Bible Study Separation of Church and State

[reba]

Jas_1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[ezrider]

Why did the Religious folk of the day, the Scribes and Pharisees, the Sanhedrin etc.. Why did they have to appeal to their governors to have Christ crucified?

 

[ezrider]

Except neither the priests nor the judges were charged with looking after the poor, the needy, and the oppressed. That was a charge to all of God's people, and now it is a charge to the Church.

The topic of the OP is not about who was charged with looking after the poor. It was only an example used to illustrate to whom it is given to execute the matters of the laws of the land? As the gleaning of the vines was part of the covenant made with Israel, if a dispute arose as a matter of the Law, was it not given to the King judge over these disputes?

The Welfare that you wish to contend with is also a matter of Law as established by the peoples representatives of this nation, and as such remains under the legal jurisdiction of the State. Why do you reject that authority?

What is perplexing is the idea that you continue to present that the charge of looking after the poor, needy and oppressed is a good thing as long as it comes from the Church, but when the people of the Church adopt the same principle and make it a law of the land governed by the State that it is somehow now something evil? That just make no sense. How can it be good if you do it, but bad if I do it?

Does it bother you that the law of the land allows people access to the welfare system to whom you find unworthy or against the morals to which you hold? Is it not that you would rather be in charge of who receives welfare from yourself? But would that then not stand in contradiction with the thought that the Lord causes it to rain on the good and wicked alike? Matthew 5:45

 

[reba]

Why did the Religious folk of the day, the Scribes and Pharisees, the Sanhedrin etc.. Why did they have to appeal to their governors to have Christ crucified?

At the time of Christ Israel was under Roman rule... They messed up years before

 

[reba]

The Welfare that you wish to contend with is also a matter of Law as established by the peoples representatives of this nation, and as such remains under the legal jurisdiction of the State. Why do you reject that authority?

The constitution is the law of this land . It give 'we the people' the right of regress. Some things need be changed as it was for the 14 th amendment

 

[Sinthesis]

At the time of Christ Israel was under Roman rule... They messed up years before

And Jesus didn't bother to rectify that during His incarnation. Perhaps it's not so important.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am a little confused by your statements. How can you say you don't think a law was necessary when you agreed that the verses of law that I quoted from Leviticus was perfect?

To whom was it given to rule over the people and judge matters according to the laws: Was it given to the King? or was it given to the Priesthood?

Leviticus 19:9-10
The Laws.

So a Law was given to help out the needy. Food was to be left for them. I'd say this was one of God's Laws.
But, and here come the misunderstanding up above, what did Law mean? If I didn't leave some wheat from threshing, was someone going to come and put me in jail? No.

The Laws back then were given for the benefit of man - not for judicial consideration and purpose. The Rabbis taught that leaving food for the poor was the proper thing to do. It was to be done to serve GOD, not to keep a law that is written in a book because there was no way to enforce it.

This law was to be absorbed into the very being of a person. If someone did not adhere to this "law" the judge or the king was not going to imprison the person not upholding the law.

Also, I'd add that Judges were leaders, not judges in the sense that we understand today. I know those reading along know this, just to clarify my statements above.

I believe the main role of both Judges and Kings was to safeguard Israel against invaders. The role of caring for the needy was left to the priests - they were in direct contact with the population.

I repeat that Acts demonstrates this. The Church (capital C) of the time cared for the widows.Acts 6:1-3

So the Law in Leviticus was perfectly written
Enforcement of it was not necessary because this Law was written on the heart of the people (as we would say today. it was a heart-condition).

IOW It was up to the Church to feed the needy (the Priesthood)
Not the Judges or the Kings

Yes. We did wander off. I'd also like to see more opinion (or facts) on this...

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Why did the Religious folk of the day, the Scribes and Pharisees, the Sanhedrin etc.. Why did they have to appeal to their governors to have Christ crucified?

