God’s Laws verses
Man’s Laws
Paul Wong
According
to the Holy Bible the Law of God is the instruction of God that is an authoritative
rule of conduct. In the Old Testament
the Hebrew word “Torah” hrwt is used with the meaning of teaching and
direction. In the New Testament the
Greek word “Nomos” nomoz is also used in
reference to the “Torah” (Mt.
5:17-18), but in the most general sense (Rom. 3:27) it refers to a principle
that governs one’s actions (Rom. 7:23).
Now let us look at how man defines Law.
In Webster’s dictionary law is a binding custom or practice of
a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as
binding or enforced by a controlling authority.
Christians
have often been confronted with the unbeliever’s argument that God is not just
and fair to judge anyone before the law was given. “For
until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no
law.” (Rom. 5:13) Does this mean that people who did not have
the chance to read the Holy Bible about God’s Laws, heard the Gospel of
salvation or know anything about the One True God in the Lord Jesus Christ will
be exempted from God’s judgment? No,
because every person has an inbuilt conscience to know the difference between
right from wrong. Here is what the
Bible says:
“For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will
perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the
law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers
of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by
nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law,
are the law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness also bearing witness, and between
themselves their thoughts accusing or else excuse them) in the day when God
will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom.
2:11-16)
People are condemned not for what they don’t know,
but for what they do with what they know.
Those who know God’s written Word and His law will be judged by
them. Those who have never seen a Bible
still know right from wrong, and they will be judged because they did not keep
even those standards that their own consciences dictated. Our modern-day sense of fair play and the
rights of the individual often balks at God’s judgment. But keep in mind that people violate the
very standards they create for themselves.
The Law was part of the covenant that set Israel
apart as God’s people. It governed
their worship, their relationship to God, and their social relationships with
one another. The Ten Commandments form
a summary of that law. What set the Ten
Commandments apart from other codes of Law is, first of all, its origin. The Decalogue was written by God Himself
(Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; Dt. 10:4-5).
It issued from His very nature, like Him it was holy, righteous, and
good (Rom. 7:12). Thus, all crimes in
Israel were crimes against God (1 Sam. 12:9-10). God expected all of the people to love and serve him (Amos
5:21-24). As their final Judge, He
disciplined those who violated the Law.(Ex. 22:21-24; Deut. 10:18; 19:17),
though He also held the nation responsible for insuring that justice was
carried out (Deut. 13:6-10; 17:7; Num 15:32-36).
The Law was first given to Israel, but it rests on
eternal moral principals that are consistent with God’s character. Thus it is a summary of fundamental and
universal moral standards. It expresses
the essence of what God requires of all people. That is why the Ten Commandments will be the basis for the Final
Judgment of mankind (Ecc. 12:13-14).
If
you traveled around the world, you would find evidence in every society and
culture of God’s moral law. For
example, all cultures recognize marriage as the union between a man and a
woman, prohibit murder, and yet in all societies that law has been broken. In a civilized country like America man’s
laws sometimes overrule God’s laws.
1.
The Ten Commandments and the First Amendment
A
recent controversy that involves the removal of the Ten Commandments monument
from the rotunda of the Alabama State Supreme Court building in Montgomery,
Alabama and also the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore from office centers on
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Church/state
separation in the U.S. Constitution:
The
framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might
repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars
motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe.
They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the
U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife.
In
1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution;
they have since been known as the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This
was ratified by the States in 1791.
The
first phrase "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..." is called
the establishment clause. It has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a
separation between church and state. That is, the government (and by extension
public schools) may not:
· promote
one religion or faith group over any other
· promote
a religiously based life over a secularly based life
· promote
a secularly based life over a religiously based life.
Three
tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a
religious component:
The Lemon test: This was defined in a
Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must:
· have
a secular purpose, and
· be
neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
· not
result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor
created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over
another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel
like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed
this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a
religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce
individuals to support or participate in a religion
There
is some opposition, particularly among Fundamentalist Christians to this
interpretation of the First Amendment by the courts. They feel that the
Amendment should be interpreted literally to mean that the government may not
raise any one denomination or religion to the status of an official or established
religion of the country. They feel that the First Amendment contains no wording
that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities,
like requiring prayer
as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts and
government offices to post
the Ten Commandments, allowing public schools to have organized prayers as
an integral part of public school sports events, praying before board of
education or municipal government meetings, etc.
The
following phrase "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free
exercise thereof... is called the free exercise clause; it guarantees
freedom of religion. This passage does not promise absolute freedom of
religion. The courts have found that parents cannot deny their children badly
needed medical attention and rely on prayer; the Amish can be compelled to wear
slow vehicle reflectors on the backs of their buggies; a congregation cannot
generate annoyingly excessive noise during a service. The limits of this clause
are continually being tested in the courts on a case-by-case basis.
"Wall
of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas
Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the
"wall of separation". The essay states in part:
"...I
contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of
separation between Church and State..."
During
the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies"
which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in
part:
"Strongly
guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the
Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical
Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short
history."
The
US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall
of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any
government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but
requires government to avoid any involvement in religion.
Link: Introduction to the
Principle of Separation of Church and State
2. God’s Laws and Man’s Laws on Marriage
Marriage
is clearly defined by the Lord Jesus Christ when He spoke to the
Pharisees. “Have
you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and
female.’ And said, ‘For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh’? So then, they
are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mt.
