Introduction
The ideas of different spheres of government and separation of powers are thoroughly Biblical ideas. Jesus affirmed this basic distinction when He answered the question about whose image was on the coin, and He gave the reply: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. This implies that not everything is Caesar’s. Sure, he can take our money, but people bear God’s image, and He claims them.
While secularists like to pretend that the First Amendment was some kind of secularist victory, it was actually deeply rooted in Biblical principles. Christians invented it, and we got it from the Bible. In an almost farcical inversion, the Handmaid’s Tale is actually what happens when a State deems itself the highest power on earth. It will demand that you wear special uniforms (like masks) to signal your compliant submission (while pot shops and abortion clinics remain open), and they will demand that you participate in mass clinical trials of experimental jabs.
Apart from God’s word establishing different jurisdictions, paganism always tends toward monolithic, centralized governments and powers, where family and church and all other ordinary human institutions are swallowed up by the state. Incidentally, when God’s word is ignored, sometimes one of the other governments (family or church) can also embrace similar megalomania, as happened in the High Middle Ages with the Roman Catholic Popes. The Tower of Babel “reaching up to heaven” remains a good symbol of the trajectory of humanistic, godless, pagan government. If there is no God above, then men shimmy up the greasy poles of power, angling for His job. It is the Bible that establishes different governments, different jurisdictions, and separation between various powers.
Old Testament Separation
While people sometimes dismiss Israel as an irrelevant “theocracy,” as though ceremonial and civil jurisdictions all blended together, it was actually the other way around. In a pagan world where the king was frequently considered a god, and where political power was often reinforced by the cult, God was actually teaching Israel to distinguish between spheres of authority. Beginning as early as Abraham, the great patriarch paid tithes to Melchizedek, Priest of Salem (Gen. 14). This was a rudimentary but foundational act of mutual submission between powers. Abraham didn’t tithe to himself.
When Israel was established after the covenant was renewed at Mt. Sinai, these lines began being drawn more clearly. While Moses still wore multiple hats, Aaron and his sons were ordained as priests, and the ceremonial laws were differentiated from civil laws. While the law codes themselves often listed various kinds of laws next to one another, you can begin to see differences emerging: ceremonial regulations included cleanliness laws, sacrifices, washings, with penalties of being put outside the camp (e.g. leprosy) or cut off from the people. Civil regulations were adjudicated by judges in the city gates and included penalties of restitution, stripes, exile, up to and including execution. But civil judges did not have admitting privileges to the tabernacle, and priests could not order the death penalty for a murderer.
This is the beginning of the separation of church and state. But notice what it is not: it is not the separation of God from the state or the separation of morality from state. Both spheres are still required to obey God, but they are required to obey God in the particular jurisdictions God has assigned to them.
This separation of church and state is illustrated starkly later during the time of the kings, when King Uzziah tried to offer incense in the Holy Place in the Temple, but the temple guard withstood him and God struck him with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16ff). And notice it was on the basis of God’s word that the priests restrained the king. The temple was the jurisdiction of the Levites, while the king had jurisdiction over matters of civil justice because both were under God.
Likewise, wound through the law was also the reinforcement of private property, inheritance, and the authority of parents. The government of the family was also being established alongside of the governments of church and state. For example, Ahab could not justly steal Naboth’s inheritance (1 Kgs. 21). And even though Jezebel tried to claim it was for the public good or public safety, it was still a wicked act murder and theft which God judged. Likewise, claims to eminent domain or public health or safety do not justify trespassing, intrusion of privacy, or theft of private property. Civil government may only do those things where God has granted explicit authority, and that means that there must be strong evidence for an actual crime being committed, and there must be penalties for civil magistrates who falsely accuse or harass law abiding citizens.
On the other hand, in many ways, the family (tribe/clan) held the place of preeminence in the ancient world, especially in nomadic cultures. So it was actually highly significant that parents with a rebellious son could not put him to death themselves but had to bring him to the judges of their city (Dt. 21:18ff). While moderns like to shriek about this law, providing for the possible execution of a juvenile delinquent, what many miss is the fact that it is actually a law of restraint on what many ancient cultures considered passé. If a father wanted a son in the ancient world, but a daughter was born, he might reject her and dispatch with her. In the ancient world, a man’s children were often considered his property to dispense with as he saw fit. This remarkable biblical law forbid a father from murdering his own children and from taking civil penalties into his own hands. In fact, the biblical law goes even further by requiring the common consent and testimony of both parents, the father and the mothers, making the bar even higher, and establishing the equal rights of a mother in terms of parenthood. But here the biblical law separates the spheres and jurisdictions of family and state. The family has certain unalienable rights, but it does not have the power of the sword. It does not have the authority to execute violent penalties for violent crimes. Only the state has that authority.
