Separation of Church and State: Part 1 - The Old Testament

The way many people bang on about it nowadays you might suppose that the notion of Separation of Church and State was a new idea, and it is certainly one particularly claimed as the preserve of the Left-leaning and non-believing community. But they are wrong. From the very beginning their clarion cry was God’s idea, and one not only clearly delineated in the Bible but rigorously enforced in those ancient societies of faith, Ancient Israel and the early Church. There we discover that what has become something of a secularists mantra in recent years is a much more central pillar of the Judaeo-Christian faith than their ignorant imaginations seem to have grasped. Supposedly enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, it has come to be generally interpreted as license to limit the involvement of the Church and especially any expression of Christianity in the public arena. Was this what America’s Founding Fathers imagined when they wrote the Constitution? It may come as a surprise to many that no such expression actually occurs in that august document. But there is something like that bears no resemblance to the interpretation being promulgated today. That being so, is the idea really constitutional and, if it is, where did it come from in the first place and what does it mean?

In this article we shall look at the general principle of Separation of Church and State, examining where it came from, what it means and how it has been applied and misapplied over many centuries. In order to do so, we shall divide our journey into a number of segments because this principle is one that has evolved in discreet stages and it is important to examine and be clear about the differences as much as the similarities. And, as ever, the best place to start any journey is at the Beginning.

From the outset, God gave man guidelines for living and the latitude to implement them. Many people, for instance, are surprised that God did not execute Cain when he murdered his brother Abel, but to have done so would have been unjust because as Paul later tells us in Romans 5:12 -

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Murder is wrong and has always been wrong, but God is also just and did not impute to Cain the full extent of his sin in a world where murder had not yet been specified as a capital offence. However, that was a situation that God was to change, as we can read in Genesis 9:3-6.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Here, essentially, is the genesis of civil government; the point at which God devolves to human government the authority to execute judgement for the transgression of homicide. But it would be many centuries before God would give man a fully codified system of law based on his divine principles, through the prophet Moses.

Moses was a Levite, descended from Levi who was a son of Israel and great grandson of the Patriarch Abraham. As a prophet, Moses was God’s representative to the people and spoke to Israel on God’s behalf. Meanwhile, Moses’ elder brother Aaron was appointed as High Priest, making him the people’s representative to God.

Together both men were used by God to lead his people out of captivity in Egypt on their way to the Promised Land, because although God had offered all the people the opportunity to be led and guided by him personally, they opted instead to be represented by the two Levite brothers.

To do that God also offered the people the Law which they agreed to obey, not once but on three separate occasions, whereupon it was ratified with blood sacrifices which established it as what we now call the Old Covenant. Henceforth, the people were governed in the way that they had chosen, as a Theocracy which may be simplistically summarised thus: God made the laws, Moses judged the people in accordance with those laws and punished any who broke them.

It is said,

‘The law condemns the best of us but grace saves the worst of us’.

But while the law pertained, and tragically even Moses fell foul of the Law’s rigidity when he struck the rock in Meribah, in Numbers 20:11. Nor was this the first such occasion, and like the first time water poured forth. The first time Moses struck a rock to produce water was at Mount Horeb, in Exodus 17:6. On both occasions God miraculously supplied the people’s need for water, but there was one important difference. At Horeb, God had commanded Moses to strike the rock, but at Meribah he had commanded Moses to speak to it.

That meant that striking the rock the first time was an act of obedience on Moses‘ part, whereas striking the rock at Meribah was an act of rebellion. The reason for the difference is imbedded in the two different words of Hebrew translated ’rock’ in English: In Exodus 17, rock is tsur, whereas in Numbers 20 it is sela. And while tsur is a large boulder, sela refers to a lofty crag, which in Judaeo-Christian typology paint two entirely different pictures. The large boulder represents the Lord Jesus in his earthly form, who came to suffer for his people and atone for our sins, which is why Moses was instructed to strike the rock. The lofty crag represents our Lord in his glorified, resurrected form; to strike whom now is blasphemy. Jesus’ days of being struck are long since over. Now seated at the right hand of the Father, we simply speak to obtain God’s favour.

