8/12/2019 1996 Issue 6 - Thou Shalt Not Destroy the Family - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/4

Our God is a God of the family_

At the heart of God's plans for

man

lies the family.

t

is the oldest and

most basic institution God has

created among men. In this study

we come to a text that has two laws

related to

th

e family. According to

the outline of Deuteronomy this

passage is located in the section

which gives

an

exposition of the

Sixth Commandment,

Thou

shalt

not hill . It follows Moses' expan

sion of the Sixth Commandment in

regards to capital punishment and

war laws. These very obviously fit

the pattern. But in light of that, the

passage before us would seem at

first glance to be misplaced.

These laws would appear to

Let us consider these family

protection laws. Let us do so by

consideration of their covenantal

purpose. How do these laws

protect the covenant family? Let

us

begin

with

the first one: 1. Cov

enantal Succession and

the

Godly

Child.

First, before

we

actually get

into the express

purpose

of the first

law, an important point needs to

be briefly made regarding verse

ISa: If a man have two wives".

Some have wrongly assumed that

this law (and others like it) estab

lished polygamy. Such is not the

case. They often use this type of

law to discredit the continuing

here command it Its presence in

the Law does

not

ipso facto

invalidate God's Holy Word

Second, as we prepare to consider

this law,

it

needs also to

be noted

t)-lat this law does

not

have as its

intention

the

establishing of

the

right of primogeniture.

That

is, it is

not given for the purpose

of

establishing the' legal rights of

the

first-born to receive a double

portion of

the

inheritance. This is

so in light of at least three factors:

(1) This had long been the practice

of the

pa

tliarchs, at least since the

time of Abraham over 500 years

previous to the giving of the Law.

be more relevant were they

in the previous section

dealing with the Fifth

Commandment, "Honor thy

father and mother". After

all, this section deals with a

W rou

~ I r a l t

~ t

~ e 5 t r O y tIr e

Jlf

amil l

The way

in

which the first

born is

mentioned here

shows that

the

law of

the

first-born is assumed as in

existence already.

t

is

assumed that a double

portion inheritance will go

matter obviously concerned

with family relations.

But as is so often the case,

the laws of God overlap

and

intertwine themsel

ves

around one

another as a seamless garment.

The two laws that we will

consider in this study do, of

course, relate to the Fifth Com

mandment. But

in

the form in

which they appear in our text, they

consider the family in terms of its

protection and succession. These,

then, are laws designed to protect

the family from destruction, from

moral

and

spiritual death. As such,

they expand on the Sixth Com

mandment: they fo rbid that which

would kill or destroy the family

line. The first law is a purely moral

law.

t is not

a civil law backed by

governmental authority. t con

tains no criminal sanctions. There

is no punishment mentioned for

breaking the law. The second

law

differs from first

in

that it is

not

only a moral but a civil law.

~ e u t r o 1 t o m 1 ; 1 21:15-21

Rev. Kenneth L Gentry,Jr;

validity of God's Law

today_

It

must be noted th at the law simply

says,

If a

man have

two

wives". It

does

not

say,

"A

man

should have

two wives." In the Old Testament

era, God tolerated polygamy. He

did not command it.

By

this

statement we

do

not mean that

God tolerated moral evil. Obvi

ously, polygamy is

not

intrinsically

immor

al for, after all, God did

allow it

in

that day. And He never

allows moral evil: The

Lord

is of

purer

eyes

than

to

behold

evil,

and

canst not

look

on iniquity" (Hab.

1:13a). In the New

Te

stame

nt

era,

however, polygamy is forbidden.

Due to the specific purpose of this

case law, we will

not

delve into the

whys and wherefores of its toler

ance of polygamy in the Old

Testament era. That is an interest

ing and important study in itself.

Suffice it to say, for our present

purposes, that the Law does not

to the first-horn. This law

exists to establish which

of

the first-born in this

unusu l situ tion h s

th

right.

