The Order Shall Persist, Regardless Of Opinion: Part One

Looking past this world's power lines at what has already been established in the heavens.

Consider the term theocracy.

a) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. 

b) the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King.

The first definition seems to explain how a government expresses morals and ethics through a religious identity.

The second definition seems to explain how a particular government expressed morals and ethics through a particular religious identity.

The authority in both definitions of government does not originate in humans, but the fact (or according to some, the concept) of God.

At least that is the premise and understanding; the claim being 'this is God's (or the gods') law, not man's law'.

A possible atheistic perspective is that man had imagined (and made up) the idea of 'a god' in order to rule others.

This may be the case for some peoples and places and times, but is it the case universally?

Did all people on earth really carry with them this particular 'superstition' even when moving away from tyrannical rulers who may have ruled by such superstitions?

Or did the superstitions arise from evidence of fact?

However the case is argued, world history shows that mankind's belief in the supernatural, the divine, or 'gods', may not have been born out of superstitions themselves, but rather from people having inexplicable experiences.

I don't mean, for example, an ancient man's testimony saying that a spear thrown by his enemy missed his head by mere inches, and thus 'the gods' must have intervened, but something much more unexplainable and metaphysical.

'Leaders' or 'rulers' were not the only people (positions) who have claimed to have had experienced the supernatural or seen evidence of the metaphysical.

This is where we get the second definition to the term 'theocracy', and the further account of what came about from the subject of that definition; namely Israel and the very high promises and high claims found in their record.

Let us look firstly at a different (slightly different, perhaps) order developed from another part of that ancient world.

The Hammurabi code is one of the ancient codices where a king claimed authority on behalf of God (or a god) in establishing order, lawful governance and prescriptions for lawlessness.

This is one example, that had both preceded and followed many other examples throughout history, of a king claiming authority by God's (or a god's) right granted him and the priesthood being subject to the king.

The model - God/gods: law giver; king: law follower and upholder; people: law followers - is not unique.

This represents a theme throughout the ages and times...and the present is no different.

This is not to say that ancient kings had no economic interests, on the contrary, their role included, by default, protection of their personal interests...which by extension includes their subjects.

The kings were the wealthiest of all peoples in their realm.

Thus, to uphold the law was to secure the king's position and ensure that position into posterity and the people's livelihood and position among other peoples and nations.

Kings have exchanged the highest human position with priests (or a priesthood of sorts)...and this exchanged has swayed back and forth (at least it may seem that way).

Other forms of this 'power' and 'influence' exchange has, in the current era, come to a 'priesthood' concerned with economic interests firstly, secondly about moral and ethical interests.

Yet the economic factor remains a material 'sign' or 'example' of authority, regardless of directly effected by a sole king, several kings, or a priesthood governing such a mechanism.

Ancient Rome is such an example where the senate, although influenced by religious ideas, looked firstly at economic issues while not always ignoring ethical issues.

Ancient Rome's various priesthoods represented a pantheon of religious ideas, as have many places on earth throughout time and still several places today.

By the time of Rome, there was a class of 'kings' that jostled for position and power in their government...usually according to the laws that everyone heeded for fear of divine retribution...or the fact that others would follow the law and excise justice over them for trespassing the law.

Let us now consider the term caesaropapism.

Political sociology defines caesaropapism as “the complete subordination of priests to secular power”.

This definition is from a more recent understanding historically, but we'll see that there is in fact a pattern with power (and the perception of who holds temporal power) shifting back and forth.

Notice how this word's definition partially mirrors theocracy's second definition.

Theocracy's second definition speaks to the perception that the era of Moses (the model / theme I mentioned), and the priestly order established through Moses, came to an end and was replaced for a king.

It is defined as having 'ended' according to the manner the power dynamic seems to have changed, but did it actually end when looking closer?

Israel as a people desired a physical king to rule over them, desiring to reflect the surrounding nations and peoples.

Having no physical king may have been an issue of insecurity for the people.

Ancient kings would lead their peoples into battle, or be the voice to respond to the threats of another king.

The priesthood 'ruled' by the law of Moses, not reflecting the manner other nations have developed their systems of manners (Hammurabi and his code, for example).

Although wealthy people in Israel had their secular (business) pursuits, the wealthy were not above the priesthood in terms of respect or leverage or authority.

Also, the wealthy were not restricted from their pursuits other than certain religious days being restricted from work activity.

The priesthood dealt with situations where moral integrity was at stake in all aspects of life.

Moral integrity that would affect, and infect, the community.

Lack of integrity in following the law would jeopardize the entire community, not only the individuals involved.

Issues were dealt with at their root...this was the prescription of the law.

Like a dear grandfather everyone respects and heeds warnings from, although that grandfather is not 'powerful' in economic terms, but in influence, so was this priesthood very influential and respected.

The fear of God and the evidence of instant justice from Above were other realities that beckoned respect, acknowledgement and obedience to the law.

Although one can argue that a distinctive 'change' occurred with the introduction of a royal house, that change was more in terms of interpretation than actuality, I think.

God still ruled, His law was still present and adhered to by the priests, and the people were still expected to follow the law and acknowledge God.

What did happen was the manifestation of an army, tribute demanded by the king, and more societal rules.

To be continued in Part Two.