Compulsory Education

[KMK]

Excellent post, Bruce! You really make me think.

One question: "Is it is within the scope of the lawful authority of the Civil Magistrate to require the feeding and clothing of those under his jurisdiction?

If the "form of government" is paternalistic then, I suppose that all the paternal duties would fall to them as well.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is an "ideal" form of government. If people are none other than "wards of the state" then they must be fed, clothed, housed, schooled, pampered, and etc. by the state.

I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?

 

[matt01]

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?

Yes; the magistrate has the authority, and responsibility for doing this. A better question might be where the Bible gives people the right to dictate the terms of the governmental powers...

 

[Davidius]

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7

Why do people keep insisting that this passage proves that the sole responsibility of teaching children math, science, history, economics, languages, etc. lies with their parents? The only subject mentioned in this passage is "these words, which I command thee this day."

By the way, I will add that the argument proves too much for some, because many who use this passage to necessitate homeschooling allow for private schooling. Where's that in the passage? Is it only the parents or isn't it? Is the verse talking about math or "these words"?

All the passage proves is that parents have a responsibility to make a habit of speaking with their children about God and His commandments. To say that it has anything to do with the question of government mandates or the legitimacy of public schooling is to make a huge jump.

 

[KMK]

I agree with you, David, but would add one thing...

If you agree with this:

WCF 1:8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

Wouldn't that necessitate education in at least the areas of reading and writing in the 'vulgar language'? (Which, ironically, is the one area in which America's public schools fail the most)

Also, the training up of a child in the way they should go would include the child learning a trade of some form would it not? Isn't it the parents' scriptural duty to provide a child with enough of some kind of education to make it possible for them to earn a living as an adult?

I agree that not everyone must learn every subject but everyone must learn some subjects.

 

[Davidius]

Perhaps. That's something to which I would like to give more thought (in light of my first post in which I said that no particular curriculum should be mandated). The sole intent of my previous post was to point out that it is wrong to use the Deuteronomy passage.

 

[py3ak]

To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?

 

[KMK]

To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?

You make an excellent point.

As per WCF 1:8, as I quoted above, didn't the Divines, to a certain extent define education? The ability to read and write in the vulgar tongue? Could the magistrate mandate education by parents if in no other area than the ability of literacy so that children could eventually read their own Bibles?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?

I think the question would rebound in the first place to the issue of property, and to what degree children are considered the "property" of parents. Regardless of the argument that such reasoning might take us back to the question of slavery, the fact is that if all proprietary interest of a parent in his child is eliminated, then so goes all of his authority. The ungoverned State ends up claiming huge proprietary rights over its population, btw. I say this is the first issue, because I deny that a parent is bound to meet ANY conceivable "state standard" of feeding and clothing, or face a penalty. If I send my kid to bed "without supper," does this constitute a "refusal to feed"? If I refuse to buy my kid a designer jacket, or "better" shoes, can I be prosecuted? Who "owns" the children? Because to that degree the authority can "dictate" the standard of care.

Neither the Parents, nor the State has unlimited proprietary rights, over things or people. Under Moses, a man who beat his slave to the death was a murderer (Ex. 21:20). The slave's right to live was not held under the master, but directly under God. So, to draw on the principle, present governments should punish the cruel negligence (not simply the poverty, for example) of a parent that has withheld food and clothing of their children to a dangerous degree, as this is would be a violation of the 6th commandment.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?

 

[KMK]

I am not asking whether it is the magistrates duty to feed and clothe children under his charge, but if he may require parents/families to do so. I guess the question is, would the princes of Israel prosecute parents who refused to feed and clothe their children?

I think the question would rebound in the first place to the issue of property, and to what degree children are considered the "property" of parents. Regardless of the argument that such reasoning might take us back to the question of slavery, the fact is that if all proprietary interest of a parent in his child is eliminated, then so goes all of his authority. The ungoverned State ends up claiming huge proprietary rights over its population, btw. I say this is the first issue, because I deny that a parent is bound to meet ANY conceivable "state standard" of feeding and clothing, or face a penalty. If I send my kid to bed "without supper," does this constitute a "refusal to feed"? If I refuse to buy my kid a designer jacket, or "better" shoes, can I be prosecuted? Who "owns" the children? Because to that degree the authority can "dictate" the standard of care.

