Brief
consideration must now be given here to the relation of church and state as it
bears upon the question of the magistrate’s responsibility in the current age
to obey and enforce the law of God. This matter comes up in conjunction with
two ways in which the magistrate’s moral obligation to God’s law is either
questioned or denied. On the one hand, some will hold that the magistrate
cannot be ethically bound to God’s law because that would break down the
standing distinction between church and state; on the other hand, appeal to the
alleged union of church and state in the Older Testament is often thought
to be a factor sufficient to deny the magistrate’s current obligation to God’s
law.
However,
the Older Testament indicates a standing separation of church and state, and
this fact should be recognized. There was a distinction between the work of
Moses and that of Aaron (cf. Ex. 16:33-34; 29:1 ff.), for Aaron represented the
people in distinctly cultic matters while Moses rendered general, civil
leadership for them (functioning a king over the gathered heads of the tribes,
Deut. 33:5). So also in restored Jerusalem there was clearly a distinction
between Nehemiah the “governor” and Ezra the “scribe”; it is specifically
because the civil governor could not regulate the religious life of the people that
Nehemiah called for Ezra to return to Jerusalem.1 At the time of the Exodus the people were divided into tribes having one prince each and
heads over the families (cf. Deut. 29:10);2 the
princes were civil governors and military leaders (cf. Num. 1:1-16; 2:3-29;
7:2; 10:14-27; 13:3; 17:6; Josh. 9:15; 22:14; 23:2; 24:1), and the heads of the
families under them were captains and then judges or officers (Num. 1).3 During the time of the
Judges executive and judicial power stayed in the hands of the family and
tribal heads (e.g., Judges 11:6 ff.; the elders’ transactions with Samuel);4 each city had a council of
elders (Deut. 21:6; 25:8; Judges 8:6, 8, 14; Ezra 10:4) who worked separately
but sometimes joined efforts (Judg. 1; 4:10; 6:35; 11).5 They were thus governed by
the judges (1 Chron. 17:10; e.g., 1 Sam. 8:1) for 450 years until the last
judge, Samuel (cf. Acts 13:20). Local affairs were in the hands of the elders
who settled town disputes.6 With the institution of kingship the kings served as judges (1
Sam. 8:5; 1 Kings 3:16-28;
1 Chron. 18:14; cf. 2 Sam. 15:1-6) in addition to the other judges (Ex.
18:14-26; 2 Chron. 19:5, 8; Ezra 7:25). In fact, the kings do not seem to have
had legislative power,7 but
they were essentially judges or governors (the two being virtually synonymous:
2 Kings 15:15; 2 Sam. 15:41; 1 Kings 7:7; e.g., 2 Sam. 12:6; 14:4-11; 1 Kings
3:16-28; 2 Kings 8:3). Under Saul there was “no central government and the
tribes, or rather
the clans, retained their administrative autonomy.”8 Thus while cultic duties
were assigned to the priests (Ex. 28-29), judicial-executive power resided in
tribal heads (cf. 1 Sam. 8:4 ff.; 10:20 ff.; 2 Sam. 3:17 ff.; 5:1 ff.) who were
later seriously consulted by kings (e.g., 1 Kings 8:1; 20:7; 2 Kings 23:1) and
exercised influence over them (e.g., 1 Kings 12). Internal administration and
guidance of the cities or tribes remained vested in the hands of the elders
even after the exile (Jer. 20:1; Ezek. 14:1-5; 20:1). Now in these matters
(i.e., pervasively the function of civil judgment) legislation originally came
from Moses and not through priests; when it was adjudicated, the elders and
judges are prominent. Therefore, the priests seem to be completely taken up with
religious service and not leaders in the political order.
All
footnotes to Greg Bahnsen’s work cited above are found on pp. 389-391 of
Theonomy in Christian Ethics [Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002; first edition 1977]. The footnotes are cited below as found in his
book.
1. F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations: From the Exodus to the Fall
of the Second Temple (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963),
p. 107.
2. E. W. Hengstenberg, History of the Kingdom of God Under the Old
Testament, Vol. I (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Co., 1871 [reprinted
1972]), p. 235.
3. J. B. Shearer, Hebrew Institutions, Social and Civil (Richmond:
Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1910), p. 81.
4. Hengstenberg, Vol. II, op. cit., p. 67.
5. Shearer, loc. cit.
6. Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol. I (Social Institutions),
tran. Darton, Longman, and Todd, Ltd. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965),
pp. 93, 138, 152-153.
7. Ibid., pp. 150-151.
8. Ibid., p. 95.
