANY "crime" not defined as such by the Word to stand up to scrutiny. From hate crimes to polygyny - we'd all be far better off in such a "God-fearing land".
 
Thanks people for all of your insight. I will freely admit that I am ignorant when it comes to civics, (sorry Mark). What I do is read the Word of God and ask Him for wisdom, understanding and knowledge from above. The earthly form of these 'big 3' will invariably lead one down the wrong path because they come from the devil, (James 3:15 and others). I try to obey the law of the land because I know that ultimately, no matter how corrupt it is, it comes from God, Romans 3:1-13...

1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

It is only when God speaks for me to do something that would 'appear' to be counter to the law that I will not give priority to the 'law of the land' and obey God instead. Even then however, there is usually a 'loophole' in the law that God knows about and I do not that He will point out to me when needed. He has done this more than once, so I know that He will likely continue to do so as necessary in future. That is why I do not really care what the law of the land says because if I simply obey God then it will all work out, (Romans 8:28). :shock: I will admit that this sort of obedience will invariably bring persecution from the authorities or anyone who wants to use, (or really misuse) the law of the land to support that persecution. However, I rejoice in this type of suffering more than I do when I suffer for my own stupidity, (though both build Godly character) because I know that I get extra credit with God for suffering for doing the right thing.

I am currently not in the United States at God's command. What I did violated man's commands, but I did it anyway. God is busy working things out, but I can see why He had me do the things that He told me to do. I simply live day to day listening to God and trying by His grace in my life to do exactly what He says as quickly as possible and expect Him to work out the rest of it. There are many people who think I am whacked out or even a crook, but I do not have to answer to them on Judgment Day. :)

Be blessed,

Ray
 
Hmmm, Maybe the scripture from a man who spent a great deal of time in prison for spreading the gospel needs not to be taken as don't break the law. But I would feel better if it was legal and the fact that polygamy is illigal is enough to advise a family not to because of the consequence. LET'S FIGHT IT IN PARLIAMENT :) that's what the polygamist men in my region are trying to do YA even if they are mormons and I am no such thing :lol: I am pleased and had personal revelations in the matter. Believe me or not god told me what was happening in that case before I even heard about it. As my ex says I live in a whole. But I believe god wants me in the world, and I can't be part of it (I'm to odd :lol: )
They are fighting that it is an illegal law and against our religious freedoms and rights. In court.

Oh and sadly I must admit that I harbour much more fear of religious establishments then the Canadian Government, (but that's more of a confession then anything else)
 
Back
Top