Neither the Parents, nor the State has unlimited proprietary rights, over things or people. Under Moses, a man who beat his slave to the death was a murderer (Ex. 21:20). The slave's right to live was not held under the master, but directly under God. So, to draw on the principle, present governments should punish the cruel negligence (not simply the poverty, for example) of a parent that has withheld food and clothing of their children to a dangerous degree, as this is would be a violation of the 6th commandment.

Thank you, Rev Buchannon. It was the witholding of food to a 'dangerous degree' that I had in mind. Is there a parallel that could be drawn in the area of education. Could it be considered 'dangerous' to neglect a child in not at least attempting to teach a child to read or some kind of skill that will allow them to provide for themselves when they get older?

Is there 'general equity' that parents must provide some kind of education for their children in 1 Tim 5:9? Is a parent who does not attempt to teach their child to read 'providing for his own'?

 

[KMK]

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?

I think the basic premise behind cumpulsory education in America (right or wrong) was based on the principle that an 'educated' public would protect democracy from turning into tyranny.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Could it be considered 'dangerous' to neglect a child in not at least attempting to teach a child to read or some kind of skill that will allow them to provide for themselves when they get older?

Sure, it could be considered. And so we have all this prescriptive govt interference, "for the children," "for the good of society." But is it in the long-term interest of a free people to have a govt that continually micro-manages their lives? If they start by telling you what you have to teach your kids, soon they will take your schools away and teach the kids themselves what they want them to learn.

I doubt it can be successfully argued that it is "dangerous" to not teach to read, or other education, in anything approaching the level of not providing food/clothing/shelter. That's not to say that governments don't argue that very thing--clearly they do, and take it upon themselves to create, e.g., "outcome based education" etc., trying to ensure they have a continuing population of drones. Ironically, it seems that eventually the same policy-makers will argue that TOO MUCH education is equally dangerous!

The question for us is: should OUR government attempt to "produce" outcomes via mandates? Our govt was created to be "negative," maximizing individual liberty. It has become "directive," bossing us around. It took over schooling, when most Americans were already literate, and most parents sought at least a minimal education for their children. Today, with all their "mandates" and "directives" and centralized (and expensive) controls, kids don't learn in 13 years what our grandparents mastered in 8, and we have a greater % of functional illiterates.

Historians will look at our age and study how the freest society (maybe ever) abandoned God (that is, Protestant Christianity) and liberty, both in parallel.

Is there 'general equity' that parents must provide some kind of education for their children in 1 Tim 5:9? Is a parent who does not attempt to teach their child to read 'providing for his own'?

Is this a moral question, or a civil or criminal one? What if the answers to these questions are "yes"? Are you assuming that the civil govt assumes a coercive duty, just because parental govt is derelict? I do not.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?

I think the basic premise behind cumpulsory education in America (right or wrong) was based on the principle that an 'educated' public would protect democracy from turning into tyranny.

You know, I can see that, and it does make a certain degree of sense to me. But what education promotes freedom? And what if parents don't agree that education promotes freedom? I think parents who don't teach their children to read the Bible, who don't equip them to function positively within the world, are in grave dereliction of duty and should be admonished by the church. But I think the government criminalizing that sin necessarily involves them in tyranny (with the possible exception of a government that has established Christianity) --which counters that civil reason for education in any case.

 

[KMK]

I don't think the magistrate could mandate that unless they accepted the Confession, and that brings you right back around to Establishmentarianism, doesn't it? On what basis would a secular government require reading?

I think the basic premise behind cumpulsory education in America (right or wrong) was based on the principle that an 'educated' public would protect democracy from turning into tyranny.