(2)

The phraSing

of the

passage makes it clear that the

specific purpose of the case law is

to protect

the

legal rights of

the son

of the hated wife: If a l11an have

two wives,

one beloved, and another

hated,

and they

have

bam

him

children,

botlt the beloved and the

hated; and

if

he first-bam son be

her

s

that was

hated:

then

it

shall be, when

he maketh

his

sons to

i1111e ;t

that

whi

ch he hath,

that

he

may

not l11ake

the son of the beloved first-bam before

the son of the hated, which is indeed

the first-bam. The

reference

to

the

double inheritance

of

the first-bo

rn

is brought in by way of illustration

to set up a set of circumstances. To

illustrate the importance of the

protection of family inher itance

rights,

the

law cites

the

case

hypothetically.

The point

of the

case law is that family inheritance

rights are so important that even

the wishes of the father may

not

July/August, 1996

t THE

COUNSEL of Chalcedon t

29

8/12/2019 1996 Issue 6 - Thou Shalt Not Destroy the Family - Counsel of Chalcedon

2/4

supersede

the standing right

of

the

first-born son. (We w ll deal

with

this more shortly.) (3)

The

place of

this passage in the structure

of

Deuteronomy is helpful to the

proper understanding

of

its

purpose

. t is

found in the portion

of De1.jteronomy

which

is applying

the

Sixth Commandment

which

teaches, "Thou shalt not kill or

"destroy". In the larger context,

then, this isgiven to

prohibit

the

destruction, the disinheritance,

or

the

economic

death of the innocent

child. The well-known

right

to a

double portion is mentioned so

that the particular issue can be

dealt with: The right is maintained

even if the

father does not like the

child This law, then, has a singular

purpose: To

teach

"Thou shalt not

disinherit the godly child." Taken

for granted in the case law situa

tion is the obvious assumption that

the child protected is a godly son.

By

way

of

contrast

the very

next

passage speaks of the

ungodly

child

and how

to

deal

with

him.

The moral

lesson we must learn is

this: The family

is

under

the

headship

of

the father, by

creational order and Biblical Law.

But the father is not God. He

cannot be a tyrant. He

cannot

autonomously

determine anything

he chooses in regard to his family.

He is obligated to follow the

pattern

of

God's Law. The male

headship of

the home is legitimate

and

right only i f the father righ

teously reflects God's rule. This

law insures

that

this is understood.

e live in

an

age characterized by

superficiality

and

emotionalism.

What strikes our fancy.... What

makes

us feel good....

Such

things

determine how

we

conduct

our

affairs. This is rtagic.

The

godly

father is one who acts toward his

children, not

in

terms of emotional

feeling or some such thing. He is

one who governs his family in

terms of God's holy Law. Even

though emotionally he may love

his second wife

and

her fust-born

child more than the other, he may

not selfishly choose to honor that

child over the other. Rights are

God-given and must be maintained

in terms

of

a godly order. The basic

principle

of

this law is

that

the

godly child cannot be disinherited.

Not emotional feeling, but moral

law was to determine

the

father's

conduct toward his family. God's

Law governs in the family life.

God is concerned with the continu

ance and succession

of

His cov

enant

in family generations. Man

cannot interrupt them with impu-

nity. The ideas of covenantal

succession and leaving an inherit

ance are very

important to

the

Christian. Covenantal succession

ties family generations together. It

stresses the labors

of

the past shall

be sent via covenantal inheritance

into the future to our children.

"Children (godly children) are an

heritage of the Lord" (Psa. 127:3)

2. Covetlatltal Cessation and the

Ungodly Child. In the second case

law we have presented to us an

opposite situation. Rather

than

the

insuring

of

covenantal succession,

we have the call to covenantal

cessation. This law is just as

important as thepreceding one;

they lOgically occur together to

govern against extremes.

Deuteronomy 21:18-22 reads: If a

man have a

stubborn

and rebellious

son, which will

not

obey

the voiceof

his father

or

the voice of

his

mother,

and

that

when

they have chastened

him, will

not hearken unto

them:

Then shall his

father and

his

mother

lay hold Otl him and bring him out

unto

the elders of his city,

and unto

the

gate

of his place; and they

shall

say

unto the

elders

his city, This our

son is stubborn and

rebellious,

he will

not obey

our

voice; he is

a

glutton,

and

a drunkard. And

all

the men of

his

city

shall stone him with

stones,

that he die: so shalt

thou

put evil

3 TH COUNSEL of Chalcedon

t

July/August, 1996

away

from amOtlg

you;

and

all

Israel

shall hear, and

fear.

