Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k.seymore  Do you believe that the word of an authority is law even if that word did not contain "all provision of enforcement, and penalty for violation"? |
Yes, the word of authority is law. But think about
that for just a minute. WHY is it LAW? It's LAW for the very reasons stated: the "voice" is that of
enforcement, I think you'd agree. What does Paul say? Rom 5:13, "For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." Do you hear what he's saying? Compare to Rom 4:15, "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." WRATH=enforcement. If no one is ever punished, then the law is not only toothless, it is no law at all.
Some old, funny laws stay on the books, as "quaint". Its humorous to see a law against "cow-tipping" or some such, and to see the fines or hours in the stocks assessed. But these are, for all intents and purposes, no laws at all.
As for the penalty, 1) to break the covenant was to be cast off, and to bring down the curses of the covenant. God was not obligated to stipulate for his subordinate enforcers of temporal punishments, case law that would run the gamut. He gave them
a whole bunch of cases, and expected them to adjudicate untold cases and kinds based on those few examples.
In the example you gave, there was apparently some question as to whether blasphemy was ever a capital crime. The case was serious enough, that it went through the whole court system (Ex 18:13-26) all the way to Moses, who took it to God himself for a final statement. This case rather shows how justice was supposed to work in Israel, if there was insufficient data (for whatever reason) to make a determination.* Perhaps God deliberately left out a statement earlier on how severe a judgment against blasphemy could be meted out, so that the people would come to him, to see his own statement on the matter.
Bottom line, in the end what do we have?
Law,
enforcement (both ultimate and subordinate), and a maximum
penalty. So, the "case" demonstrates the very point. In order to make the law truly effectual, the penalty window also needed to be stipulated.
Hope this has cleared my point up.
*Note how in regard to other laws (cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th) the maximum was so ordered in severe cases.