Consequences Like a Blindside Linebacker

Sharing Options

The Bible teaches that mankind bears the image of God sexually. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). The attempt therefore to disregard all this in the “recognition” of same sex mirage is not just an act of immorality, but also an act of theological defiance. It is heresy; it is apostasy.

The image of God borne by a man and women together is therefore a creational reality, not dependent in any way on the definitions that a secular state might want to come up with. Marriage exists prior to, and independent of, any determinations by any civil magistrate. The magistrate did not create marriage and therefore has no authority to define it, or recreate it in his own image.

The civil magistrate is a steward, entrusted to guard that which God has determined. In Romans 13, the magistrate is repeatedly identified as God’s “deacon,” God’s servant, entrusted with rewarding righteousness and punishing wrongdoing. He has no authority to invert this, and to define as up what God has named as down.

Now this does not mean that the civil magistrate has nothing to do with the definition of marriage; he does have a solemn responsibility to recognize the way the world is, and to discharge his related obligations accordingly. It works this way.

Because heterosexual unions are fruitful — not inherently fruitless the way same-sex copulations are — they are unions that bear, not only children, but also civic responsibilities and challenges. The issues of property and custody and inheritance are in principle woven into every heterosexual relationship, and are woven into no homosexual relationship. They can be nailed onto the side of a homosexual incident, but that is all. They can be arbitrarily assigned to a homosexual partnership, but do not flow out of the creational nature of that partnership.

If two people go into farming together, with one contributing the fertile ground and the other the seed, there will be questions of responsibility and ownership that grow out of the ground. What shall we do with the 30, 60 and 100 fold? But if two people form a partnership in which they plant pebbles instead of seed, the same kind of issues do not and cannot arise. The magistrate does not have to adjudicate anything with regard to the harvest.
So when the civil magistrate starts demanding that we recognize pebble planting as being of the same nature as seed planting, you may depend upon it — there is a method in their insanity. They are not trying to give a new status to pebble planting, which is kind of a dead-end enterprise. They are in fact trying to create a new status for the seed planting, a new relationship between the state and the fruitful ones. They are trying to wrest control of the harvest away from those who live fruitfully. Depend upon it — follow the money. The real problem here is not the lust of homosexuals, but rather the lust of government to rule, manage, and control. These people hate any institutions that are older and more honorable than they.

In the face of this government lust for control, this libido dominandi, the libertarian temptation is a pressing one. Many Christians think that we should just get government out of the marriage business altogether. Wouldn’t that simplify everything? No, not at all.

The civil magistrate is the authority established by God for sorting out and adjudicating issues of property, inheritance, and custody. Therefore, it is their responsibility to know beforehand how they will adjudicate such things. Solomon knew beforehand that the baby needed to go to his natural mother.

In order to keep all these issues clear, I would much prefer that all legitimate marriages be registered with the state, and not licensed by the state. When the state issues a license, they are saying licet, let it be, and if you do this long enough you might start to get delusions of deity — thinking that you can impose your own image and likeness on whatever kind of union you like. This has been a profound mistake, and it is one our culture has fallen into. Instead of thinking that they have the authority to say licet to unions that fit God’s definition, they have come to think that they can say licet whenever they want. Since they have not been up to the temptation that came with that word, let us resolve to take that word away from them.

But at the same time, there has been something God-honoring about our system of licenses because the state does have an assigned responsibility to say non licet, “you may not.” If the couple in question are brother and sister, the state must prohibit the union. If it is one man and seventeen women, the state must say no. If it is two men, or two women, no again. Now if the magistrate has the obligation before God to say non licet, then at some level, somehow, they are saying licet for the normal unions. But lest they get above themselves, as they have plainly done, I would prefer that all heteronormative marriages be filed at the county courthouse with a registrar, and not created by a notary potentate of creative sexual definitions.

Anybody who thinks that a ruler’s denial of the image of God in man is a trifle is someone who does not know how to track an argument, and will therefore be earholed by the consequences when they arrive like a blindside linebacker. Any magistrate who does not see mankind as created in the image of God is a magistrate who is not qualified to rule. He needs to be frogmarched out of office. He is a tyrant and a despot at the root, before he has decided to do anything. This is because whatever he decides to do is going to be based on his assumption that human beings are just meat, bones, and protoplasm — and that assumption necessarily leads to carnage. Evolution is a god of blood, and always will be.

We were created in the image of God, and that image is expressed as male and female together. Because He created us in His image, we bear His name. We are told that it is a grievous sin to bear His name in vain (Ex. 20;7). Not only does heterosexual marriage declare the image and glory of God, but it also declares the glory of the gospel. This is a great mystery, Paul says, but a man and a woman together are a declaration of Christ and the Church. What God is up to in the gospel is the restoration of the image of God in man, which had been defaced.

