What are Christians
supposed to Render unto Caesar?
Political Philosophy from a Christian World-View
by
John A. Sterling
by
John A. Sterling
(Originally published as: RENDER UNTO CAESAR: A citizen's
duty to government, UWLA Law Review,
University of West Los Angeles, Vol
32, Nov, 2000. ) (Updated Dec 31, 2001)
For a synopsis of political philosophy, see: Political Philosophy: an
Overview, by John A. Sterling
Although
considered a distinctly "religious" book, the Holy Bible has much to
say about politics and social order. Between its covers, the discerning reader
may discover a rich treasure of knowledge about the regulation of order in a
community and in a nation. The natural tendency is to interpret ancient
writings in light of current practices or beliefs. The result of that technique
is that, often, history becomes distorted. Carefully historical scholarship,
however, can place ancient chronicles in a social/ political context that will
aid the reader in better understanding the modern application of timeless
principles.
This essay will attempt to glean from scripture the moral
principles that define the proper relationship between the Christian and the
government. First, the fundamental principles which formed the American
founder’s beliefs as to the nature and purpose of government will be examined
in light of scripture. Second, arguments will be made that the form of
government ultimately adopted in the United States of America was a reflection
of the principles derived from the moral and religious beliefs of its founders.
One of many writers whose work supports this presumption, Russel T. Kirk
writes, " All the aspects of any civilization arise out of a people’s
religion: its politics, its economics, it arts, its sciences, even its simple
crafts are the by-products of religious insights and a religious cult. For
until human beings are tied together by some common faith, and share certain
moral principles, they prey upon one another."
Finally, an analysis of scripture will permit a conclusion to be drawn
that political authority is limited to that which is necessary to perform its
legitimate function.
ORIGINS OF SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE
The American system is a balanced blend of several forms of
government that has enjoyed some limited degree of success in centuries past.
That it endures after more than two hundred years is a testimony of its
principled foundations. It has built its core Constitution upon political
ideals of Democracy, Federalism, and Republican (representative government)
systems of government. It includes the historic concept of a “covenant” or
“contract” with the people.
Civil (or secular) government has, at various times, been
separate and distinct from ecclesiastical (religious) government. It seems,
however, that the two spheres tend to merge into one until some “rebellion” or
“revival” provides the stimulus to move those spheres apart once again.
During the Old Covenant era of Biblical History in Europe
and the Near East, culture, morality, and social behavior were more closely
woven together in seamless fabric. In many early cultures, the heads of state
were also the religious leaders for there was no clear distinction between
those different offices, ". . . [i]t is quite conformable to the ideas of
those times, and not foreign to the notions and manners of the east in all
ages, that the judicial and sacerdotal offices should be united in the same
persons." By the time of Christ, the Roman republic had become the Roman
Empire and civil authority had a distinctly different and identifiable role.
However, at the same time, the Jewish state was given a great deal of national
autonomy and local rule was established in the Sanhedrin, or Jewish Courts. The
religious leaders of Israel were also the civil leaders, although subject to
the rather lenient hand of the Roman authorities. This dynamic tension in the
political realm was one of the reasons that the Sanhedrin tried so hard to
eliminate Christ- He was seen as a direct threat to the delicate political
balancing act so desperately being attempted by the Jewish leaders. (Mt. 27:
1-26; Jn 7:1; 11:53-54; KJV)
In 323 AD, Emperor Constantine embraced the persecuted
church and made it a step-child of the Roman Empire. Lifting up the embattled
faith and clothing it with the authority of the Roman State, Constantine
transformed outward Christianity into an arm of the civil government. With this
beginning, the Roman Catholic Church became a tool in the hands of the king as
Civil government and Ecclesiastical Government were merged once again. During
the middle ages, there was constant conflict between the emperors and the
Bishops over the issue of authority. Bishops of the church were granted
investiture (everything needed to pastor a church: a building, a cemetery,
clerical staff, robes, fixtures; even a congregation.) by the civil authority. Typically,
a Baron, Chieftain, or Prince would permit the cleric (church official or
pastor) to marry one of his daughters. Thus, he would control the
administration of church business and even the doctrine preached from the
pulpit.
In the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII declared that
Bishops and Priests could no longer marry. Further, in 1076 AD, Gregory issued
the ban on lay investitures and essentially "fired" the king. This
edict, although having definite direct support in principle from Holy Scripture,
had the primary aim of making the ecclesiastical authority separate from the
civil authority. In response, King Henry IV of Germany wrote back a letter to
Pope Gregory calling him a "false monk" and telling him to
"Descend, descend, to be damned throughout the ages" (translation: Go to hell!). In 1080 Gregory wrote back to
King Henry and declared him to be excommunicated from the church and dethroned.