19:4-6)
US
Federal Government "DOMA" Law
A
"Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)"
was written by Representative Steve Largent (R-OK). It defines the term marriage
within Federal law as meaning "only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The act also excuses each state from having to
follow the "full faith and credit"
clause of the US constitution; this would allow a state to refuse to recognize
a marriage made in another state if the spouses were of the same gender. A
similar bill, S. 1740, was introduced to the Senate on 1996-MAY-8 by Senator
Don Nickles (OK).
On Tuesday
November 18, 2003 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled 4-3 that the state's
ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional. The court then gave the state
Legislature 180 days to respond to their decision.
As
the nation explores the landmark decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on
the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage, we as Christians should
seriously consider its impact on one of the most significant civil and human
rights issues of our time. Marriage is
a critical issue because it touches all at once on questions of love and sex,
religion and politics, access to legal and economic benefits, and the role of
government in our personal lives.
Legal
efforts have been taken towards legalized same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Vermont, Alaska, and other
states. Court decisions favoring equal rights for gays and lesbians were
overturned by state constitutional amendments in Hawaii and Alaska. The Vermont
Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to either:
· allow
gays and lesbians to marry
· create
a new form of government-recognized partnership for gays and lesbians which is
equivalent to marriage in terms of benefits, obligations, and rights.
Article
IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution states that "full
faith and credit shall be given in each state to the...judicial proceedings of
every other state." Thus, if
one state legalizes same-sex marriages, and a couple is married in that state,
then the remaining 49 states might be required to recognize the marriage.
However, if a state passes a law expressly prohibiting same-sex marriages
before they become available somewhere, then some legal authorities believe
that they would not be compelled to recognize the marriage. These beliefs has
not been tested in the courts.
Link: Legislation prohibiting
same sex marriages in U.S. states.
3. God’s Laws and Man’s Laws on Murder
The first
murder in the world occurred within the first family when Cain killed his
brother Abel. The narrative indicated it
was premeditated murder and God punished Cain for it (Gen. 4:8-15). God gave the Law against murder after the
Great Flood.
“Surely
for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning from the hand of every beast I
will require it, and from the hand of man.
From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of
man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man
his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it.” (Gen. 9:5-7)
Here
are some facts concerning capital punishment (death penalty) in America.
·
In the United States, about 13,000 people have been
legally executed since colonial times.
·
By the 1930's up to 150 people were executed yearly. 2 Lack of
public support for capital punishment and various legal challenges reduced the
execution rate to near zero by 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court banned the practice
in 1972.
·
In 1976, the Supreme Court authorized its resumption.
3 Each state can now decide whether or not to have the death
penalty. As of the 2002-OCT, only the District of Columbia and 12 states do not
have the death penalty. The states which have abolished executions are: Alaska,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. However,
seven jurisdictions have the death penalty but have not performed any
executions since 1976: Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, South Dakota and the U.S. military.
·
In almost all states, the death penalty is limited to
cases involving aggravated murder. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that whenever a
sentencing jury has the ability to impose capital punishment, the jury must be
informed in advance if the defendant would be eligible for parole. Almost all
states have an automatic review of each conviction by their highest appellate
court.
·
Texas holds the record for the largest number of
executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Virginia executes a
larger percentage of its population than any other state over 1 million in
population.
·
Public approval of the death penalty is currently
about 70%.
In America
where the jury system is used some verdicts are surprising.
The Robert
Durst Murder Trial On November
11, 2003 a Galveston County jury acquitted multi-millionaire Robert Durst of
first degree murder in the death of his neighbor, Morris Black. He claimed
self-defense but admitted dismembering Black and throwing the body parts into
Galveston Bay. On the Today
show, four of the Galveston County jurors were asked how they could
exonerate a man who's confessed to cutting up the body of his best friend,
running from police and disguising himself as a mute woman.
"He
wasn't charged with all that," explained juror Christopher Lovell, a
47-year-old League City electrician.
Joanne
Gongora, 49, an assistant professor of nursing from Texas City, stressed
that Durst was charged only with murder in the death of his 71-year-old
neighbor, Morris Black. The only consideration, she said, was whether he tried
to kill Black or whether the gun accidentally went off in a struggle. At no
point during deliberations did more than three jurors believe Durst was guilty
of murder.
"It's
very difficult for the public to understand why we came to the decision that we
did," Gongora acknowledged. "He did admit to the dismemberment. And
it sounds terrible. It was a gruesome, bloody mess . . . but we looked at all
the evidence at got past that. "
"The
question that we had to answer was . . . Was it an intentional murder? Was it self defense, an accident?"
In American
Law an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof of guilt lies with the
prosecutor. In a jury trial all twelve
jurors must unanimously agree to a decision “beyond reasonable doubt” in order
to return a verdict of “guilty as charged”.
In America wealthy clients can hire the best defense attorneys and the
best jury selection consultants to work to their advantage and in their
favor. That is what Robert Durst did
and that was also what O.J. Simpson did.
Robert
Durst got away with murder through technicality by man’s laws. If the prosecutors had charged him with
either second degree murder or manslaughter it would have been a different
verdict. According to the Law of God
and the law of conscience Robert Durst had already convicted himself by what he
did after committing the offense. It
was “beyond reasonable doubt”. Thank
the Lord there is the Final Judgment of God.
A Bible Study based on this article was conducted by Paul Wong
to a congregation in Houston, Texas on Novewmber 21, 2003.
For
comments please write first to ark@pdq.net
Paul Wong is a Christian minister and the
President of ARK International.
His ministry also serves as an architectural service company in Houston.
The ARK Forum on the Internet is international and non-denominational.
 |
|
|
|