Sin had vandalized the image of God in man, but had not annihilated it. Man and woman in the Garden were described as having been made in God’s image, male and female together. A few chapters later, after sin entered the world, the image of God in man is still recognized. Capital punishment is required for murderers because murderers have assaulted the image of God (Gen. 9:6). The image is still there, still to be respected — on pain of death — but it was a ruin of an image. It was still there, but greatly in need of restoration. That is what Christ came to do — to restore the image of God in man. And when He did this, He did the same thing that had been done at the beginning. He spoke of His restoration of this image in terms of male and female together. His purpose is for us to put on the “new man,” the new image of God in man, in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24), which finds its completion in the mystery of Christ and His Bride.

And so, when Christ told His questioners to bring Him a coin, He told them that because it had Caesar’s image on it, it was lawful to render that lifeless bit of metal to Caesar. He had managed to place His image there, and we could see our way to the payment of taxes with it. But Christ, in the same breath, prohibited rendering to Caesar that which was God’s. But how do we know what is God’s? Caesar identifies his own with his image; God identifies His own with His image. Caesar is therefore required by God to recognize what is not lawful for him to have. Marriage is right at the center of what is not lawful for him to have.

So what is in play in this battle about same sex mirage? The secular state is now declaring that we must render to Caesar what does not have Caesar’s image on it. There are certain currencies that Caesar is pretty adept at debasing, and he has gotten cocky. He now wants to debase this currency, he wants to place marriage under the control of the Federal Reserve. We have been around long enough to know how that is going to go.

So no. We must render to God that which is God’s. The task before us is to figure the quickest and most potent way of simply saying never.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
30 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Reuben K.
Reuben K.
9 years ago

Best installment yet. I have been holding my questions back for the last few articles in this thread, in the hopes that if I listened longer, I would not need to ask them. This hope was well-grounded. Thank you.

RK

Randall
Randall
9 years ago

Excellent–I echo Reuben here. Pebble-planting metaphor helpful–as is the entire post.

timothy
timothy
9 years ago

Instead of thinking that they have the authority to say licet to unions that fit God’s definition, they have come to think that they can say licet whenever they want. Since they have not been up to the temptation that came with that word, let us resolve to take that word away from them.

Resolved.

Good work.

BJ
BJ
9 years ago

Doug, I was very tempted to adopt the libertarian position on marriage as my own. Many of the folks that influence me personally hold it. But you have convinced me that it is misguided. Check. I do have one last issue of confusion. Perhaps someone here could help. You draw a hard line between the church’s role and the role of the civic magistrate. You claim that “the issues of property and custody and inheritance” belong to the state. Why cannot the church handle these issues? If the government is merely to recognize marriage (which is under the purview of… Read more »

David R
David R
9 years ago

@BJ – the State needs to be involved in property rights because it is the State that enforces or, better yet, protects these rights. The State is ideally suited to handle property disputes and protect the property rights of individuals from usurpation by others. So to the question of why the State should handle these issues and not the Church, it is because the Church does not bear the sword. When there is a dispute, at some point there needs to be a party involved that enforces the outcome of the dispute. If the result of a divorce is that… Read more »

Ben
Ben
9 years ago

@DougWilson

“The civil magistrate is the authority established by God for sorting out and adjudicating issues of property, inheritance, and custody.”

Doug, libertarians want the government to stay out of marriage only so long as the government is funded by coercion (though they don’t usually put it in those terms). I don’t see where the Bible commands that the legal system in charge of recognizing marriage must be funded by taxation rather than voluntary service fees. I’m happy to be corrected though.

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
9 years ago

Neither can the church create a marriage.

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
9 years ago

Fruit is not a Genesis 1 marriage condition.

Property rights already revolve around the two parties themselves.
Subordination reflects the image inside the Trinity.

RFB
RFB
9 years ago

Ben,

Not (obviously) Pastor Wilson, but how about this for a beginning:

“Romans 13:6-7 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. “

Ben
Ben
9 years ago

RFB, that verse doesn’t command that the legal system in charge of recognizing marriage be funded by taxation rather than voluntary service fees. Not even close. It says to pay taxes to whom they’re due. Where in that verse (or anywhere in the Bible) is service fee-based government prohibited?

Roy
Roy
9 years ago

I was wondering brother Wilson what books you would recommend on this subject? Thank you!

Matt
Matt
9 years ago

But if two people form a partnership in which they plant pebbles instead of seed, the same kind of issues do not and cannot arise. Oh they certainly can. Property-sharing and inheritance are concerns even of childless couples, leading to the various horror-stories on the internet about this or that gay couple that had to jump through hoops to claim some inheritance when one died. And as long as adoption is a thing, gay couples will have children too, with all of those concerns coming along with them. So all the argument here does is underline the reasons why people… Read more »

timothy
timothy
9 years ago

You basically have to show that gay people cannot (should not isn’t good enough)

Full stop. This completely inverts Christianity. Premise rejected.

