Biblical Principles of Law

by Herbert W. Titus


Previous:   Jurisdiction and Authority
Next:   Fault and Liability


Since the United States Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, issues concerning “equal rights” have dominated American politics. At first, America’s sizeable black population dominated the appeals for equality in the nation’s legislatures and courts. Soon, other identifiable “ethnic” groups, most notably Mexican-Americans, joined the fight against “racial discrimination.”

While claims that equality protects American citizens from discrimination on account of “race” or “national origin” have continued to be heard more than thirty years after the 1954 Brown decision, they no longer monopolize the equal rights marketplace. Indeed, since the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in Congress in the early 1970’s, claims of equal rights for women have occupied center stage. Even after the requisite number of states failed to ratify the ERA within the time set by Congress, the fight against sex discrimination in the name of equality has continued unabated.

Now, homosexuals have become increasingly visible participants in the American political and legal mainstream with their claims against discrimination on account of sexual orientation or sexual preference.

The equality banner has not only been raised on behalf of blacks and other ethnic groups, women, and homosexuals, but it has become a convenient rallying cry for men, for illegitimate children, and even for minority religious and political groups who wish to avoid suffering for their peculiar views. Indeed, fundamentalist Christians recently sought and won a federal bill designed to afford public school students engaging in Bible studies or other “religious activities” on public school property “equal access” to that property on the same terms as students engaging in “non-religious activities.”

With such a wide range of political activists marching under one umbrella, the meaning of equality has become quite confused. On the one hand, “equality” for blacks has resulted in the elimination of legally required or permitted policies that “racially” separate athletic teams, prison facilities, and restrooms. On the other hand, “equality” for women has not resulted in the elimination of legally required and permitted policies that sexually separate athletic teams, prison facilities, and restrooms.

Moreover, the meaning of equality has become self-contradictory. Equality for blacks and women has sometimes yielded “racial” and sexual preferences for some, and denied the same to others, so that everyone can be made equal. To the “white male” who has been denied hard-earned job promotions because an “affirmative action” program has been instituted as a result of a collective bargaining agreement between his union and his employer, he must think that the black man or white woman who has been chosen in his stead has benefitted from an equality slogan taken from the pages of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

But the militant black or feminist is not the only one who sounds hypocritical in the fight for “equal rights.” If a Seventh Day Adventist insists that his employer cannot fire him for refusing to work on Saturdays, contrary to his religious beliefs, how can his brother Adventist who wishes to employ only Adventists to work in his vegetarian restaurant refuse to hire a Hindu? Indeed, in the name of equality, Bible-believing Christians have now secured the right of public school students to hold Bible studies on campus. What if a backsliding believer living openly in sin insists on being included in the fellowship?

Not only has the “equal rights” movement in America spawned confusion and contradiction, but it has become increasingly dangerous. As “discrimination” has become the “dirty” word in American politics and law, even traditional distinctions between criminals and law abiding citizens, even though enshrined in the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, have been attacked. While that direct attack has failed, a more subtle threat to the legality of distinguishing between people who do right and those who do wrong is being vigorously fought at every level of government. In the name of “equality” militant homosexual groups have insisted that they be given legal protection to live openly as homosexuals without discrimination by employers, landlords, or business proprietors. In the beginning, their claim rested on a very simple proposition: that their sexual live style was not chosen, but was imposed by their genes and environment and, therefore, like the color of skin or national origin, or biological sex, “sexual orientation” was an illegitimate basis for discrimination.

More recently, many homosexuals have been insisting that they have not been programmed, but that they have chosen to practice homosexuality. This new claim has resulted in new language, “sexual preference” has been substituted for “sexual orientation.” Ironically, this new focus in the homosexual’s quest for “equality” has rested upon an analogy with religion, rather than race and sex. If religious preferences must be respected equally because they cannot be adjudged to be right or wrong, then so must sexual lifestyles. This argument has been especially successful in those states whose legislatures have repealed the traditional criminal laws prohibiting homosexual conduct.

Whatever the equality claim – whether it be based upon sexual orientation or sexual preference – if it can be successfully invoked on behalf of homosexuals, then it can be utilized by others such as thieves, murderers, rapists, and even “racists” and “sexists.” If homosexuality is a product of one’s genes and environment, then so is theft, murder, and rape. And if the right to choose to practice one’s sexual orientation must be affirmed to preserve the homosexual’s identity, then so should that right be equally available to those with proclivities to steal, to kill, and to treat women as sex objects.