Because Jesus was becoming a threat to them. They wanted Him out of the way and it was up to the Romans to put Him to death. That's why they told P.P. that Jesus said He was a King and was threatening Caesar. Threatening Caeser was an offense punishable by death.

I hope you know about Jesus' trial. It was all illegal. The Sanhedrin broke many of their own rules to have Jesus be put to death before the Passover.

But this was an unusual case. In other cases, they took care of their own dispensation of legal matters. Example: The stoning of the adultress which Jesus stopped. They did keep and enforce their own laws.

Wondering

 

[jasonc]

Disagreement with tanf,is not failing to submit .setting up private instutions to render charity isn't breaking the law.the church is commanded not the government to aid the poor.

 

[Hospes]

I was reading through some other threads that were talking about welfare and liberal policies. Some one made a comment that basically said if the Church was doing it’s job, there would be no need for government welfare. But is that really the case? To whom was it given to dispense judgement and justice. Was it to the government? Or was it given to the Church?

When someone brings up welfare, my thought always tends to fall on this scripture:

Leviticus 19:9-10
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

But to whom was it given to enforce this law. Was it given to the priesthood? Or was it given to the King to judge among the people? Moses was their Law giver, and before the people desired to be ruled by a King, it was given to the Judges to judge among the peoples. Was there ever a time when it was given to the priesthood to execute judgement among the peoples? Or did the Lord established a model for the separation of Church and State?

I am not starting this thread to discuss what anyone thinks the founding fathers meant by the separation of church and state when they formed the constitution. This thread is intended to explore the idea that the Lord established a model for a separation between the Church and State. There were things given to the temple and duties given to the priesthood to perform and carry out, and then there were duties and other responsibilities that were given to Kings and rulers and governors to perform and carry out.

There are many here like jocor and Chopper among others that seem to have a well rounded knowledge concerning the priesthood. Hopefully with the help of all who wish to participate, we can identify things from the scripture that were separated to the priesthood and those things that were separated to the role of government.

Is there a natural separation between the Church and the State. In other words, has it been given to the State, to the governments to have rule over the nature our flesh bodies according to the laws of the land that we live in; But to the Church the things of the Spirit to be a beacon for the Kingdom of Heaven?

.

EZ,

Do you think the civil and moral law of the OT, as written, is meant as a guide for all nations? I am not trying to suggest you think this, it's just it is an underlying premise of the discussion needing to be agreed upon. Otherwise, people writing of the OT law will be unknowingly writing from different premises and never know it; gets real confusing.

 

[Tony Hyman]

This is what the Romans thought about welfare after the time of Constantine and Emperor Julian (332-63) , in an attempt to get Rome back on the Pagan route after Christianity had established itself to deeply for his liking "Atheism [ i.e. Christian faith] has been specially advanced through the loving service to strangers,and through their care for the burial of the dead.It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for help that we should rather render."(Steven Neill, A History of Christian Missions 37-38).

So it follows, as far as "welfare" is concerned ,that if our Judicial Systems in general ,are still guided by Roman Law today,it is only logical that Emperor Julian's judgement favors that the welfare responsibility should rest on the State and not in the hands of "Athiests"
such as us, from the Pagan perspective.Of course this is not the way Christ would have it " He will reply, 'I tell you the truth,whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "(Mt 25:45 N.I.V.)

So I would think that the onus rest on both Church and State where religious freedom is still upheld.In cases where religious freedom is not permitted, I suppose the attitude from the State's perspective would be much the same as Emperor Julian's "we should rather render" ,which leaves the burning question .Why do we still generally speaking have to do UN Welfare handouts to those so-called "Anti -Christian Tough Guys" ? Fortunately for them and the poor who still suffer under them, God in all His wisdom through His Son also teaches , regardless of what the world thinks "25. You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.26.Not so with you.Instead, whoever wants to be become great among you must be your servant...28.just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."(Mt.20:25-28)That's what Christ says no matter what.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I was reading through some other threads that were talking about welfare and liberal policies. Some one made a comment that basically said if the Church was doing it’s job, there would be no need for government welfare. But is that really the case? To whom was it given to dispense judgement and justice. Was it to the government? Or was it given to the Church?