You know, I can see that, and it does make a certain degree of sense to me. But what education promotes freedom? And what if parents don't agree that education promotes freedom? I think parents who don't teach their children to read the Bible, who don't equip them to function positively within the world, are in grave dereliction of duty and should be admonished by the church. But I think the government criminalizing that sin necessarily involves them in tyranny (with the possible exception of a government that has established Christianity) --which counters that civil reason for education in any case.

What if... the church refused to do its duty, or there was no church presence to speak of?

I am not trying to be obtuse, but just thinking these things through myself...

 

[py3ak]

I don't think the absence of the church authorizes the state to pretend that it's the church. Should the state take the role of a father in the situation of a young mother who's been widowed?

No worries, brother; it is very difficult for me to imagine you trying to be obtuse!

 

[k.seymore]

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?

 

[KMK]

These are interesting questions concerning the Decalogue. In addition, I was wondering about the curses of Deut 27. If a curse is pronounced on a particular sin would that meet the requirement of warrant, enforcement and penalty? How would a prince of Egypt react if he found out that a man had had sexual relations with his sister for example?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Law: 3rd Commandment.
Enforcer: God.
Penalty: Hell.

Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable.

The Mosaic Law was a very thorough legal code, at the top of which was the KING, Jehovah. I was never thinking of the Decalogue in splendid isolation, and I don't think you are correct to do so either. If there was a question about how to handle a specific case, and it needed to be taken up the line, there was gradation of courts, and God at the very top.

Your comments are pertinent, but the answers to them have all been implied by what has already been stated.

 

[k.seymore]

Charitably, I don't think you are really thinking about what I'm saying, and you are conflating a number of things that are conceptually distinct. For example, if discretionary power of punishment is part-and-parcel of a law-system of penalty enforcement, and to what degree of latitude, if any? Do you, as parent, have the right to imprison your kid for 10 years, for stealing a cookie? Or do you HAVE TO give him on single lash on the bottom with a wet noodle? Or have you been granted a window of discretion in how to deal with the child? That's all part of your scope, and your children are trained to know that range. Or they are trained to know you as arbitrary and unpredictable.

I don't think my children's knowledge of my character or a king's people's knowledge of his character is any basis for whether a law is valid or not (!?), I would say that a person in authority is free to use their authority without explaining their reasoning. They can state a law and their word is law (unless overruled by a higher authority). I don't believe that Laws are only valid if the law contains, as you said, all provision for enforcement and penalties. I gave the example of the third commandment which I believe is a valid law as it is written. It doesn't need all provision and penalties to be, as you said, "contained" in it (Perhaps I simply misunderstand what you mean by contained). So I gave the example of Moses who knew the specific law, but didn't know how to enforce it.
I am sorry if I was not good at explaining what I was trying to say, I should have realized this when you said you didn't understand what I was asking. My wife tells me I'm not always the clear in explaining what I am trying to say. Perhaps I should have asked a question instead:

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"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.

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.

 

[sam]

Sure, why not?

Presuming that the effect of the education is not clearly sinful and does not require sin, then I am of the opinion that an educated people are a blessing. John Adams felt the same way and thought it the duty of government to ensure that we as a people have a common base of knowledge (I believe you can see this in Massachusetts' constitution).

My duty as a parent is to make sure that, regardless of what others in this world teach, state or otherwise, that I give my kiddos the truth.

As always...

 

[Christusregnat]

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. .” Deuteronomy 6:4-7

Why do people keep insisting that this passage proves that the sole responsibility of teaching children math, science, history, economics, languages, etc. lies with their parents? The only subject mentioned in this passage is "these words, which I command thee this day."

By the way, I will add that the argument proves too much for some, because many who use this passage to necessitate homeschooling allow for private schooling. Where's that in the passage? Is it only the parents or isn't it? Is the verse talking about math or "these words"?

All the passage proves is that parents have a responsibility to make a habit of speaking with their children about God and His commandments. To say that it has anything to do with the question of government mandates or the legitimacy of public schooling is to make a huge jump.