At stake, then, in the battle for equality in America is not just the legitimacy or illegitimacy of race, sex, and religious distinctions, but the legitimacy of any and all distinctions. To even begin to address the current issues, one must go to the heart of the matter and rediscover the true meaning of equality.


In both the Old and the New Testaments, the reader is reminded that legally God is no respecter of persons.1 He does not have one standard of justice for the poor and another for the rich. In His Court of Justice, He treats the powerless and the powerful the same. Moreover, as judge, He does not prefer males over females, slaves over free, educated over uneducated, Jew over Gentile. All are equally condemned by the law of sin and death, and all are equally entitled to salvation by the law of the Spirit of life.2 The opportunity for damnation or salvation is the same for all.

Nevertheless, God does respect the person according to his choice.3 If a man refuses the free gift of salvation, then God will judge him according to his works; if he accepts God’s free gift, then man escapes that judgment.4 Even among those who choose Christ, God rewards those who put their faith to good works but not those who do not.5

Moreover, God makes distinctions not based upon man’s choice. He chooses whom He wishes to become the political leader of a nation.6 He chooses whom he wishes to be gifted for one calling as contrasted to another.7 And He chooses the nation or the person He wishes to be His spokesman.8

Equality before God, then, does not mean equality of participation in God’s creation; rather, it means equality of opportunity for God’s justice. While the laws of God guarantee equality of opportunity, they do not guarantee any particular political or economic office or position. Equality, then, is quintessentially a legal term. Thus, God included the legal equality of opportunity principle within the law of Moses. Because God has made no legal distinction for salvation purposes between the rich and the poor and the powerful and the powerless, so Israel was to apply the same standard of justice to each of the two groups.9

If a legal system is to be consistent with God’s law, then, it must incorporate this principle of equality. In the history of the church, this principle was embodied in the canon law term, ius commune. That principle, in turn, became the very foundation of law in England. Thus, the English law became known as the “common law.”10 But the English law never quite covered everyone. The king and his favorite friends enjoyed special privileges and immunities by the king’s prerogative. Sometimes, these privileges and immunities were conferred for political reasons and sometimes for economic ones. Not until the English exported their common law to America did that law become truly equally applicable to all.

In his introduction to the first report of Connecticut law cases, Jesse Root noted that the American system of law and jurisprudence had been purified of the special prerogatives of the English.11 Beginning with the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence, America’s statesmen endorsed the principle that the common good could be achieved only through a faithful adherence to the principle of legal equality of all men:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men were created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

State after state followed this Declaration with constitutional provisions that eliminated from their legal systems the odious special privileges of the English king, his family and his friends. For example, even prior to the Declaration on June 12, 1776, the Virginia constitution abolished “hereditary” access to legal and political privileges. All men were equally entitled to exercise legislative, executive, and judicial authority. The Delaware Constitution of September 11, 1776, for example, eliminated special privileges that had been afforded the established church in England. The Maryland Constitution of November 3, 1776, for example, abolished all titles of nobility. Finally, that same constitution prohibited monopolies, those legally guaranteed economic privileges that denied to others the equal right to economic opportunities.

These several declarations against the granting of special privileges and immunities later were summarized by one single declaration of equality before the law:

    No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class or citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”12

Several changes took place in America in response to the new principle of equality. One of the most dramatic changes occurred in the laws governing the privilege of incorporation. Long cherished as a legal means to limit an investor’s liability to the money committed to the corporate enterprise and to extend the life of a business beyond the lives of its founders, the English crown found it advantageous to grant the corporate franchise in exchange for political and economic favors. In America, the privilege to incorporate for the first time became available to anyone without regard to one’s political, economic, or family status.

The equality of opportunity to incorporate was seized by the church and other voluntary charitable organizations as an effective legal tool to perpetuate themselves beyond the lives of their founders and to protect the assets of their benefactors. Indeed, the corporate entity, one legal person composed of many people as “shareholders,” mirrored precisely the picture of the church that Paul painted in 1 Corinthians 12. More important, the principle of limited liability proved an effective means to afford immunity to the church under new constitutional religious freedom guarantees and at the same time prevent abuses by those who would use those guarantees to their personal advantage.