This rending in two of the single sphere of authority
resulted in “The War Of
Investitures” which lasted nearly fifty years. (The unofficial conflict
lasted more than a century!) Finally, a tentative peace was struck and the
parties issued the Concordat of Worms in 1122. The matter was not fully concluded,
but at least a shaky peace was possible. In England in 1213, King John I
conceded to the Pope, all of England and Ireland "with all their rights
and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole
race....to the Roman church without demur." In
other words, the king bargained all the real estate of the kingdom (and
everything else) for the sins of the people forever. Not at all happy with this
situation, and convinced of the usurpation of authority by the crown, the
noblemen of the realm confronted the king on the green at Runnymeade and forced
the king to sign the Magna
Charta in 1215. Of course, there were many other abuses against his
subjects that King John was guilty of perpetrating but the idea that the state
might presume to have the absolute authority over all property was too much for
the noblemen of the Realm. Magna Charta is acknowledged to be the first written
account of the bill of rights found later in our U.S. Constitution.
During the development of the Common Law during these middle
ages, the principles of separate and distinct spheres of authority were being
refined. Ultimately, the principles formed part of the foundation of our
American system of self-Governance. Separation of Church and State had an
entirely different meaning to our founders than is currently taught by some
modern scholars.
What is a
"Biblical Model" of Civil Authority?
In the historical context of "authority", what
does the bible have to say about leaders? What is legitimate authority? How do
we know whether a person’s claim to authority is just or not? If we are
convinced that a person has set themselves up as authority over us, but lacks
legitimacy, what are our options?
One must guard against the tendency to make a doctrine out
of a single example from scripture. But patterns do emerge and principles may
be gleaned from biblical examples. Among these patterns the reader may discover
that, although the form of civil government may change, the principles remain
applicable to the social order. (1)God demands and expects obedience. (2)The
people, walking in obedience, are free to select men from among themselves to
lead them. (3) The leaders selected are limited in the exercise of their
authority to the boundaries of the constitution. and, (4) failure of either the
leadership or the people to remain obedient results in judgment from God and
loss of social order.
One of the lessons to be gleaned from the Old Testament is
that righteous civil government is charged with preventing idolatry (the
worship of other gods). "A fundamental purpose of the Mosaic polity was
the abolition of idolatrous worship, and the substitution in its place, and the
maintenance, of true religion in the world." Many
of the Levitical laws are difficult to understand unless we appreciate that the
prohibitions are intended to discourage the Hebrews from the practices of
neighboring (idolatrous) nations. In Leviticus 19:27 we read the prohibition
that, "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou
mar the corners of thy beard." Reverend Wines, having done exhaustive
research on the subject, opines that this custom was prevalent among the contemporary
cultures of the Idumaeans, Moabites, Ammonites, and other inhabitants of
Arabia. "This law has called forth many a sneer from men who, without any
remarkable claim to such a distinction, arrogate to themselves the exclusive
title of free thinkers. But to those who really think with freedom and candor,
it will appear a direction, (that) . . . was aimed against an idolatrous
custom, which was extensively prevalent when the law was given." In Leviticus 19:19 Moses forbids the wearing of
"Garments mingled of linen and woolen" and in Exodus 23:19 we read
that "Thou shalt not seethe (boil) a kid in his mother’s milk."
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman from wearing "that which pertaineth unto
a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment." Again drawing from
his research, Dr. Wines concludes that these (and similar difficult to
understand verses) would have been absolutely clear to the receiving audience
as a specific prohibition against imitating the idolatrous practices of other
nations. One may conclude that one of the legitimate functions of the civil
government, according to the Bible, is to proscribe behavior which is
destructive to the social order and that includes, specifically, idolatrous
practices.
Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 17: 14-20 that if the people
desired a king over them, the king was not to be an absolute ruler, but would
himself be subject to the written law (v. 18-19). Although the Hebrew form of
government remained a commonwealth for many years, it eventually changed into a
monarchy by the will of the people. In chapters 8 through 10 of I Samuel, the
people complained because they had no civil figurehead like the neighboring
countries. God told them that such a system of government would result in
conscription of the young men for an army, both men and women being pressed
into service for logistical support, and a restructuring of the agriculture and
the economy to support a shift to a military footing. God instructed His people
that the selection of an earthly king to rule over them, after the fashion of
their neighbors, would result in a form of idolatry that would be destructive
of their society. Nevertheless, the people declared what they wanted so God
gave them a candidate by way of the prophet Samuel. After Samuel finished the
interview process and presented Saul to the people, they endorsed the new king
and Samuel wrote the new Constitution that limited the authority of the king.
