ENFORCING BAD LAW by W. N. Glenn

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Dec 20, 1899

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 25, No. 51.

ENFORCING BAD LAW.

By W. N. Glenn

IT is quite common to hear people plead that bad law should be enforced until it is repealed. It was a President of the United States, now dead, who said, "The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it." And now a contributor to the Brotherhood Star argues that "if a law is bad, it should be enforced until it is amended or repealed." But the trouble is this argument is usually advanced as a pretext for urging the enforcement of some particular bad law. The one arguing from this standpoint usually has in mind a pet enactment that he knows works hardship on some individuals or on some class. To meet objection to its character he becomes very tenacious of law in general, and makes a pretense of being religiously law-abiding, making a virtue of the plea that the law—even if it be bad—must be enforced for the sake of patriotism, or some other good sentiment. But such a logician never sets up this defense of a law to which he is opposed; it is always a covering for some particular statute in the enforcement of which he is especially interested.

However, in this, as in all other matters, it is well to inquire what the Lord teaches on the subject. For instance, when His people Israel were in Egyptian slavery, there was a law enacted that all the male children should be put to death at birth. "But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." Now why was it not best to enforce the bad law until such time as it should be repealed?—Simply because to do so would be sin against God. Those who were charged with the execution of the law feared God; therefore they evaded the law, altho that was a crime against the State. They were placed between two laws antagonistic to each other; which should they obey? They chose to obey God, and God vindicated their choice. He chose and providentially provided for the care of a child preserved in violation of this civil law, and made him leader of Israel, to deliver them from Egyptian bondage.

Another notable instance is that of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, when the law commanded all the officers of Babylon to worship a certain golden image. Great stress was laid upon this law; in the mind of King Nebuchadnezzar it was of world-wide importance. Then, if a certain very small minority did deem it a bad law, why not let it go, and have it faithfully executed until it should be repealed? The reason is that it contravened the law of God. Therefore those who feared God ignored the king's decree, regardless of consequences.

Later on, the prophet Daniel was confronted with a law signed and sealed by the Medo-Persian king, Darius. This law forbade the offering of prayer to any one but the king, for a period of thirty days. Here was a law that could not be repealed, for the reason that the laws of the Medes and Persians were unalterable. The king himself could not alter his own decree after it had been signed and sealed. Then this particular law would expire by limitation in thirty days. Therefore, if any bad law could be acknowledged and borne by those who knew it to be bad, surely this one might. It could not hinder any one from praying in secret. But Daniel feared God, and he had been in the habit of praying with his window open toward Jerusalem. This law forbidding prayer to any one but the king had been framed on purpose to stop this practise or to entrap the Hebrew officer. But the fear of God would not admit of any compromise with a law that conflicted with His law. It would not admit of even the appearance of evil, by even changing his accustomed attitude and position in prayer—not even for thirty days. To have yielded in this would have been an encouragement of further proscription. Therefore Daniel gave no heed to the law of the land, and God sustained his wise choice, miraculously delivering him from the evil design of his enemies. Here was another emphatic expression of God's opinion of the enforcement of bad law.

Still another instance is worthy of note in this connection. In the days of King Ahasuerus, his prime minister, Haman, secured by intrigue a law that at a certain time all the Jews in the empire should be put to death, and their property confiscated. Now if the principle of enforcing bad law until it be repealed is good to-day, it was always good, and it was just as good for that law of the Persian Empire as for any other. But that law could not be repealed; then why should it not be enforced without reserve? The common argument on that side of the subject is that law, however bad, is sacred while it is on the statute-book. The reason that the law instigated by Haman should not have been enforced is because it was in violation of the law of God; and the Lord again showed in a signal manner His disapproval of the principle under consideration. In answer to the prayers of His people, He brought about, not a repeal of the obnoxious decree, but a means of resisting its execution.

Thus we have repeatedly demonstrated in the Word of God that any unjust law is antagonistic to His law, and therefore can not in anywise meet His approval. Hence the enforcement of any unjust law is sin, and to advocate the execution of such law is to advocate that which is sinful. And there can be no majority of men large enough to make injustice right in the sight of God. There can be no majority large enough to make unequal law justifiable in any way. The whole principle of man's true attitude toward law in general, is given in Peter's reply to the Jewish council at Jerusalem,—"We ought to obey God rather than man." Acts 5:29. The same principle had been enunciated long before, in the Scriptures of truth: "Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13.