When someone brings up welfare, my thought always tends to fall on this scripture:

Leviticus 19:9-10
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

But to whom was it given to enforce this law. Was it given to the priesthood? Or was it given to the King to judge among the people? Moses was their Law giver, and before the people desired to be ruled by a King, it was given to the Judges to judge among the peoples. Was there ever a time when it was given to the priesthood to execute judgement among the peoples? Or did the Lord established a model for the separation of Church and State?

I am not starting this thread to discuss what anyone thinks the founding fathers meant by the separation of church and state when they formed the constitution. This thread is intended to explore the idea that the Lord established a model for a separation between the Church and State. There were things given to the temple and duties given to the priesthood to perform and carry out, and then there were duties and other responsibilities that were given to Kings and rulers and governors to perform and carry out.

There are many here like jocor and Chopper among others that seem to have a well rounded knowledge concerning the priesthood. Hopefully with the help of all who wish to participate, we can identify things from the scripture that were separated to the priesthood and those things that were separated to the role of government.

Is there a natural separation between the Church and the State. In other words, has it been given to the State, to the governments to have rule over the nature our flesh bodies according to the laws of the land that we live in; But to the Church the things of the Spirit to be a beacon for the Kingdom of Heaven?

.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the everyone able to help. When a person is part of the church body, they are part of the church in all aspects of their lives. Or at least they should be. Whether a person is in a government office, or in a privite business that is profitable, or just on their own with their own resources, they shouldn't have to seperate their church life, and the responsibilities they hold to through their faith, to only act through church orginizations.

On the other hand, the government is supposed to be there as a function for the people. Protect the citizens, protect the boundaries from foreign invasions and terror. Create structure for society to function in. And probably many other duties and needs that historically, on purpose or accident, governments as a whole provide, except when there is an evil ruler. The needs for the poor are a need of the people, and if no one else tends to it, it falls on the government's responsibility.

I know the question is meant for government with regards to laws and policies and those in high offices. As well as to fulfilling those laws and policies and people in charge in local offices. verses priests and officials of the church. But in my opinion the needs of the people are a shared responsibility by both government and church. It is both of their responsibility. But it is also the responsibility to anyone who has the oppurtunity to help. The law to love your neighbor, and the parable of the good smartian I think show this concept that it is the responsibility of everyone who is able and have an oppurtunity to help, to do so.

The question from there goes to what can be done and what works.

 

[smaller]

Also, because I have place this thread in the Bible Study forum, it was actually intended to be an actual study of the scripture. For the sake of this discussion, I would hope that we can leave our personal objections to the government and the perceptions of the evils perpetrated thereof to that other forum as well. The Lord laid out what would happen when his people sought a King to rule over them, and the evils that would befall them, but for the sake of this discussion I should hope that we can respect the notion that the State, or in other words the Government is and ordained institution from the Lord.

Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also:for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues:tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

So with that thought in mind, maybe we can get back to the intent of the OP.

You speak above, thinking that the powers in play are the powers of man that God ordained.

They are not. There are "higher powers" that God ordains, that are not of the friendly kind. And it is these powers that function over all flesh. And are exemplified in the leaders of the flesh people. And these same powers are laid upon our own flesh, wherein we are specifically advised to cast off, because we do have such powers of darkness to cast off in our own flesh. It is this we are to acknowledge. Not to blame it on all the other people or the governments.

What are those powers? Ephesians 6:11-12 nails these powers as to identity, and these are not powers of man, but powers of the unseen sorts.

And yes, we are to submit that THESE powers are ordained of God, that they are operational in all flesh, and made by God to be resisted.