(1Sam 10:24-25) This process is indicative of all of the principles articulated
above. When the people are obedient to God, they select leaders from among
themselves whom God anoints. It is an example of a form of representative
government, democratically elected by the people and yet constrained by a
written constitution.
After the death of Saul, the men of Judah came and anointed
David as the new king. There is much more to the story, of course, but the
pattern is consistent. God reveals who the king will be, the elders and
religious rulers of the people (speaking on behalf of the people) affirm the
selection, and the chosen one leads the people according to the precepts of
God. (2Sam 2:4) Another subject, beyond the scope of this article, is how man’s
sin nature predisposes a man to the corrupting influence of power. This pattern
is the most predictable in the entire bible. Sin destroys men and nations. As
the leaders go, so goes the nation. The throne is established for the purpose
of establishing righteousness (Proverbs 16:12; 20:28; 29:14; Is 9:16; 10:1; II
Chron 19:6). It is the solemn duty of rulers to submit themselves to the
ordinances of God and to ensure that the people do likewise. (II Sam 23:3; Ps
2:10,11).
Government as a “Ministry” of God
Attributes of God which are nearly always found in
conjunction are RIGHTEOUSNESS and JUDGMENT. Seldom, when reading of the
character and nature of God, does the reader find one without the other.
Mishpat is the word in the Hebrew language which conveys the sum total of what
we understand a just government to be. The word appears in the Hebrew scripture
over four hundred times and, depending on the context, can have judicial,
legislative or executive meaning. Although this essay will not attempt to cover
the ground necessary for a complete understanding of the word, suffice it to
say that, while it was generally understood by the Hebrews, it is often
misunderstood, or incorrectly applied in the common English usage.
Because of our modern concept that government may have
distinct spheres of authority, we must be careful not to place mishpat in that
same context. The Hebrew understanding was that government was responsible to
administer the law, decide the law, and enforce the law, thus fulfilling the
legislative, judicial, and executives functions of any legitimate system of
social order. In addition, since God possessed all authority, no other
authority could exist except as an extension of God. (Ro 13:1) God created man
distinct from all other creatures in that man alone possessed the image of God.
Man was therefore delegated a certain limited authority by God to have dominion
over the creation and to act as God’s moral agent in the administration of an
ordered society. (Ge 1:28; 9:2; Ps 8:6; Job 32:8; Ja 3:7)
Man was endowed with the ability to communicate directly
with God through the Holy Spirit (Eze. 36:27; Jn 14:17, 26; 1Jn 2:27) and,
except for the introduction of sin, man would be able to enjoy fellowship
directly with the Creator. In fact, were it not for sin, man would have no need
of government, or laws or judges. It is in this vein that Paul writes to Timothy,
" But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing
this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and
disobedient, [he then lists several examples of the kind of people who need the
law]...and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound
doctrine." (I Tim 1:8-10)
Regardless of the form of government, whether king,
chieftain, monarch, dictator, congress or committee, the principles are the
same. Government must act as the influencing force for God’s principles in
society and its primary legitimate role is to protect the "rights"
and compel the "duties" of its members. As understood by America’s
founders, "rights" were granted by God and were not able to be
"alienated" (except by acts of the individual amounting to
forfeiture) and rights were emphatically NOT the creation of the state!
Further, one could not possess rights without having a corresponding duty to
God. Thus, our duty to render love and obedience to God created a right in our
fellow man to expect that performance from us. This was the basis of social
order in the Hebrew sense and the apparent understanding of America’s founders.