It may seem a bit of a theological nicety except that God did not regard it as a small matter and punished Moses with exile, by withholding from the fulfilment of his journey, denying him entry into the Promised Land. Instead, that honour went to Moses’ young lieutenant, Joshua.

Joshua led a new generation into Canaan, but even so, some things didn’t change that much and the nation remained as much a theocracy as it had been during her wandering in the Wilderness. God’s law was rigorously enforced as Israel gradually occupied the territory. City after city, kingdom after kingdom, fell to the power of God and Joshua’s sword. And while Joshua lived, his charismatic leadership sustained the nation’s unity and ensured its victory against the godless Gentiles all around. However, even Joshua could not live for ever and when he died Israel’s last link was broken and their tribal cohesion began to dwindle, to which God responded by raising up leaders cast from a new mould, the Shaphatim or Judges.

The Biblical era known as the days of the Judges is an age commemorated in the book of that name, situated in the Christian Bible between the books of Joshua and Ruth, and covers the chaotic period between about 1380 and 1050 when, as the writer tells us:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6)

It’s Hebrew name Shaphatim can also mean Magistrates, and the whole book us one of the most graphically tragic accounts of the Israel’s history, marked by repeated national apostasy, depravity and war, not only with the surrounding nations but among the tribes of Israel themselves. What is sometimes missed is that the administrations of individual judges sometimes overlapped because they did not always minister to the whole nation but might only be sent to individual tribes.

A Judge was not merely a judicial adjudicator on points of law but also a military leader sent by God to deliver his people when they fell captive to some enemy and cried out for deliverance, as evidenced by such heroes as Samson, Gideon and Deborah. Their tenure began after the death of Joshua and the first Judge mentioned was a man called Othniel, while the last of the Judges was the prophet Samuel, who is though to have written the book.

Judges came and went like all men, because their office was ordained by God and not hereditary. When they died the nation, or particular tribe which they had served, would slide back into their apostate ways and the whole unhappy cycle would begin again. They were not kings, because Israel already had a King whose name was Yahweh their God, whose Judges were men and women sensitive to the leading of his Holy Spirit, and under whose hand Israel remained, albeit imperfectly, a theocracy.

In the days of Samuel however, all that changed. By then a clamour had arisen among the people who desired that their nation Israel should have a human king, just like the other nations. Samuel was deeply unhappy about this desire but enquired of God who warned of the consequences that would follow the establishment of a human monarchy, namely that a king would tax them dry and bleed their conscripts. Nevertheless, God acceded to their request and told Samuel to anoint an outstanding young man of the Tribe of Benjamin. Thus it was that Israel’s very first human dynasty was the House of the tall, handsome and charismatic King Saul.

Saul’s reign began well but as Lord Acton famously observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and while Saul began his reign humbly, he gradually evolved into a tyrannical egotist.

Almost from the outset there was tension between Israel’s King and God’s Judge; between Saul and Samuel. Saul was a king who sought to ingratiate himself with his people and in particular with his military, while the prophet Samuel remained the nation’s ear and God’s mouthpiece. As such, Saul regarded Samuel with great respect, which was understandable inasmuch as Samuel was quite literally Yahweh’s kingmaker, to whom Saul owed the legitimacy of his own reign by virtue of his having been anointed by the prophet. But what began as awe eventually slid into fear as Samuel re-emphasised a principle that God had already made very, very clear, long, long ago; namely, that the role of the prophet and the priest were set apart from all others, and that included Saul. In other words, God drew a clear demarcation between the responsibilities of the civil power and the religious authorities. What we would recognise as the principle of Separation of Church and State, might at this time be more accurately described as the Separation of Sacred and Secular, and it was God’s idea. Not only that, but it was Saul’s failure to observe this crucial distinction that ultimately led to his downfall.