While early America’s statesmen worked consistently to eliminate from their young nation’s law rules and regulations that granted favored treatment to people on account of family name, economic status, or political affiliation, they debated vigorously whether the law could include criteria related to ability. One of the most heated of these struggles was waged over the right to practice law. Out of this struggle emerged a consensus that criteria related to merit did not violate the principle of equality. Because God gifted some, but not others, to do certain kinds of work,13 so man could ascertain by examination whether a particular person possessed the requisite ability to practice law. Such a law, then, did not breach the Biblical principle.14

While the prohibitions against the grant of special privileges to favored political and family friends has continued to be the norm in America, there has been a resurgence of the grant of special privileges to favored economic classes. Not only have the rich been given special treatment, but so have the poor. Indeed, the most widespread breach of the principle of legal equality has been committed by the enactment of laws that favor the poor. Eligibility standards for welfare benefits, for example, are keyed to one’s economic status. Likewise, all modern income tax laws require the rich to pay at a higher percentage than the poor. Such discriminatory preferences have not been challenged because of an assumption that the poor, unlike the rich, are powerless. Yet, the Bible has warned that preferring the poor is comparable to the taking of a bribe.15 Man, who has a responsibility to give to the poor, under the law of God, may, on account of guilt choose to meet that obligation by taking from another with whom the poor man has a dispute or by forcing others to contribute to the poor and thereby lessening his obligation.

While laws favoring the poor permeate the twentieth century American legal system, there also remain laws that favor the rich over the poor. For example, New York City controls entry into the taxicab business through a licensing system which limits access solely on the basis of the payment of a fee. Such laws violate the principle of legal equality of opportunity.


In order to take advantage of the principle of legal equality, one must be recognized by law as a human being. For nearly one hundred years after the United States became a nation an entire class of people were denied the legal privileges and immunities afforded by the common law. This class was composed of those who had been brought from the nations of Africa to be slaves in America.

While many justifications have been given for the institution of slavery, the most widely accepted one was based upon the claim that Negroes were an inferior or subservient “race.” Many claimed that by classifying the slaves as something less than human, the ordinary legal rights enjoyed by “white men” could be denied to them without violating the principle of equality contained in the Declaration of Independence. Yet the Declaration’s drafters were not totally convinced by this racial distinction. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson included a section in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence that laid the responsibility for the negro slave trade at the feet of King George III in the following language:

    He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere . . ..

Implicit in the claim that negro slavery violated “human nature” was the proposition that the slavery system in America violated the principle that all men are created equal. In fact, prior to the drafting of the Declaration, Blackstone had already written that slavery as practiced in England violated the English common law because to hold absolute power over another’s life or fortune was “repugnant to reason and principles of natural law.”

America’s Continental Congress, however, compromised by deleting Jefferson’s charge against the king. Even Jefferson, himself, later justified slavery by denying the Genesis account of the common origin of mankind. Jefferson speculated that either the black “race” was originally a distinct race or made distinct by time and circumstance and in body and mind inferior to the white race. Jefferson’s defense of slavery on these grounds prompted at least one Christian pastor to urge his fellow citizens not to vote for Jefferson for president in the 1802 election:

    [Jefferson] does not adopt, as an article of his philosophy, the descent of the blacks as well as the whites from . . . [Adam and Eve] which came immediately from the hands of God. He is not sure . . . Now, how will all this accord with revealed truth? God, says the apostle Paul, “hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”

Notwithstanding, the failure of America’s national leaders to reject racial inferiority as a justification for slavery, the people of Vermont prohibited slavery in their constitution of 1777. In 1780 the people of Massachusetts abolished slavery by declaring in the first article of their new constitution: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights which are the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.”

Other states followed Vermont and Massachusetts, but not all. The slavery issue led to the Civil War. Even after the war had been won by the anti-slavery North and slavery had been outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the newly freed slave class did not enjoy the common law rights of their former owners. Several Southern states enacted “Black Codes” that denied to the new freedmen, for example, the right to own, buy or sell property.

These codes prompted Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That law provided that the new freedman was a citizen and, as such, entitled to the “same right . . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” President Andrew Johnson vetoed this act as beyond Congress’ constitutional authority; nevertheless, the Congress enacted the bill into law over Johnson’s veto. Thereafter, Congress secured ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause to confirm its authority to prevent the states from denying the benefits of the common law to the newly freed slave class.