Obedience to government is duty to God
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood passages regarding the
believer’s obligation to civil authority is Romans 13:1-7. Although there is
some support for the idea that Christians must obey civil authority in every
case except extremes (where scripture clearly teaches that obedience to the
ruler would be contrary to God’s law), these references are relatively few in
number. The weight of the evidence is viewed best in the historical light of
the majority of verses dealing with this subject. Clearly, the civil ruler,
when distinct from any ecclesiastical role, is limited in his jurisdiction to
matters of civil administration. Social order is best accomplished when the
conduct of individuals within the social framework is regulated to the least
degree, and then, only in a way consistent with natural (revealed) law. This
view was taught by Sir Edward Coke and later, by Sir William Blackstone and was
adopted by virtually all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Romans 13 endorses the concept of civil government, albeit
constrained by the doctrines and the precepts of the Creator. The role of the
magistrate (civil ruler) is to punish evildoers, executing God’s wrath against
those who would pervert His righteousness. For this cause, it is legitimate for
citizens to pay taxes. However, the role of the state is limited with regard to
how much it can require of its citizens in the regulation of individual
liberty. With regard to acts of worship, or any belief, the state has no
authority whatsoever! This is why the current controversy over expanding the
federal jurisdiction to encompass "hate" crimes is without a
Constitutional basis. The civil government may never regulate
"thoughts" or "beliefs" as these attributes are properly
the jurisdiction of the Church. Civil authority is limited in its reach to
those acts or conduct which constitute a breach of social order.
Rome v. Jesus of Nazareth,
(33 A.D.)
Given the historical background and the theological
framework of the Jewish relationship to God, it is no surprise to see that
Jesus does not give much more than a cursory nod to the authority of the Roman
rulers. Indeed, it is surprising that so many Christian pastors have apparently
missed such an obvious principle as the true nature of authority. A good
example of how a biblical passage may be interpreted in conflicting ways is Matthew
17:24-27. The Jewish tax collectors, whose job it was to extract money from
their fellow citizens for the Roman Coffers, approached Peter and inquired
whether Jesus paid taxes. Peter answered in the affirmative but either he lied,
was uncertain or was otherwise troubled by the implications because Jesus
thereafter asked him, "What thinkest thou Simon, of whom do the kings of
the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers?"
(verse 25). When Peter answers that, in the normal course of things, only
strangers are obligated to pay taxes, Jesus answers (can you see Him smiling?),
"Then are the children free." Momentarily, we will look at what
follows in verse 27, for it is rich in truth as well, but, stopping here for moment,
let’s identify what Jesus said to Peter. The moral obligation (duty) to pay
taxes to the king arises out of one’s relationship to the king. If the person
(or system) in POWER (Gr. Dunamis) lacks AUTHORITY (Gr. Exousia), then that
person or system is undeserving of support. Since it was commonly understood
that ALL authority is held by God and is subject to God (Ro 13:1) and only
limited authority is delegated to men to either minister good works or avenge
evil doers, (Ro 13:4), then any earthly leader whose POWER exceeds his
AUTHORITY is a covenant-breaker. His authority ends at the boundaries of the
grant of authority by God. Jesus’ answer to Peter in Mt. 17: 26 seems to
suggest that when the basis of the relationship does not conform to the
covenant, the person in breach has no legal (or moral) claim to the fruits of
that relationship (taxes). Compare this with Romans 13:6-7 where the duty to
render support is tied directly to the moral authority of the leadership.
Jesus continues in Mt 17: 27 with an explanation of his next
act. It is important that Christians discern what is of this world and what is
not. That will determine which battles are worth expending much energy for and
which battles are eternally significant. Jesus gives instructions to Peter so
that the government will not find offense, yet selects a rather absurd miracle
to make His point. It is a ridiculous claim that the Roman government would
have any authority at all over the Son of God (or, by extension, the children
of God) so Jesus tells Peter to do a ridiculous thing to illustrate this point.
By casting a hook into the sea and catching the first available fish, Peter may
find therein sufficient money to satisfy the tax man. Thus Jesus demonstrates
His contempt at the claims of Rome while at the same time proving that God is
the source of our provision.
Whatever duty there may be for the Christian to support the
mechanism of the state seems to be tied to the moral legitimacy of the state
and, in that context, it is subject to certain constraints and limitations. One
might conclude that if the civil government were totally lacking in moral
authority, it would be totally undeserving of our support. Further, the
Christian should ponder whether Scripture provides guidance for our proper role
in restoring to government the moral legitimacy that God has ordained civil
governments should possess.
Before leaving the subject of taxes altogether, it is
fitting to use another confrontation between Jesus and the civil authorities.
In Matthew 22:16-21, Jesus is confronted directly by the Herodians. Although
little is known about this group of men, they seemed to have attributes of both
a political party and a religious sect. They were opposed to the Pharisees as
to submission to Rome but firmly united with them as against Jesus. They were
certain that the question they posed to Jesus could not be answered without
provoking either the Jews or the Romans and either end would serve their
nefarious purposes. If Jesus answered that the tax was due to Rome, then He would
be admitting subservience to Caesar. If He answered that taxes were not due to
Rome, He would be guilty of sedition, a capital offense.