"Again, oppo

nents

of

God's Law try to make this

law something that

it

is not. They

try to disestablish God's Law

by

appealing to the alleged cruelty

of

this passage. But let us notice a few

things

in

response to such allega

tions: First, this law does

not

apply

to

a

young

child. The text clearly

presents the actions

of

an older

child,

not

an adolescent: He is one

who is a "drunkard" and uncon

trollable. This

is

not calling for

capital punishment

of

a ten year

old . Second, this law does not call

for capital

punishment

for mere

drunkenness (as evil as drunken

ness is). What is presented here is

a complex

of

evil characteristics

inhering

in

one person: He is

"stubborn", "rebellious", a "drunk

ard", and a "glutton." These are

expressive of dangerous unruliness

and

incorrigible criminality. This is

not one act or occasional acts.

t

is

a settled lifestyle of dangerous

behavior. s a matter of fact, it is

public misconduct that is provable

in court: Then shall

his father

and

his mother lay

hold

on

him and

bring

him

out unto the elders of his

city

,

and

unto the

gate

of his place....

"

The

parents have tried to chasten and

correct him, but to no avail: And

they shall

say unto the elders ofhis

city

This

our son is

stubborn

and

rebellious, he

will

not obey

our voice

(v. 20a). Third, the opponent of

this law who alleges that it is

immoral has

put

himself in an

uncomfortable situation. Not only

is it God's Law, but Jesus Christ

affirms it in New Testarnent.

Matthew 15:1-4 has Jesus citing

this law as it is recorded in

Leviticus 20:9: Then came to esus

scribes

and

Pharisees, which were of

Jerusalem, saying, Why do

thy

disciples transgress

the

tradition

of the

elders? for they wash

not

their

hands

when they

eat

bread

.

But he answered

and said

unto

them, Why

do ye

also

8/12/2019 1996 Issue 6 - Thou Shalt Not Destroy the Family - Counsel of Chalcedon

3/4

transgress the commandment ojGod

by your tradition? For God

com

manded, saying, Honor thy Jather and

mother: and, He

that cursetll Jather or

mother,

let

him

die

the death .... Ye

hypocrites, well

did I

saiah prophesy

oj

your, saying

This

people draweth

nigh

unto me with their

mouth,

and

honoreth

me

with

t

heir

lips;

but their

heart is

Jar from me.

But in vain they

do

worship me, teaching Jar

doctrines

the commandm ents oj men. The

.fundamental teaching of this law is

that the family must align itself

with God and His

Law

, rather than

with blood ties or emotional

attachment, as is so often the

case. God and His

Law

must

have priority over feelings and

sympathies. Jesus spoke of the

overriding of natural sympathies

in the family in Matthew 10:34-

38:

Think

not that I am come to

send peace on earth: I came not to

send

peace, but a

sword.

For I

am

come to set a man at Valiance

against

his Jather, and

the

daughter against

her mother,

and

the daughter-in-law

against

her

mother-in-law. And a

man

's

Joes shall be

they

oJ his

own

household. He

that

loveth

Jather

or

mother more

than

me is not worthy oj

me:

and

he

that

loveth son or daugh

ter more

than

me is

not

worthy oj

me. " Obviously our Lord is not

demanding the undermining or the

destruction of the home. He is

calling for a

reCOgnit

ion of a

fundamental priority: The Lord

must be first in

life.