On three occasions Saul clashed with Samuel when he overstepped his secular authority and tried to impinge on the sacred with disastrous consequences. In 1 Samuel chapter 15, Saul was commanded by God to defeat and utterly destroy the Amalekites. Instead he chose to spare the Amalekite, King Agag, compelling Samuel to personally hack the unhappy monarch to pieces with the sword. Then, in 1 Samuel chapter 28, Saul was apprehensive before a battle with the Philistines and sought counsel from Samuel. Unfortunately, this consultation occurred years after Samuel had died, so Saul actually contracted the services of the Witch of Endor to conduct a séance, whereupon Samuel’s ghost duly obliged by prophesying Saul’s death. But it was what occurred in 1 Samuel chapter 13 that most clearly demonstrates God’s insistence on the Separation of Sacred and Secular. On this occasion Saul had again assembled his army at Gilgal to fight the Philistines, where we cut into the story in verses 8-13.

He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. So Saul said, "Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings."

 

And he offered the burnt offering. As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. Samuel said, "What have you done?"

 

And Saul said, "When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, I said, 'Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favour of Yahweh.' So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering."

 

And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of Yahweh your God, with which he commanded you. For then Yahweh would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.”

What had Saul done that was so awful? - He had usurped Samuel’s rô le by sacrificing a burnt offering to God, which even as king he was not permitted to do. It was one thing for the king - or anyone else for that matter - to bring an offering to the priest to be sacrificed, but it was quite another thing for anyone but a priest to actually prepare and sacrifice it on the altar.

Samuel was not only a prophet but had ministered to Yahweh at Shiloh since childhood. This was unusual inasmuch as Samuel was an Ephraimite on his father’s side, whereas priests normally had to be descended from Levi. Perhaps his mother had Levite lineage, although that would not normally have qualified him serve in the priesthood but what is certain is that he was dedicated to Yahweh before he was even conceived and was universally recognised as a prophet and a judge upon whom God’s hand was so manifestly present that I doubt if anyone quibbled.

I don’t know why Samuel was late, perhaps it was test. If so, it was one that Saul failed.

Nor was Saul’s mistake over the sacrifice the only such instance in the Bible as we discover in an almost parallel account involving Judah’s King Uzziah, in 2 Chronicles 26:14-21.

And Uzziah prepared for all the army shields, spears, helmets, coats of mail, bows, and stones for slinging. In Jerusalem he made engines, invented by skilful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and great stones. And his fame spread far, for he was marvellously helped, till he was strong.

But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to Yahweh his God and entered the temple of Yahweh to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of Yahweh who were men of valour, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, "It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to Yahweh, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honour from Yahweh God."

Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of Yahweh, by the altar of incense.

And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because Yahweh had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of Yahweh. And Jotham his son was over the king's household, governing the people of the land.

Bad enough that Saul had burnt an offering on the altar, but by Uzziah’s day the Temple had been built and the altar of incense was located in its inner sanctum known as the Holy Place: strictly a no-go area for all but priests to enter. Yet in his arrogance Uzziah pulled one of the oldest ploys in the egotist’s handbook: the old ‘Do you know who I am?’ routine.

Unfortunately for him, the priests knew exactly who he was, or more precisely who he wasn’t - namely, a priest. Like Saul before him, Uzziah defied God’s Separation of Sacred and Secular and paid the price accordingly.

That then, is the end of our short trip through the Old Testament which, although very far from exhaustive, should have illustrated the foundations that God laid, upon which society has since built the principle that we now term as the Separation of Church and State.

Israel’s monarchy continued for several centuries with its highs and lows, but we’re not really here to discuss the finer points of Israelite history, only the general principle of the separation of the sacred and secular powers which, of course, didn’t stop there but evolved and adapted to meet changing times, most notably for the purposes of our essay, the establishment of the Christian Church, which we shall examine further in Part 2, dealing with the New Testament.