In this world, everyone—even the highest judges and executives of the land—are subject to a law outside themselves. Despite the sociopathic acts of criminals and usurpers, no one is exempt. But even aside from those violent offenders, law exists because of humanity's penchant for asserting itself against any authority. Without law, anarchy would ultimately reign, with chaos despoiling any remnant of civilization.
Who is The Law, and is it binding?
Law, without an enforcing authority, is impotent. All societies employ police forces to apprehend lawbreakers, judiciaries to assign consequences for lawbreaking, and a penal system to execute punishment.
The office of Judge holds, by its very title, the grave responsibility of dispensing justice. How must judges feel, perched upon their high-backed, leather chairs behind the benches of judgment, elevated above both the guilty and innocent? Are they unique in their moral perfection? Have they never sinned against God or man? Regardless their lofty positions, judges are only men, and their sole qualification for occupying that office is their demonstrated knowledge of the Order of Jurisprudence.
Though their title is Judge, our nation's Constitution usually limits their role to that of a referee, or arbiter, between the defendant and the plaintiff or the State. In that role, they must exercise the authority of the judicial bench with candor and prudence. So they don't actually judge the riffraff that stand accused before them. The Constitution relegates decisions regarding law and morality to a jury of the accused party's peers. No one expects moral perfection from the jury, which is the reason for utilizing a multitude of jurists, according to the Biblical principle: Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. (Pro 15:22 ESV)
But, what about justice?
In the final analysis, is the administration of justice left to flawed human beings? Since the inevitable mistakes in meting out punishment are both unjust and unfair, are the cynics right in their jaded view of life?
If what we touch, taste, smell, hear or see is all this world offers, life is simply the sum of our sensations. What, then, of the abstracts most of us enjoy; friendship, aesthetics, interpersonal bonding, spirituality, passion, reason, conscience, and yes, justice, all contribute to a dimension of life that is infinitely beyond the physical. Were one or more of our physical senses compromised, those abstract senses would not be lessened, but heightened.
What authority can possibly administer judgments that satisfy those higher, singularly human, senses? It would have to be an authority incapable of error, the very definition of rightness. Without it, all our abstract senses would be for naught. Yet, no one can deny that we have them. Therefore, our abstract sense of reason tells us that righteous Authority must exist.
Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum"
Blaise Pascal, pioneer mathematician, and contributer to the theory of probability, wrote of a "God-shaped vacuum" within each human being, that only the Author of humanity can fill. To have created this abstraction we call man—with mental faculties and self-cognizance far beyond that of any animal—He must have designed us according to similarly a superior convention. That Creator, that Ultimate Authority, must therefore exist apart from His creation, and be characterized by a perfection beyond mortal imagination.
Materialists patently reject any concept of a Supreme Being existing outside of our frame of reference. Their claim that "man created god after his own image" is impossible, however, because of the fact that Man's understanding of God's unique attributes is outside of our human frame of reference, necessitating the existence of Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum." And though most of God's attributes are unimaginable, humanity's innate sense of the abstract reflects the Creator in whose image we were formed.
Rather than admit the possibility that an authority existed before, and continues to exist beyond, homo-sapiens, materialists desperately sought an alternate, naturalistic explanation for what we all see around us. In a stroke of genius, they invented the big-bang theory of origins, wherein an infinitesimal particle of near-infinite mass imploded in a superheated detonation that projected all matter outward from its point of origin. That theory takes into account the "red shift" astronomers have discovered, meaning all distant objects in the cosmos are moving apart relative to each other—and us.
But, wait a minute; does that grandiose theory seem to circle back upon itself? Do Naturalists attempt to explain the universe's existence with something that already existed? That would seem to smack of the archaic theory of spontaneous generation—the belief that fruit flies just popped out of nowhere.
Why, that defies all logic ... in fact, evolutionists are guilty of the same circular reasoning of which they accuse creationists. Thus, in denying that God exists, they prove that He could exist, even if they as yet have no apparatus that can sense Him.
Back to the Judge
Tragically, for those who live to usurp any threat to their perceived autonomy, denying the existence of the King of kings and Lord of lords does not, in fact, make Him non-existent. The One who put that infinitesimal speck of near-infinite mass in its place and caused it to go BANG, is the righteous Judge before whom all creation will ultimately bow.