Obeying Governing Authorities

I have been listening to some “Principles and Policies” radio broadcasts about Kim Davis.  Chuck Michaelis and Barry Sheets have been talking about how Romans 13:1-7 has been used by sodomites and their sympathizers against Kim Davis on the basis that she has failed to obey the governing authorities.  Barry has said that he hasn’t found any Christian blogs that have made a response to this false argument.  So I have decided to make a response.  Before hearing their podcast, I hadn’t actually heard this argument being applied to Kim Davis.  First I quote for you the Scripture in question:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13:1-7 (KJV)

I will go over the arguments that Chuck and Barry have already given.  Kim Davis, being a duly elected County Clerk of Courts is a “ruler” and a “minister of God” according to the way the terms are used in the above Scripture.  So according the argument of the sodomites, everybody should do what Kim Davis says.  The Supreme Court has no legal authority over the issue in question and furthermore Kim Davis cannot be in contempt because she was not one of the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Furthermore God’s word condemns both sodomites and those who approve of such practices in Romans 1.  The key issue is that governing authorities are no longer recognized by God if they fail to operate within their appointed purpose which according to the above passage is to punish evildoers.  I would add that in Acts 5:29, when told to stop spreading the gospel by the council of the elders of Israel, the apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men”.  The sodomites’ argument tells us that if we were living in Nazi Germany, we ought not to help Jews and others escape the concentration camps because we would be disobeying "the law of the land".

Chuck and Barry also talked the Supreme Court's misuse of power by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as well as the misinterpretation Article III judicial power.  I don't believe that the 14th Amendment was limited to protection from racial injustices, but I would add that the original meaning of "equal protection" is just what it sounds like.  No law (at any level of government) can give someone more protection from a criminal than someone else.  The "immunities and privileges" clause of the 14th Amendment does not change the definition of marriage or require that equal benefits be given to same sex couples as are given to couple who are really married. But the 14th Amendment does unwisely extend the powers of the judiciary as they get to decide whether a state has given someone "equal protection" in a particular case.  The 14th Amendment shouldn't even be in the Constitution because it was not properly ratified.    And judicial power extends only to litigants involved in a particular case.  The principal of stare decisis is valid, but not absolute.  Judges are not the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.

Chuck also mentioned that Davis had been married four times.  I had heard this before, but I hadn’t heard that she was not a Christian until after she was married a fourth time.  I also heard that one of her marriages was to a former husband after having since married some other man which is a violation of Deuteronomy 24.  (But more importantly she violated Matthew 5:30, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 just by remarrying any man after having been divorced.)  I did hear a portion of an interview where she was asked if her decision was not hypocrisy in light of her past.  Her reply was, “I’m forgiven.”  This is an excellent point.  When people get married, divorce and then remarry and the church accepts this as an acceptable lifestyle, the institution of marriage is effectively destroyed.  Marriage was not ruined by the sodomites, but by the mainstream church.  However, no matter what sin someone has committed, if they simply repent and make Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) the absolute Lord of their life, then they are forgiven.  At that point there is no hypocrisy in refusing to participate in sinful behavior including the granting of marriage licenses to sodomites.  To issue those licenses would be in itself a sin which one would need repentance in order to be saved.

The "Three Goats and Cow", Romans 13 and all other arguments that the sodomites have come up with have all been so obviously false that any critical thinking person should easily see through it.

Three Falsehoods and an Absurdity

A billboard put up in Kim Davis’ hometown reads:

“THE FACT YOU CAN’T SELL YOUR DAUGHTER FOR THREE GOATS AND A COW MEANS WE’VE ALREADY REDEFINED MARRIAGE.”

I have one question for the authors of this billboard.  Who is this “we”?

I did a quick search for cattle and goat prices and found that each costs about $200 a head.  But I also looked up the price of marriage licenses in my home state of Ohio and the cost was $50.  A little cheaper, maybe, but the concept is the same.  Instead of exchanging the animals with the parents for their daughter, now the state is the one who owns the women and the groom must pay their price in order to have her as his wife.  So much for “progressivism”.

Actually, to my knowledge, there has never been a definition of marriage which has required payment of goods, services or money by the groom to the parents.  There is nothing about it in the most reputable law dictionaries of early American history.  For example, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary makes it clear that both the man and the woman must be consenting to the marriage in order for it to be legally binding.  This goes all the way back to King Cnut (1016-35 A.D.) whose laws included this :

And let no one compel either woman or maiden to him whom she herself mislikes nor for money sell her unless he is willing to give any thing voluntarily.