Paul elaborates at great length on these subjects, even in Romans 13. And it speaks nothing to acknowledging the flesh of man or bowing/submitting to those powers.

Paul culminates this stretch of examples in Romans, here:

Romans 16:20
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

 

[GodsGrace]

EZ,

Do you think the civil and moral law of the OT, as written, is meant as a guide for all nations? I am not trying to suggest you think this, it's just it is an underlying premise of the discussion needing to be agreed upon. Otherwise, people writing of the OT law will be unknowingly writing from different premises and never know it; gets real confusing.

Hospes,
Your post reminded me of the different types of Law.
Feeding the poor was Moral Law.
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law - He meant the Moral Law.
In fact He said that we are to feed the hungry.
Mathew 25:35

W

 

[for_his_glory]

I agree with Taylor and Reba also. The pilgrims came to practice their religion freely, not to be bound by one - as in England. However, America was founded on Christian IDEALS and that should not be forgotten. (SHOULD).

Good thread EZ
Here's what came to mind while reading it:

Acts 6:1-3
The apostles were busy preaching and caring for the new church. Widows needed help because there was no work for women in those days.
So the church did feel it had to care for the widows.

Your Leviticus verse is perfect - I had thought of Ruth. Some wheat always had to be left on the threshing floor for the poor. Again the church caring for the poor.

Before Social Security (1930's?) people had to care for themselves and their families. The church was also stronger at that time and so families were stronger too.

Government slowly but surely started to take away the responsibility from the family and to itself.
I must say that although I'm conservative and for small government, I do believe that taking carer of the needy is a monumental task and could not be handled by the church. If I have my own family to care for, how can I also care for another family? It's nice to give clothing and food to a needy person. But people need to eat every day, not just once in a while - which would be the limitation on my help.

But, getting back to the O.P.

The priests, as the heads of the communities, were responsible for feeding the hungry - as is evident from Acts
and also from O.T. stories. It's apparent in Acts that the Jews of the time were accustomed to caring for the widows - and anyone else in need. I don't believe the Romans or the Babylonians or Assyrians were too concerned with the welfare of the Israelites and they, themselves, had only kings of which some were good to the nation, and some were not.

As far as to whom was it given to enforce the law to help the needy - I don't think a law was necesasry. It was ingrained into the teachings of the time - Rabbis taught that the helpless required care. It was built-in to Israelite tradition - going all the way back to the Hebrews. I mentioned Ruth.

So the responsibility was the churche's.
Today this would not work - so I could not agree that if the church were doing its job, there would be no need of welfare. The church IS doing its job and doing the best it can, but the govt is needed too.
The conversation would become to lengthy, but some governments actually hinder help to their population.
Ethiopia comes to mind.

Wondering

The sole responsibility should be the Church as being the body of Christ as we are to take care of those in need, Matthew 25:35-40, but I have seen so many Churches close their doors to those in need as they would never allow the destitute to walk through their doors as they feel they would be a bad influence, especially to their children. They need to read the rest of Matthew 25.

 

[for_his_glory]

It takes a village to raise a child..................just saying.........something to think about!!!

 

[GodsGrace]

It takes a village to raise a child..................just saying.........something to think about!!!

I hate that Hillary said it.
In a way it's right...

W

 

[Mike S]

I hate that Hillary said it.
In a way it's right...

W

I agree, the village where a family lives is important in helping to raise children. A nation of 320 million citizens, however, is not a village.

 

[for_his_glory]

I hate that Hillary said it.
In a way it's right...

W

That was quoted way before she said it. Makes one wonder who originally quoted certain phrases

 

[for_his_glory]

I agree, the village where a family lives is important in helping to raise children. A nation of 320 million citizens, however, is not a village.

A village does not make a world, but there are many villages in the world..................speaking in the manner of the true body of Christ in ref for the village. Now there's an analogy for ya..................Oh, No, my weirdness is showing again..............