The “equality principle” embraced, therefore, by the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to prohibit the granting of special privileges to a favored class, but the denial of ordinary legal rights enjoyed by all classes of people.16 It rested upon the equality principle embodied in the law of human nature, that all men are created equally human, and that no distinctions between one group of men or another can legitimately be made if those distinctions rest upon “race,” “color of skin,” or “national origin.” By affirming the oneness of human nature in its Constitution, America brought its legal system under the law of God as expressed in both the Old and New Testaments:

    In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.17
    [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ..18

This principle of unity of the human family did not, however, destroy the legitimate Biblical distinction among nations.19 America’s affairs with other nations and with citizens of other nations have always been governed by rules that protect the “political integrity” of the national and state governments. For example, citizens of other nations are not allowed to vote or hold political office.20 Nevertheless, such non-citizens who reside in the land cannot be denied ordinary legal rights available to citizens. That would violate the legal equality of human nature as the Law of Moses has clearly held:

    And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.21
    One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.22

In summary, “racial” distinctions are per se illegitimate for any purpose even as a remedy for past wrongs under so-called affirmative action programs. There is only one race. A nation’s law must, therefore, regard “man as man” and be “color-blind” as Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.23 Distinctions based upon national origin must be limited to the maintenance of the political integrity of the nation and, therefore, are illegitimate bench marks for the allocation of legal privileges and immunities. Affirmative action programs that provide otherwise contradict the principle of legal equality of opportunity because they make available privileges solely on the basis of the place of birth. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has recently pointed out that the only precedent for affirmative action laws that define “race” are those of Nazi Germany. Such a legacy is ample warning that Americans should avoid racial categories even for “benign” purposes lest they reinstitute a legal system based upon the same discredited racial distinctions that were relied upon in support of slavery.


Distinction based upon “race” and “national origin” are not analogous to those based upon sex. God made one human race, but from the beginning He made that race “male and female.”24 God created many nations, but only two sexes. God’s division of man into male and female was the foundation of the earliest human governing institution, the family. From the beginning God ordained that the two sexes play distinct roles within the family unit. God created the woman specifically to meet the man’s need, thus she is his “help-meet.”25 God ordained that the male initiate with the female the formation of the family unit.26 As initiator the male retained leadership within the family and, as leader, the male assumed primary responsibility to provide and to defend the family.27

Legal distinctions, therefore, that preserve the different roles for male and female within the family unit are legitimate. Indeed, the law of marriage, itself, is built upon the union of one male and one female.28 The sexual union of two males or two females or of one male and many females or vice versa cannot, legally, constitute a family.

But what about sex distinctions outside of the family unit? Even in the 1980’s the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the legitimacy of laws that protect females from being raped by males, but not vice versa.29 Moreover, the Court has upheld a federal statute that prohibits the drafting of women into the armed forces for combat duty.30 The former is based upon God’s law that the male is the initiator of sexual relations and, therefore, solely responsible if he has sexual intercourse without the female’s consent.31 The latter is based upon God’s law that the female be protected by the male. Even Deborah when she judged Israel did not exercise the authority of that office to lead the army into war contrary to the practices of every judge who occupied the office before her and every one who came after.32 It was to the shame of Barak, the man on whom Deborah called to lead the army, when he refused to go without Deborah. God demonstrated that truth when he allowed a woman to kill the leader of the enemy army before Barak could get to him.33

But throughout history sex distinctions have not been confined to Biblically legitimate purposes. For example, the common law of England and early America did not recognize the right of married women to own property. Consequently, married women found themselves barred from many professions and business opportunities. Such denials were oftentimes justified as required by “the law of the Creator,” namely that the husband and wife are one person in the eyes of the laws.34

Even a cursory review of the Bible proves that the common law’s denial of economic opportunity to married women violated the Law of God. Indeed, the writer of Proverbs has included in his description of a “good wife” a woman who personally participates in the economic life of the community in which she lives.35 Without receiving of the benefits of legal recognition apart from her husband, a woman could not possibly attain to the “virtues” listed in Scripture.

Not only did the common law not recognize married women on a par with men, but women were not allowed to participate in the political life of the common law nations. For example, women did not gain the right to vote in all elections in the United States until 1920. This time the justification for discrimination was based upon the subservient role that the woman was assigned within the family.