That is the

whole idea of His being "Lord"

How often in the news do we read

of mothers and fathers calling for

mercy for their sons that have

committed murd

er

This sets them

directly contrary to God and His

Law for man. Every man has a

mother and father Shall every

murderer be set free? The godly

parent

is

the parent who follows

God and His

Law

wherever they

may lead. This

is

what is meant by

"the fear of God" which is so often

spoken of in both the Old

nd

New

Testaments. The godly parent is

one who will cut off his child when

he is in dangerous, settled rebellion

aga inst God and man. Not blood,

but

faith should rule us. Not pity,

but God's

La

w must govern o

ur

conduct towa rd those who ha

ve

set

themsel

ves

against God even

if

they are our own children. A

humanistic refusal to follow such a

concept as here found in God's

Law

has caused serious problems

of national consequence in the

past. How often have the mon

archs in Europe been scoundrels

afflicting the citizenry with barbari

ties and neighboring nations with

unp

rovoked war. And the monar

chies were established along family

lines. Almost invariably the bad

kings and queens were known to

be evil before they were crowned.

They could have been cut off by

godly parents. They could have

been disinherited and the nation

would have been spared much

grief. Consider also God's actions

toward His firstborn, Israel.

Exodus 4:22 says, "Is rael is my son,

even my firstborn. " Yet Jesus

teaches in Matthew 8: 10-12 that

Israel will be cast ou

t: "Ve

rily I say

unto you, I have not found so great

faith, no, not in Israel. And I say

unto you, That

m n

y shall come

from the east and west, and shall

sit in the kingdom of heaven. But

the children of the kingdom shall

be cast out into outer darkness:

there shall be weeping and gnash

ing of teeth. God cut off His

firstborn son, Israel, because Israel

rejected and crucified Jesus Christ.

And He then

dopted us

There are

several conclusions that

m

y be

drawn from this law of our God.

Some are conclusions related to the

family; some are conclusions

related to the government: (1) The

family

is

under a moral obligation

to cut off the ungodly child

by

disinheriting him.

f

God's Law

urges the parent to

tum

the evil

child over to civil authOrity, clearly

it would encourage the refusal to

subsidize the godless child in life

Any wealth that we have comes

from God. It must be used for God

and His kingdom work.

It mu

st

not

be allowed to pass into the hands

of the ungodly, even if they are

our own children. 2) In the

rare cases where parents are

faced with a situation wherein

one of their children has been

proven to be a criminal, the

parents should st nd for

righteousness. They should

not

side with the evil child against

law and order by pleading for

mercy. This is may be h rd

to

do

emotionally,

but

it is proper to do

in light of God's holy

Law.

(3) The

law endorses a high view of the .

home and of parental control in the

home. The godly parent disciplines

th

e child. And where the discipline

does

not

work, and when the child

becomes dangerous, the godly

parent turns him in to the authori

ties. (4) There are limits to parental

authority. In Roman law the father

had the right to slay his own

children if he saw

fit.

But in

Biblical law the parent 's disciplin

ary authOrity is limited to chastise

ment. He cannot slay the child .

That authOrity is vested in civil

government. (5) An obvious

application of this law would

be

that the civil government should

have laws that call for capital

punishment for the incorrigible

criminal. In the case presented the

unruly son

is

clearly incorrigible.

He is

a menace to

SOCiety

who

constantly is involved in criminal

conduct. Instead of housing nd

July/August, 1996 t TH COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 31

8/12/2019 1996 Issue 6 - Thou Shalt Not Destroy the Family - Counsel of Chalcedon

4/4

feeding the debased criminal at

taxpayer's expense , the government

should put the criminal to death.

oncIjlSion

Our God loves the family. The

godly parent cannot disinherit

godly children. He must provide an

inheritance for his godly children.

However, our

family s not

our

God God's

Law must rule

in

all of

life, even in the difficult situations

where parent s set against child.

We

should let our children know

how much they mean to us. We

should let them know that our love

is

governed by God's Law. They

must rest assured in the knowledge

that we will do all that God

requires of us. We will leave them

an inheritance if they are godly.

But we will also disinherit them i f

they do

not

follow after

God.n

.

class

syllabus;

2

textbookS;

an.d

editorial

oversight for $175 (some

.SASE assignments

required.)

:

Write

for

more

information:

. Kenneth L Gentry Jr.

46

Mairi St., Conestee, SC 29636

32 t

THE

COUNSEL of Chalcedon t July/August,

1996

Non-Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

BULK RATE

Permit No. 1553

Greenville 5C

29602