State, Church, and the Bible
Old Testament Israel recognized no separation between the civil order and the religious order. Israel was a theocracy, the Kingdom of God on earth. God Himself was the king, and His reign not only prescribed the forms of worship but also stretched over the political, economic, and social spheres. Every aspect of life was under the governance of the divine sovereign, which was mediated through His appointed officials, whether prophets, priests, or kings.
Christ and Earthly Government
The ultimate prophet, priest, and king was to be the Messiah. Jesus presented Himself as the Messiah, but instead of welcoming Him, Israel’s leaders tried to snare Him with His own words. Since Israel was under Roman dominion, they asked Him whether it was lawful to render tribute to Caesar. A negative answer would make Jesus guilty of insurrection against Rome. A positive answer would approve the subjugation of the theocracy to a pagan Gentile regime. Either way, Jesus could be condemned.
Jesus, however, slipped through the horns of the dilemma (Matt. 22:15–22). Pointing to Caesar’s image on a Roman coin, He said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In other words, God permits even pagan governments a rightful sphere of authority, and God’s people are required to recognize governmental authority within that sphere. At the same time, God retains direct authority over a different sphere. Within that sphere people are directly accountable to Him, and governmental authority is null and void.
Paul and Peter
Later, in the Book of Romans, the apostle Paul would emphasize that believers must recognize the rightful sphere over which civil governors exercise authority (Rom. 13:1–7). They hold authority from God to restrain evil (if necessary through violence) and to reward the good. Consequently, Christians ought to pray for those who exercise civil authority, because the faithful execution of their responsibility allows us to live quiet lives characterized by piety and dignity (1 Tim. 2:1–3). Peter also emphasized that Christians must ordinarily submit to civil authority, thereby silencing the ignorance of the foolish (1 Pet. 2:13–17). Clearly the apostles saw governments, even pagan governments, as good rather than bad.
Nevertheless, these same apostles refused to allow civil authorities either to dictate or to hinder their Christian message. The Sanhedrin was a religious court with civil authority, but when it attempted to stifle their message about Jesus, Peter and John replied, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:19). When the Sanhedrin again tried to muzzle their message, Peter and all the apostles stated bluntly, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Before long King Herod Agrippa began to persecute Christians overtly. Specifically, he martyred James and imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1–19). Christianity grew in the face of governmental opposition, and the text of Acts offers no hint that churches or Christian leaders should expect any sort of endorsement or help from the civil order. That principle is reinforced in Acts 17:1–9, where the city fathers of Thessalonica actually required a good-conduct deposit from the Christian leader Jason.
Three Critically Important Elements
The picture that begins to emerge from these passages contains three elements. First, Christians were willing to submit to governmental authorities in all matters of decency and order, even to the point of providing extra assurances of their good conduct. Second, Christians were willing to brook no dictation from these authorities in matters of faith and morals. Third, Christians and churches never relied upon any support, endorsement, or promotion from the civil authorities to help advance the cause of Christ.
These elements are again on display at Paul’s trial before Gallio at Corinth (Acts 18:12–17). In this case, the Jewish leadership in Corinth actually seized the apostle and dragged him before the judgment seat of the proconsul in Achaia. Their charge against him was that, “This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law” (Acts 18:13). Gallio’s response was that a religious dispute could not be settled in a civil court. In other words, Gallio was recognizing a sphere within which he had no authority to judge. When the Jewish leadership tried to reject this reasoning, Gallio had them driven out of his courtroom.
It could be argued that this text merely presents Gallio’s opinion and not God’s. That argument fails because the text nowhere indicates that Gallio was mistaken. In fact, if Gallio had been wrong, this would have been the ideal occasion for Paul to have spoken up and reminded him that he really should have passed judgment against the Jews on the religious question. Nevertheless, Paul seems to have been content with Gallio’s response. He expected no support, endorsement, or promotion from Gallio. He surely would have accepted no dictation from Gallio in matters of faith and morals. He was perfectly willing to submit to Gallio in matters of decency and order.
Paul’s Arrest and Civil Authorities
Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and his subsequent trials before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa provide other opportunities to glimpse the relationship between civil and church authority. Paul was arrested when the Jews of Jerusalem staged a riot because of his preaching (Acts 22:22–29). The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, assumed that Paul must have been guilty of something and was prepared to have him interrogated by scourging. When Paul claimed his Roman citizenship, the commander instead brought Paul to the Jews to see whether he could discover their complaint. This meeting soon degenerated into a wrangle over Jewish technicalities, and Paul had to be rescued by force (Acts 22:30–23:11). What had begun as an arrest now took the form of protective custody. Almost immediately, Jewish assassins vowed to murder Paul, leading the commander to send the apostle to Governor Felix in Caesarea. In his letter of explanation, the commander claimed that Paul was “accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds” (Acts 23:29). As far as Claudius Lysias was concerned, the state had no interest in the religious issues that were being argued. If the Jews wanted to press charges, they would have to travel to Caesarea and appear before Felix.
When Paul’s opponents arrived, they accused him of sedition and of profaning the temple in Jerusalem (Acts 24:5–9). Paul denied the charges, which he insisted that his opponents could not prove. Instead, he acknowledged that a theological disagreement stood between them and him, implying that a theological disagreement did not belong in court. Felix seems to have understood this point, and should have released Paul on the spot. The reason that he did not was because he was corrupt and hoped to extort a bribe from Paul in exchange for his freedom (Acts 24:22-–27). In the end, he kept Paul imprisoned as a gesture to pacify the Jewish leadership.
Felix was followed as governor by Festus (Acts 25:1). Paul’s opponents again appeared to charge him with crimes. He again argued that he was innocent and that none of those charges could be proven. Festus should have released Paul immediately, but instead he hoped to curry favor with the Jewish leadership by arraigning Paul all over again in Jerusalem. At that point, recognizing that he was dealing with a corrupt court, Paul appealed to Caesar.
Paul’s speech when making his appeal is revealing both for what he said and for what he did not say. What Paul said was that he recognized the right of the court to judge him with respect to criminal offenses (Acts 25:11). In fact, he explicitly submitted himself to this judgment, up to and including capital punishment. Paul was perfectly willing to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. What he did not say was that Festus should offer any kind of official endorsement or support to Christianity. Nor did Paul appeal to his office as a preacher, apostle, and teacher. He claimed no special privilege because of his church office. On the contrary, the ground of his appeal was simply that he was a Roman citizen being illegally detained.
Paul’s “trial” (really just a hearing) before Agrippa recapitulates several of the foregoing themes (Acts 26:1–32). Paul repeated his claim of innocence before the law, arguing that his differences with his accusers were focused upon theological issues. Of course, Paul took the opportunity to preach the gospel to Agrippa. When everything had been said, Festus and Agrippa agreed that Paul had done nothing actionable. If he had not appealed to Caesar, then he should have been set free.
God grants a sphere of authority to the church and its officers. God also grants a sphere of authority to the state—the civil government—and its officials. Christians and churches are obligated to submit to civil officials when they operate within their rightful sphere of authority. Christians and churches are obligated to resist civil officials when, in their governmental capacity, they try to dictate matters of faith and morals. Christians and churches must also refuse to appeal to the coercive power of the state for any special endorsement, support, or advancement for their Christianity.
Kevin T. Bauder serves as research professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota.
(Originally published in FrontLine • September/October 2020. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)