Again careful review of the Bible reveals that denial of equal political opportunity to women violated the law of God. Although Israel’s leaders were almost exclusively male, it was not because women were legally ineligible to assume political office. For example, when Moses led the people out of Egypt, his sister, Miriam, held the office of a prophet.36 As such she played a key role in the political and religious life of the nation, as evidenced by her and Aaron’s sinful effort to displace Moses as the leader of Israel.37 The woman, Deborah, not only held the office of a prophet, but the office of judge, the one held by Moses, himself.38 Notwithstanding their eligibility to serve, God preferred men to lead Israel because the political and family life were so symbiotic39 and because the political and religious life were so inextricably combined.40

But in a Gentile nation where the family and church ties are separated by God’s law of jurisdiction, women are less a threat to the law of male leadership in those institutions than they were in Israel. Nonetheless, because the family and the church should play the key roles of nurture of the young and teacher of the truth, it is not surprising that males dominate the political life of a nation when those institutions are flourishing. Even so, male dominance should not mean that women are legally ineligible to participate in the political life of the nation.

Because women have suffered wrongfully from discrimination in America, Congress proposed in 1972 the Equal Rights Amendment as follows:

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

While the state legislatures failed to ratify this proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, supporters of the E.R.A. both inside and outside Congress are determined to obtain its passage. It should, however, be rejected because the principle of equality that it has endorsed is not Biblical.

E.R.A. proponents have consistently argued that sex, like race, is an illegitimate factor in determining legal and political rights. But the Bible teaches that sex is not like race: God made man into two distinct sexes, “male and female,” but He did not make them into two or more distinct “races.” Moreover, God has assigned males and females different roles in the family, an institution that must receive legal recognition and protection from the civil government. The E.R.A. would, if enacted, destroy the law of the family. For example, current rules under equal protection of the laws prohibits any law barring “interracial” marriage. If the E.R.A. is enacted, it would likewise prohibit any law barring “intersexual marriage, i.e., homosexual marriages.

In summary, equality under the law for women must take into account the law of God that distinguishes between males and females for the purpose of protection of the family unit, of the sexual relationships between males and females, and of the protective role that the male is to play.


As has been pointed out in the previous section, the Equal Rights Amendment is not a measure designed to achieve equal opportunity for women; to the contrary, it is a direct attack on those women who choose to be housewives and mothers. If the E.R.A. is a direct attack on the home, then the civil rights movement for homosexuals is a direct attack on the well being of the nation. Throughout God’s Word, man has been warned that sexual promiscuity, especially homosexuality, violates the Law of the Land. That law, if consistently and persistently disobeyed, will result in the defilement of the land occupied by the erring nation and will result in the disintegration of the people that compose that nation.

It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the principles of equality that apply to race and to sex are not applicable to practices that discriminate against homosexuals or others who violate the law. As we have already seen, any claim for equal treatment must be analyzed carefully to ascertain its place in God’s law order. In light of the foregoing discussion several principles of equality have been uncovered. Each principle is different. Therefore, claims for equal treatment must be analyzed carefully to ascertain their place in God’s law order. Given a Biblical framework, sex and race distinctions are clearly not governed by the same prohibitions against discrimination. Analogies from one to the other necessarily break down. If this is true concerning claims about sex and race, it is also true about claims that homosexuals make concerning alleged discrimination against their sexual orientation or sexual preference.

When God created man, He created only one race and two sexes.41 He created the female sex to meet the need of the male sex, and He ordained marriage of one male to one female as the means whereby the sexual union would be consummated.42 God did not create any other legitimate means of sexual expression. God has, from the beginning, condemned all sexual intercourse between males and females when engaged in outside the once for a lifetime monogamous family unit. Both the Old and New Testaments contain numerous commands against such behavior.43

Moreover, God has condemned all sexual relationships that conflict with the one trust He has established between one husband (the male) and one wife (the female). Again both the Old and New Testament records are consistent. All homosexual unions, life-long or promiscuous, are forbidden.44 Sexual intercourse with animals, likewise, has been outlawed.45

In short, God has ordained only two sexual orientations, one male for one female, and one female for one male; and only two acceptable preferences, one male for one female in a life-long marriage, and one female for one male in a like union. All other sexual orientations and preferences are “unrighteous,” contrary to God’s created order.