The Herodians start by praising Jesus and complimenting Him
as one who "[teacheth] the way of God in truth...[and] regardest not the
person of men." Then they pop the famous question about whether or not it
is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. "But Jesus perceived their wickedness
and said, ‘why tempt me you hypocrites?’" (verse 18) Then Jesus does
something that it entirely unforseen by the Herodians; He asks if one of them
has a coin. This is a tricky move because if they are even carrying a Roman
coin, it places them in the "enemy camp" (ideologically speaking.) If
a man claimed to be against the Roman government, he would not acknowledge the
authority of Rome by carrying their money.
Before thinking, one of them produced a coin which Jesus
took and held up for all to see. (Jesus always had a crowd around!) He made the
famous inquiry about whose name and superscription (image) was on the coin. The
answer to both questions was "Caesar’s". Jesus said, "Render
therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things
that are God’s." (vs 21) Jesus identified both the basis and the limitations
of Caesar’s legitimate claim to ownership. If it has his name on it, it must be
his; if it does not, he has (probably) no legitimate claim to it. Further, in a
classic double entendre, Jesus denied the authority of Rome in a way that is
clear to His listeners but in a context which will not stand up in court. (In
fact, a few weeks later, the Pharisees try to use this episode to reinforce the
accusation of sedition on Jesus when He is taken before Pilot.)
Sanhedrin v. Jesus of
Nazareth (33 A.D.)
Jesus not only gave little acknowledgment to the civil
authority of Rome, He also did not acknowledge the illegitimate authority of
the Jewish Ecclesiastical leadership, the Sanhedrin. Jesus is found throughout
the New Testament arguing with their Doctrine and taking issue with their
formalism and legalism. In particular, the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin
is representative of their antagonism and His disregard for their presumptions.
Before being taken before Pilate (Roman Civil Government),
Jesus is tried in a Jewish Ecclesiastical Court of the High Priests (seventy
religious "elites") who make up the Sanhedrin. This court was the
final authority on matters religious and no Orthodox Jew would contemplate a
confrontation with them.
In Matthew 26:63 when Jesus is before the Sanhedrin, and
again before Pilate in ch 27: 12-14, He says nothing to their direct
examination. According to Hebrew Law (basis for our own legal principles) Jesus
had a right against self-incrimination and His answer to their improper
questions would have condemned Him no matter how he answered. His refusal to
answer them at all suggests at least two things. First, He does not acknowledge
their authority over Him, and second, He is beating them at their own legal con
game. His refusal to answer denied them the "evidence" which they
needed to obtain a conviction, and it was entirely lawful for Him to refuse to
incriminate Himself. Only when the High Priest violates the law himself by
commanding Jesus under Oath (vs. 63) to incriminate Himself on the religious allegation
of being the Christ does Jesus answer them.
Read the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew for a glimpse into
what Jesus thought about the Scribes and Pharisees. At least fifteen times
Jesus calls them hypocrites, thieves, vipers, fools, blind men, murderers, etc.
One almost gets the impression that He didn’t think very highly of them! This
is hardly the language of one who is teaching His followers to "give honor
where honor is due" unless one concludes that these leaders were not due
any honor. Remember, within the meaning of mishpat there is no distinction
between civil and ecclesiastical authority. There is only one authority,
regardless of its delegation to artificially created entities.
A passage of scripture often quoted for the purpose of
establishing a duty on the part of Christians to obey civil government is 1 Pe
2:13-14. Peter writes, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for
the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as
they are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of
them that do well." This seems to suggest, on its face, that every
ordinance of man is worthy of strict obedience regardless of whether it is
issued at the highest levels of government (the king, as supreme) or at intermediate
levels (the governor, acting on behalf of the king). The reader is reminded
that the author of this passage is the same Peter who, in Acts 4:19 defied the
Jewish leaders. Either he has changed his mind since then, or he is making a
distinction between obedience to religious leaders as opposed to civil leaders,
or there is something else needed to render this passage doctrinally consistent
with the rest of the Bible. I am persuaded that the latter position is true.