Biblical law established the equal ultimacy of family, church, and state, with different responsibilities and jurisdictions. We call this idea “sphere sovereignty.”
Prophets, Priests, and Kings
Not only does the Old Testament contain the roots of sphere sovereignty, it also contains the rudiments of separation of powers within governments. In the law, Moses anticipated that Israel would one day have a king – an executive (Dt. 17:14). God gave regulations for the conduct of kings, including that they must make a copy of the book of the Law and read it all the days of his life and keep all the words of that law (Dt. 17:19). This is what we might call the very beginning or foundation of the great political doctrine of “Lex Rex” — the law is king and therefore, the king is under the law.
While the distinctions were certainly not always clean or clear, the different roles of prophets, priests, and kings functioned throughout Israelite history as something like separation of powers. Priests and Levites were entrusted with teaching the entire law to the people (moral, ceremonial, and civil) and leading worship, the kings were entrusted with executing civil justice (punishing crimes), and the prophets functioned as a sort of check, particularly on kings straying from the law. So there was a growing tradition in Israel of what would become known as checks and balances. And all of these functions reflected God’s own character: “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us” (Is. 33:22). The fact that God played those roles (judge, lawgiver, and king) inspired His people to begin thinking of those roles as the basic components of government, and our founding fathers looked to those roles (in part) for a blueprint for executive, legislative, and judicial branches of civil government.
The Sanhedrin
By the time we get to the New Testament, Israel is no longer an independent nation but is occupied by Roman rule. Most cities were judged by assemblies called the Sanhedrin usually consisting of 23 elders, with one Great Sanhedrin consisting of 71 elders. While there is some dispute, it is generally thought that those elders were composed of priests, Levites, and ordinary Jews, among whom were lawyers and scribes, students of the law and other prominent members of the community (cf. Mt. 26:59). Among all of these were Sadducees and Pharisees, sort of like modern Republicans and Democrats. This basically functioned as a rudimentary mini-republic: different representatives of the people and various spheres, under the law.
While these Jewish judges were allowed some freedom in ruling their people according to their laws and customs, at least extreme penalties required Roman approval (Jn. 18:31). While Roman occupation may have muddied the jurisdictional waters a bit in Israel, the basic outlines were still there.
Conclusion: Whose Image?
Perhaps the most famous passage in the gospels regarding different jurisdictions is Jesus’ reply to the Herodians seeking to trap Him with a question about paying Roman taxes (Mt. 22:15ff). Jesus’ reply is, “Whose is this image and superscription… Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mt. 22:20-21). This answer affirms that there are different jurisdictions, but it doesn’t answer exactly where the lines are. Clearly Jesus does not intend to say that Caesar is not under God’s rule. Later, Jesus tells Pilate that he had his authority from God (Jn. 19:11). Likewise, Paul says in Romans 13 that all power is from God (Rom. 13:1). In the same place, Paul says that the civil magistrate has been given the sword as a “minister of God” for vengeance on evil doers (Rom. 13:4).
All of these New Testament affirmations assume different jurisdictions which may be found in their basic forms in the Old Testament. But the fundamental claim of Scripture is the since people are made in the image of God, God is the Lord of all people. All authority is derived from Him, and therefore it is limited by Him. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. But if we have no Creator, then we have not unalienable rights. But unalienable rights implies certain lines that may not ever be crossed. Unalienable rights insists on different jurisdictions, different spheres, separation of various powers.
The basic shape of governments that emerges in the Bible is that of three basic governments in human society (built on the most basic government: self-government). Those three are family, church, and state. The family is entrusted with the ministry of health, welfare, and education (Eph. 5, 1 Tim. 5). The church is entrusted with the ministry of word and sacrament (Mt. 16, 18, 28). The state is entrusted with the ministry of justice (punishing evildoers) (Rom. 13:4).
There is also a common sense and more general principle wound through these different spheres we now call “separation of powers.” This is a manifestation of the general principle of biblical wisdom: in a multitude of counsellors there is safety (Prov. 11:14, 15:22, 24:6). This is why America was established with three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive, in addition to the checks and balances between cities, counties, states, and federal government. God also established this “multitude of counsellors” with fathers and mothers in the home, a plurality of elders to rule in each church (Tit. 1:5, Acts 20:17), and multiple judges in the state (Ex. 18).