Discrimination based upon the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous is not only permissible, but mandatory. God, Himself, has always blessed the righteous man and cursed the unrighteous man.46 At the final judgment, God will separate the righteous from the unrighteous and reward the former with eternal life and the latter with eternal death.47 Because God discriminates between the righteous and the unrighteous, then so must those human authorities ordained by God to enforce God’s law order.48 The writer of Proverbs has reminded his reader that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”49 Paul has instructed civil rulers to encourage good and to punish evil because they are “servants” of God.50 Church authorities have been commanded to discipline, even to the point of exclusion from fellowship, those who claim to be Christians but who practice unrighteousness.51

In keeping with these guidelines, the statute law of America has contained a variety of discriminatory rules against those who practice lawlessness. Proof of “good moral character” has long been required of those who seek to hold an office of trust, such as that of attorney. Homosexuals have been systematically excluded from the armed forces and other security sensitive government posts. Employers in the business world, landlords, and business proprietors have been allowed to discriminate against those who live in adultery, in fornication, or in homosexuality. Such laws and such liberty have reflected a legal system designed to conform to God’s law order.

Recent efforts to repeal laws that discriminate against those who practice unrighteousness and to enact laws prohibiting such discriminatory practices are contrary to God’s law. The righteous and the unrighteous are not equal before the law, nor are they fixed like race or sex, rather they represent two groups of people, each of which has made a choice – one to seek to conform to God’s law and the other to rebel against that law. The law of those human institutions that God has ordained must, insofar as they have jurisdiction, distinguish between the righteous and the unrighteous and in doing so must prefer righteousness and discourage unrighteousness. It is as Paul said in 1 Tim. 1:8-10:

    But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals . . ..(NAS).

Previous:   Jurisdiction and Authority
Next:   Fault and Liability


*   Copyright © 1987, 2006 Herbert W. Titus. Used by permission.
     1.    Deuteronomy 10:12-17 and Acts 10:34-45.
     2.    Galatians 3:22,28 and Colossians 3:11.
     3.    See, e.g., Genesis 4:4-5 and Hebrews 11:4.
     4.    See, Revelation 20:12,15.
     5.    Matthew 25:14-30.
     6.    Daniel 2:21; 4:17,32.
     7.    Exodus 31:1-6; Daniel 2:21,23; 1 Kings 3:6-13.
     8.    Romans 9:10-12; Genesis 25:21-23.
     9.    Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19.
   10.    F. Pollock and F. Maitland, History of English Law, 176 (2d ed. 1968).
   11.    J. Root, “The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut, 1798” quoted in The Legal Mind in America (32 C. P. Miller ed., 1962).
   12.    Art. I, Section 20, Oregon Constitution.
   13.    Exodus 31:1-5.
   14.    Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12-30 and Ephesians 4:11-13.
   15.    See, Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17, 16:19; Proverbs 28:21.
   16.    Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).
   17.    Genesis 5:1-2.
   18.    Acts 17:26.
   19.    See, Genesis 10.
   20.    See, Deuteronomy 17:15.
   21.    Leviticus 19:33-34.
   22.    Numbers 15:16.
   23.    163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896).
   24.    Genesis 1:27.
   25.    Genesis 2:18,20-22.
   26.    Genesis 2:24.
   27.    Ephesians 5:22-23.
   28.    Matthew 19:4-6.
   29.    Michael M. v. Superior Court, 101 S.Ct. 1200 (1981).
   30.    Rotsker v. Goldberg, 101 S.Ct. 2646 (1981).
   31.    Deuteronomy 22:25-29.
   32.    See, Judges 2:16,18; 3:9-10; 4:4-9; 6:12-16.
   33.    Judges 4:9,22.
   34.    See, e.g., Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1872), at 141-142.
   35.    Proverbs 31:16, 24.
   36.    Exodus 15:20.
   37.    Numbers 12:1-2.
   38.    Judges 4:4.
   39.    See, Numbers 33:54 and Joshua 15:1.
   40.    See, Leviticus 8.
   41.    Genesis 5:2.
   42.    Genesis 2:18,20-24; Matthew 19:4-6.
   43.    Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10; Mark 10:11-12; Romans 13:9 (adultery); Leviticus 18:12,15 (incest); Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9 (fornication).
   44.    Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9.
   45.    Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16; Romans 1:26.
   46.    See, Genesis 6:5-18, 18:20-25; Deuteronomy 27:15-26, 28:1 et. seq.; Matthew 5:6.
   47.    See, I Corinthians 6:9-10; Matthew 25:31-46.
   48.    Amos 5:15; Malachi 3:18.
   49.    Proverbs 14:34.
   50.    Romans 13:4.
   51.    1 Corinthians 5:9-13.