In Romans chapter 13, verse 2, the Greek word for
"ordinance" is diatage` which most nearly means
"institution" or "instrumentality". This would comport most
closely with the idea that God has ordained the System of civil government
(although not the precise form) through which a society is ordered. In 1Pe
2:13, the Greek word is ktisis which most nearly means (in this context)
"the foundation principle." If this verse is to be understood as
consistent with Ro 13:2, then Peter has instructed his audience to submit to
the basic principles of the law so that Christ will be glorified (". .
.for the Lord’s sake"). The word translated as "supreme" in the
Greek is huperecho which implies a haughtiness or self- reverence rather than
one having legitimate authority. Thus, it would seem a reasonable
interpretation that a "good" law (one which flows out the legitimate
operation of civil authority) must be obeyed even if it is commanded by a
leader who is not operating within his legitimate office. This is quite
different than mandating absolute obedience to unrighteous rulers.
It is unclear to whom the pronoun "him" is
referring following the mention of governors but the context suggests strongly
that the governor is acting on the orders of the king rather than God. The
phrase ". . . as they are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and
for the praise of them that do well" is the same limiting language on
government in general as seen in Ro 13: 2 but it would be hard to justify the
same application in 1 Pe 2:14 given the different Greek words used. The
phrasing of the passage seems to be deliberately obscure, as if a double
meaning were intended (like Jesus speaking on taxes in Mt 22:21 or Jesus’
comment to Pilate in Jn 19:11) but it is not impossible to reconcile this
passage with the others. Verse 12 introduces the subject by exhorting the
saints to be an example of good works to the Gentiles by obeying, insofar as
possible, the questionable laws of a questionable magistrate (verses 13 &
14) so as to silence the narrow-minded judgment of "foolish men"
(verse 15). Because of the precise usage of the Greek words in this context, it
does not seem plausible that Peter is arguing for submission by Christians to
every ordinance; only to those whose foundation principles are rooted in
legitimate authority, for how is Christ glorified by obedience to immoral or
unjust laws?
Conclusion
It is the hope of the author that this essay has provoked
some deeper thought on the issues of civil authority and the moral legitimacy
of governments. Civil disobedience is not always a prudent course of action (we
are exhorted not to use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness in 1Pe 2:16 or
let it become a stumblingblock to the weak in 1Cor 8:9) but neither is it a
forbidden action if, and when, it becomes necessary. When is it necessary? The
Spirit of Truth will guide us into the truth when we allow ourselves to become
vessels of the truth. (Eze. 36:27; Jn 14:17, 26; 1Jn 2:27) The battles we fight
are spiritual in nature and the weapons formed against us are spiritual weapons.
Civil disobedience is not open warfare, although if, and when, Christians might
take up weapons is another subject for discussion. God works with imperfect
tools to accomplish His perfect will. Our Great Commission calls for us to
reach souls for Christ and then permit the ordained civil authority to do what
God has set it up to do. We may not perform the one and neglect the other. A
truism often repeated is that "good laws do not make good people, but good
people make good laws!" When Christians are active in evangelism,
politics, business, education, military, and civic action, we will see dramatic
changes in the way the public trust is administered. We MUST be active in those
areas or we will be in danger of wasting our inheritance.
John A. Sterling
Note * This article is presented with the intent of
providing some explanation and understanding of the Christian World-view that
forms the theological foundation for American Government. Another article
will look at the changes in American law and government as a result of
widespread rejection of Christian principles.
© 1999-2001, Law and Liberty Foundation Legal Disclaimer
Roots of federal
constitutional theory are traced to the Hebrew word berith (used 387 times in
the Old Testament) translated variously as covenant, league, treaty, and
ordinance. It is a crucial term in the Bible. The message conveyed is that
covenants are solemn vows and there is no stronger language used to describe a
mutually binding agreement. Reformers in the 12th Century and later questioned
the use of the word "testament" as an accurate replacement for
"Covenant" because it conveyed a different meaning. Translating Greek
to Latin was made more difficult in that regional differences of word meaning
did not necessarily translate. Also, Palestinian Greek had a different meaning
than "Greek" Greek. The early Catholic church rejected Jerome’s Old
testament version (Hebrew to Latin) because Testamentuem is consistent with
top-down (authoritarian) rule where the correct translations (pactum and
foedus) of Jerome would have changed the church political system from
hierarchical to a Covenant-based republican type of government. Not until the
Protestant Reformation (Martin Luther- 1500’s) was the original meaning of
these Latin terms correctly understood and applied again.
Notes from Professor Gary Amos’ Constitutional Law class at
Regent University, 1996
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.