CHURCH AND STATE-ACCORDING TO GOD

The Ecclesiastical Aspect of the Historical Kingdom

Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.     —Exod. 19:6

The constitution and laws of the Mediatorial kingdom provided a definite and large place for religion. I have in mind here religion in the objective sense, that is, "the sum of the outward actions in which it is expressed and made manifest." Although in no sense a hierarchy of priestly rulers, it would not be wrong to speak of Israel as in the highest degree a religious state. In fact, the tie between the civil and religious aspects of the government was so vital that neither could exist without the other. The religion thus established in the Jewish state was not something held vaguely as a mere ideal, but a very concrete thing to be embraced and practiced in the every­day life of the people. There was a selected priesthood, a ritual of worship prescribed in minute detail, a central place of assembly; all to be supported by the state and enforced by its authority.

The priests were originally appointed by Moses in his capacity of the Mediatorial head of the state, and therefore acting under explicit directions given by Jehovah Himself: "Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office" (Num. 3:10). Once appointed, however, they could not be sup­planted or interfered with in the discharge of their duties: "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." The "stranger" here is not someone from outside the nation, but anyone outside the priestly order. In this sense the priestly function was to be wholly free from interference on the part of the civil rulers, whoever they were. In the later history of the kingdom, one of the greatest and best of the kings of Judah was made to feel the inexorable judgment of God for his violation of this law. Uzziah "transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. . . . And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death" (2 Chron. 26:16-21). Thus the rights of religion, although established by and in union with the state, were protected from all destructive encroachments on the part of the state. On the other hand, the priests had no civil authority whatsoever. They could indeed be called upon to officiate in certain tests; for the determination of guilt in the case of a wife suspected of adultery (Num. 5:11-31); or for the detection of leprosy (Lev. 13 and 14); but the implementation of their verdicts rested in the hands of the civil authorities. The union of civil and priestly func­tions in one person, as in the case of Melchizedek, seems to have been unauthorized by the legal constitution of Israel. It evidently was regarded as a dangerous system as long as the rule of God is mediated through sinful men. (Which is what we have today in every country without a doubt) It will become the ideal system, however, in the future millennial reign of the sinless Son of God who is both God and Man.

The religion thus established in the historical kingdom received the support of the state. The priests and Levites were to own nothing. Whereas all the other tribes received a definite allotment of the land, those who exercised the religious offices in Israel got nothing in a material way: "Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them" (Num. 18:20). In this wise provision at the very beginning of the new kingdom, there was set up a safeguard against the development of a rich priestly caste entrenched in the ownership of lands and other property, such as existed in Egypt and more recently in some modern religious organizations. In Israel something better is given to the priests: "I am thy part and thine inheritance," Jehovah says, "among the children of Israel" (Num. 18:20). And since Jehovah is the owner of all, their material support would come from tithes and offerings which were made an obligation upon the tribes which had received inheritances in the land (Num. 18:21-32).

Under the theocratic government, of course, there could be no freedom of religion in the modern sense of that term. Since the state was sternly monotheistic, which meant not merely that Israel was committed to a general belief in the existence of one God but also that this one true God was Israel's King in a peculiar sense, the worship of any other god was forbidden under penalty of death (Deut. 13:1-18). Such a penalty may seem unduly harsh, but .the premises of the Mediatorial kingdom of Israel could lead to no other possible conclusion. For if there is but one true God, and if this God is Jehovah, and if the welfare of Israel and the world, both here and hereafter, depends on a proper acknowledgment of this one true God — then any religious deviation must be regarded as the highest kind of treason against the theocratic state. The only way to avoid this conclusion would be to deny its premises.

Furthermore, the Mosaic Law against false religion was tested over and over in the crucible of Israel's history. When neglected, the nation went down before its enemies (Judges 2:11-15). When strictly observed, the nation prospered and was secure (2 Kings 18:1-6).

Various astute rulers in the long history of human government, rightly estimating the tremendous power of religion over the minds of men, have been greatly intrigued with the idea of some kind of union between church and state, in which the government would establish and support some widely accepted religion and this religion in turn would lend its influence to the state. All such alliances thus humanly originated have been based on selfish mo­tives and opportunist policies on both sides, and hence must always break down in the end. Since each side pays a price for the unnat­ural union, and the price is ever increasing, the break becomes inevitable (cf. Rev. 17). A union between church and state is safe only when inaugurated and controlled by the one true God in a kingdom of His own (Zech. 14:9, 16-21).