Joseph
Joseph
9 years ago

This question/comparison may seem a bit extreme but does anyone here see a similar historical occurrence in how Hitler utilized the SA led by Ernst Rohm (openly homosexual) to rise to tyrannical power before having Ernst executed?

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
9 years ago

Hi Matt!
Your assertion is fair:

You basically have to show that gay people cannot (should not isn’t good enough) form families

Would you accept that attending nonmarried adults are not a formed family? — whether that “married” bit was acknowledged by the state or church, or whether it was not?

bethyada
9 years ago

Fruit is not a Genesis 1 marriage condition.

Gen 1

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,

katecho
katecho
9 years ago

BJ wrote: “In fact, I would argue that property has no business being under the authority of the state. Recognitional or otherwise. Property taxes are probably the biggest, most influential power grab ever. We basically lease our land and home from the state.” God’s tribute tithe in the Old Testament was based on 1/10th of our “increase”. It wasn’t based on property, wealth, or consumption, but on income. Given this principle, I have a great deal of sympathy for BJ’s argument that property tax is invalid. If the home of an elderly person shoots up in value, why should the… Read more »

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
9 years ago

Bethyada you left out “or I’ll annul your marriage”

katecho
katecho
9 years ago

Ben wrote: Where in that verse (or anywhere in the Bible) is service fee-based government prohibited? With respect to Ben, this is the wrong question. In previous comments I’ve indicated that some kind of service-based, or license-based payment arrangement could work quite well to cover the operating costs of a number of specific civil services. I even granted that I don’t see anything in Scripture prohibiting such a funding arrangement. The problem is that not all of the government’s roles can be funded this way, at least Ben has not provided a serious attempt to suggest how this could happen.… Read more »

BJ
BJ
9 years ago

David R and Katecho,

Thank you both for the responses. Excellent points, all. Katecho, my tendecy toward the church handling affairs is not rooted in naivete (not completely, anyway), but more from revulsion at the horror of the corrupt state. I know of two estates taken by state governments for lack of payment on taxes. The property in both cases were far more valuable than the taxes owed. It seemed to be quite the nightmare.

Under His Mercy,
BJ

Ben
Ben
9 years ago

Katecho, I’ve addressed every practical issue you brought up here in detail in previous posts, but maybe you didn’t read those. That’s fine, but the fact that you haven’t been exposed to my arguments is no evidence that I haven’t thought these things through. The problem is that the arguments don’t convince anyone. That may be entirely my fault, but I think for most people on this forum, the fundamental issue isn’t that voluntarism isn’t practical, but rather, they believe the Bible prohibits it. I simply don’t believe it does. Commands to submit to the governing authorities are not prohibitions… Read more »

RFB
RFB
9 years ago

Ben,

“What am I missing here?”

On this side of resurrection, sin. It is a formidable opponent that is inherent in all human enterprise.

Until the all enemies are His footstool, there will always be people who will only respond to pain; some require large amounts.

Its kind of like the Q&A that the gun controller initiates:

Q: “Well what would you do if the entire world laid down their guns?

A: “Rule peacefully”

I do not see a biblical model for your premise; do you?

Ben
Ben
9 years ago

RFB, I already know the practical objections to voluntarism. My question was with regard to the Biblical issue, which is where the trouble lies for most people on here. Where does the Bible prohibit voluntarism?

katecho
katecho
9 years ago

Ben wrote: …I think for most people on this forum, the fundamental issue isn’t that voluntarism isn’t practical, but rather, they believe the Bible prohibits it. I simply don’t believe it does. I’ve already granted that the Bible doesn’t prohibit the use of voluntary transactions as a way of funding portions of the government. It seems like a very prudent thing to do when the need for a tangible exchange is present. I’ve not seen anyone on this blog ever suggest that the Bible categorically prohibits voluntary methods of government funding. So I simply disagree with Ben that this is… Read more »

joyce martin
joyce martin
9 years ago

Please correct spelling of the word marriage in start of this piece.Otherwise very good.

katecho
katecho
9 years ago

It wasn’t actually a misspelling. Some attempts at marriage are a mirage.

Jim
Jim
9 years ago

If these arguments hold, then the state also does not have the power to sanction divorce – at least not in vast numbers of cases where it does sanction it. Divorce is a much bigger social problem than homosexuality in terms of numbers, and in particular it is a major problem within the church. Yet the church doesn’t seem all that bothered to do anything about it. The church has spent half a century tolerating this particular distortion of God’s plan for marriage with little more than a murmur of disapproval; we shouldn’t be surprised when the state decides it… Read more »