And King Henry I :

Liberty of marriage recognized by Cn Sec 74 is here abridged but it is forbidden to demand money for the licence required as by the law of Cnut.

There is nothing that I have found in British Common Law that requires payments to be made to the parents of the bride by the groom.  Actually they had the concept of a dowry, which is almost the opposite.  Wikipedia defines it as “...wealth transferred from the bride's family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride.”

Yes, there are provisions in these laws for buying of a wife like what is supposed to happen when a man buys a wife and the marriage doesn’t actually take place. But it doesn’t say anything about buying a girl from her parents. What if today a man from the U.S. went to some country where slavery is legal, found a slave girl that he wanted to marry and agreed to buy her if she would marry him and come back to the U.S. with him (of her own free will)? Would this not qualify as a real marriage under the laws of any state in the U.S.? The fact that he bought the girl has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. The fact that they were both willing is the important thing.  The problem was with the slavery, not marriage or its definition.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that a man must pay a price to the parents of a woman for her to be his wife.  There are only two things that are even close to this :

Deuteronomy 22:19 says that a man must pay 100 shekels of silver (not animals!) for lying about the bride’s virginity after they are married.

Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:29 say that a man must pay 50 shekels of silver for committing promiscuity with an unmarried woman.  (Again no animals were being exchanged for that purpose despite the fact that animals were required to be given for a variety of other purposes at that time.)  The man was supposed to marry the woman, unless the father of the woman refused to allow it.  But either way, the man had to pay the 50 shekels.

Some people think that the latter provision implies that this payment was required for any groom.  But this is speculation.  This could have been the tradition of the Patriarchs, the Israelites or the Canaanites living in the land at that time (c.f. Genesis 29:15-18, 34:12), but there is no evidence of a commandment of God to do this anywhere in the Bible. 

It is even a more of a stretch to say that such a provision was ever considered to be part of the definition of marriage according to the one true God, the God of the Bible.  Take for example the tradition of exchanging rings.  If you don’t exchange rings, does this mean that you aren’t really married?  Of course not!  Just because a marriage tradition exists (good or bad), that doesn’t make it part of the definition of marriage.

The commandments concerning the payment of money mentioned above are properly regarded as being for the nation of Israel only.  In particular, Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses.  So even if a “bride price” were included in the definition of marriage in the Law Moses (which is isn’t), the New Testament clearly releases Christians from such requirements because it indicates the Old Covenant has passed away, the people of the Old Covenant are no longer his people, and that God has established a new covenant with a new people, the believers in Jesus (Romans 9:25-6, Galatians 3, Hebrews, etc.).  And even if a “bride price” used to be a part of the definition of marriage, the change was done by God, not the “we” referred to in the billboard.

In early American history, in various states, interracial marriages were illegal.  But these were man made rules, not Biblical precepts.  Moses, an Israelite, married a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman (Numbers 12:1) and Solomon, also a Jew, married a black woman (Song of Songs 1:5-6).

The only time that the real definition of marriage has been significantly changed was when God forbad sexual relations between close relatives (Leviticus 18).  Previously, Abraham had married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).  But again, it is God who changed the definition, not “we”.  Since God created the institution of marriage in first place, He and only He has the right to change it. 

There is obviously no danger that the tradition of exchanging animals for wives will return (if it ever existed).  But if we continue down the road that these sodomites would have us go, animals won’t be used as a bride price, but they will be the brides!  If “we” can change the definition of marriage in such a radical way as to allow a sodomite relationship to be considered the equivalent of marriage, then “we” could again change it to include bestiality, pedophilia, polyandry and any number of other unnameable sexual perversions.  If we continue in the same direction that we are headed, everyone will be forced to have a same-sex sexual relationship.  Anyone who fails to comply will be considered bigoted or guilty of sexual orientation discrimination.

In summary, the three falsehoods conveyed by the billboard are :

1. In the Bible or in Western Civilization, there is or was some widespread, generally accepted definition of marriage which required a man to purchase a woman from her parents with animals before he could marry her.

2. Some “progressive” activists freed us from this oppressive provision.

3. The same forward thinking leads us to logically conclude that sodomite relationships should be included in the definition of marriage.

And the most absurd proposition of all is that men can change the definition of an institution which was created and defined by God in the first place.