David,

The point is not that Deut 6 is talking about mathematics. The point is that if education is every given to anyone (and it is), it is given exclusively to the father and mother. The book of Proverbs deals with broader areas of instruction in wisdom and knowledge, of which the principal point is the fear of Jehovah. The state is never commanded to teach anyone anything. The National Socialist / Hegelian, or Marxist idea of the state is that it is man's family, and therefore supercedes the lawful authority of the family. This is the basis for collectivist or socialized education. That is the point of bringing up Deut 6.

I agree with your assessment of "private schools" however. If families want to cooperate, fine. But, to "drop off" the kids at school is, in my estimation, a problem.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

I don't see anything 'unscriptural' about the magistrate requiring that parents do their 'scriptural' duty of educating their own children.

In fact, what is the purpose of having a magistrate if not to enforce the general equity of God's law?

Yes; the magistrate has the authority, and responsibility for doing this. A better question might be where the Bible gives people the right to dictate the terms of the governmental powers...

This question of the rights of the governed is handled by one of our most influential Confessional Framers, Samuel Rutherford in his book, Lex Rex. Tolle, Lege.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

To mandate education you would have to define it. And that seems to me the heart of the problem. If the State is to make education compulsory they have to define it, they have to say what is to be taught, or what subject matters full under the category of education. I think that only those who accept the Establishment principle can consistently argue that the government should require education, because the Establishment principle gives you some basis for defining education. But in a pluralistic society, what is education? Learning the traditions of the rabbis? Learning Simpsons' episodes by heart? Learning survival skills --and is that hunting or website design?

You make an excellent point.

As per WCF 1:8, as I quoted above, didn't the Divines, to a certain extent define education? The ability to read and write in the vulgar tongue? Could the magistrate mandate education by parents if in no other area than the ability of literacy so that children could eventually read their own Bibles?

The divines say nothing about the magistrate teaching people to read anything. They say THE PEOPLE have a right to read the Scripture, and therefore they are to learn to read, and that the Scriptures are therefore to be translated. The system of education is not addressed.

Cheers,

 

[k.seymore]

Well, The problem could just as easily be on my end. So we each shoulder our own share of the blame.

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.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with you if thats what you meant originally. I agree that when a person in authority says something it is law, and their authority implies there will be enforcement and penalties. Although I'm not sure it conveys anything to say that a law is not a law unless it contains all penaties and all enforcement, and also a kings word is law and his authority itself implies all penalties and enforcement. What word stated by an actual authority wouldn't then be a valid law? The two statements seem (from my view) to cancel each other out.

But now that I think a little more about it I see by your example of "quaint laws" what you might be referring to. You believe that laws such as these have no enforcement or penalties and thus are no laws at all. I understand what you are saying, but I've been framing it the opposite way. If an authority's words imply they are the enforcer and penalizer, then it doesn't erase the kings authority to choose what the enforcement or penalties are just because the law is quaint. those quaint laws are actual laws which imply the enforcement and penalties that authority of those over the realm in which they were given would dish out. Except for we "know" that no authority in our day would inflict any penalties for breaking them. That doesn't make them non-laws in the legal sense. Authorities are in the position of power to not penalize, not us. It is also a de facto authority of juries in our country to not enforce any US Law by jury nullification, but that doesn't make all human-made laws in our country not valid just because those enforcing them don't inflict penalties. So, although I think I agree with much of what you were getting at, I hope it is also clear why I was using language that sometimes sounds the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[k.seymore]

The book of Proverbs deals with broader areas of instruction in wisdom and knowledge... The state is never commanded to teach anyone anything.

So when proverbs commands people:

"Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it."
(Prov 22:6)

Would you say it is actually telling certain people to not train children that are under their authority, or that it is telling people to train children that are under their authority? For instance, could the verse above justify the possibility of children being taught by the state officials and priests at the command of the king in this passage:

"In the third year of his reign he sent his officials, Ben-hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Micaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them the Levites, Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tobadonijah; and with these Levites, the priests Elishama and Jehoram. And they taught in Judah, having the Book of the Law of the LORD with them. They went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people." (2Chr 17:7-9)