Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum  Quote:
Originally Posted by k.seymore Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum I don't think there should be any law created that does not contain 1) warrant, and all provision of 2) enforcement, and 3) penalty for violation. | In other words, no laws using the format of the decalogue? | I don't understand the question. The Law of Moses has: 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (both earthly and heavenly), and 3) explicit, spelled out penalties for violation, as well as the implicit. We are speaking here in the thread of earthly laws, which should direct us at least implicitly to find all the parts I mentioned.
The Moral Law (the Decalogue) all by itself has 1) warrant, 2) enforcement (by God the King), and 3) penalty for violation (death, essentially the CoW), when it is considered under the first and second uses. |
If the decalogue really does, as you say, have "all provision of... enforcement, and... penalty for violation" then, since the decalogue is pretty short, it should be pretty easy to show where
all provision of enforcement and all penalty for violation is, as you said, contained in the law for those who are guilty of breaking it. Here's an example:
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Ex 20:7)
Where's the provision for all enforcement and the specific penalties for violation contained within the decalogue for this law? And why would Moses and the Israelites be in error for thinking the decalogue didn't contain these things:
"the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Lev 24:11-16)
So for them, enforcement was by those who heard the blasphemy, they were to take him out and ritually lay their hands in witness on his head, then the penalty was that the people were to stone him. These specific provisions are not found in the decalogue, so the decalogue must not contain
all provisions/penalties within it. Yet they are still valid laws whether these provisions are revealed within a specific law or not.
I can understand why one might say a democratic law needs these things in order to become law, but why would, say, a monarch need to do so? Or a parent for that matter? I lay down laws like this all the time with my children. "You are not allowed to do [such and such]." When they ask "But why can't I do [such and such]?" I say, with the authority invested in me by God, "Because I said so." And when they break that law I decide what the penalty is and how it will be enforced, and it isn't always the same. I see no reason why a monarch could not do the same. Why would they need to make sure the law had
all provisions of penalties or enforcement within it for those laws to be valid? Aren't the laws valid simply because they come from authority, and the only time we should question that authority is when they clash with the higher authority?