How does Acts 18:15 challenge the separation of church and state? Text Of Acts 18:15 “But since it is a dispute about words and names and your own law, settle it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of such matters.” Immediate Context: Gallio’S Bench And Paul’S Accusers The Jewish leaders of Corinth hauled Paul before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, charging him with persuading people “to worship God in ways contrary to the law” (v. 13). Gallio dismissed the complaint, driving them from the bēma (v. 16). Luke’s record is corroborated by the “Gallio Inscription” discovered at Delphi—a letter from Emperor Claudius dated A.D. 52, fixing the chronology of Acts and underscoring its historical precision. Exegetical Observations 1. “Dispute” (zētēma) denotes a legal controversy. 2. “Words and names” (logōn kai onomatōn) is Gallio’s reduction of theology to semantics, revealing a pagan governor’s inability—or refusal—to engage God’s revelation. 3. “Your own law” (tou kath’ hymas nomou) admits the existence of a transcendent norm yet relegates it to a private sphere. Gallio recognizes a law above Rome but declines to acknowledge its civil relevance. How The Passage Challenges A Modern ‘Wall Of Separation’ 1. Scripture Portrays the Magistrate as God’s Servant, Not a Neutral Referee Romans 13:4 calls civil authority “God’s servant for your good.” First-century believers expected rulers to uphold, not evade, moral truth (cf. Acts 25:11). Gallio’s abdication contrasts with the divinely assigned role of government to “punish evildoers and praise those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). 2. Gallio’s Refusal Is Descriptive, Not Prescriptive Luke records what happened; he nowhere commends Gallio’s posture as ideal. The narrative exposes the inadequacy of a state that severs justice from revelation. Such detachment later facilitated Sosthenes’ beating (v. 17) while the magistrate “showed no concern whatever,” illustrating civic chaos when moral judgments are dodged. 3. Legal Recognition of ‘Religio Licita’ Undermines Strict Separation Rome freely granted or revoked legal status to religions (e.g., Judaism tolerated, Druidism banned). Gallio’s courtroom makes theological classification a civil concern by necessity. The state could not remain indifferent; it either permitted or punished. Thus Acts 18 documents unavoidable entanglement. 4. Historical Ripple Effects a. Constantine’s Edict of Milan (A.D. 313) showed later emperors doing what Gallio would not—pronouncing on religious liberty. b. Magna Carta (1215) grounded civil rights in “the English Church shall be free,” blending ecclesial and civic spheres. c. The American founding drew upon Blackstone’s Commentaries, which defined law as rooted in “the law of nature and of Nature’s God.” Gallio’s error warns that when civil courts dismiss divine standards, injustice follows. Biblical Precedent For Government Accountable To God • Deuteronomy 17:18-20 obligates Israel’s king to copy and obey Torah. • 2 Chronicles 19:6-7—Jehoshaphat charges judges to rule “in the fear of the LORD.” • Psalm 2 commands kings to “serve the LORD with fear.” Scripture never envisions a morally autonomous state. Archaeological And Manuscript Evidence Supporting The Account • Gallio Inscription (Delphi) anchors Acts precisely in Claudius’ 26th acclamation as Imperator (52 A.D.). • Acts is attested in P 45 (c. A.D. 200) and Codex Vaticanus (4th cent.), demonstrating textual stability. • The Roman bēma in Corinth is still visible; excavations confirm Luke’s topographical accuracy. Philosophical And Behavioral Considerations Civil neutrality toward ultimate questions is impossible; every law reflects an ethic. Studies in moral psychology show law’s didactic power—what a state permits, citizens soon approve. Gallio’s shrug therefore instructs: renouncing moral adjudication does not create neutrality; it installs secularism as the de facto religion. Implications For Christian Engagement Today 1. Christians may appeal to lawful authority, as Paul did (Acts 25:11), expecting magistrates to weigh moral truth. 2. Believers must articulate that rights derive from the Creator (Genesis 1:27), not governmental fiat, or they erode. 3. Advocacy for religious freedom should not cede the public square but call rulers to their biblical vocation. Conclusion Acts 18:15, far from endorsing an impenetrable barrier between church and state, exposes the frailty of a government that distances itself from divine revelation. The passage challenges modern secularism by reminding rulers—and citizens—that civil justice and God’s law cannot be partitioned without sowing violence and injustice. Gallio’s bench warns; Scripture commands: governments are accountable to Yahweh, and Christ, risen and reigning (Acts 17:31), will judge every throne by His unchanging word. |
    |